Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)

[Lizzy60]

[Mark]

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.

I agree with your first sentence here sister. I read an article about the gay pride parade in San Fran and frankly you might as well go to a porno peep show because its all basically the same thing. Absolutely abhorent and disgusting. I often wonder how long it will be until the earth just opens up along the street and swallows all the marchers in that parade.

As for your second sentence I would be interested in seeing evidence of this. Particularly in LDS settings. I am very skeptical that any LDS leader would go along with your assumption here. This applies to both homosexual relations as well as heterosexual relations outside the bonds of marriage. Can you point to examples of this where leaders of these support groups are saying this on a wide scale basis? (other than this Bishops wife whatever she is up to)

[captainfearnot]

A note to those of you who have compared the Augensteins personal revelation that they should promote LDS-gay-marriage, with my revelation on how I should pay my tithes and offerings ----- I have never tried to tell my children, my siblings, my friends, or anyone online or in real life, that they should do what I am doing. I have not based a Facebook page on my experience, and I have not organized concerts, parades, cruises, etc, to promote my belief, nor have I tried to change church policy.

Great, but how is that relevant? Are you suggesting that the lengths to which someone goes to publicize and promote their personal revelation has some bearing on whether that revelation is genuine? What is the basis for that, other than your implication that the lines be drawn in such a way that your claims make the cut while the Augensteins' do not?

Assuming for the sake of argument that God did tell you not to tithe to his church in the traditional and oft-commanded manner, did he also instruct you to flaunt your special dispensation on internet message boards? Or is that something you took it upon yourself to do? Furthermore, is it not within God's purview to instruct you to encourage your friends and family to follow your example if he chooses?

I have no idea if God is talking to you or the Augensteins. Honestly, I am skeptical of both claims. All I am saying is that I believe they are as sincere in their belief that God is talking to them as you are in yours. And more importantly, their claim to divine revelation is just as valid as yours.

Your claim that God is telling you things that make other faithful members of the church uncomfortable would carry more weight if you also allowed for the possibility that God could be telling other people things that make you uncomfortable. That you are so dismissive of such a thing makes your own claim less credible.

[LukeAir2008]

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

Polygamists! Oh my goodness! Yeh, better stay away from General Conference.

Presidents Russell M Nelson and Dallin H Oaks are both sealed to two women!

They’re both going to have at least two wives if they get admitted to the Celestial Kingdom.

Run! Run!

[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

Polygamists! Oh my goodness! Yeh, better stay away from General Conference.

Presidents Russell M Nelson and Dallin H Oaks are both sealed to two women!

They’re both going to have at least two wives if they get admitted to the Celestial Kingdom.

Run! Run!

As happens far too often online, you missed the point entirely.

[captainfearnot]

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

I served in a mission with a sizable contingent of fundamentalist Mormon polygamists, and they were strictly off limits to us. We were not allowed to talk to them or go near them if we could help it, and a picture like this would certainly have been grounds for some kind of discipline.

I don't remember any rules against gay pride parades but I don't think that ever came up. I think it would have been a no-brainer in that time and place that such things were forbidden, though.

Our baptismal interviews always concluded with the "Big 4" questions: Murder, Abortion, Homosexuality, and Polygamy. If the investigator had any of that in their past, they could not be baptized until they had been interviewed by the mission president. I mention this only as evidence that in that time and place homosexuality was considered serious business.

So yes, if missionaries are now encouraged to support the gay pride parade I would say that is quite a departure from the way things were when I was a missionary.

[EmmaLee]

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

I served in a mission with a sizable contingent of fundamentalist Mormon polygamists, and they were strictly off limits to us. We were not allowed to talk to them or go near them if we could help it, and a picture like this would certainly have been grounds for some kind of discipline.

I don't remember any rules against gay pride parades but I don't think that ever came up. I think it would have been a no-brainer in that time and place that such things were forbidden, though.

Our baptismal interviews always concluded with the "Big 4" questions: Murder, Abortion, Homosexuality, and Polygamy. If the investigator had any of that in their past, they could not be baptized until they had been interviewed by the mission president. I mention this only as evidence that in that time and place homosexuality was considered serious business.

So yes, if missionaries are now encouraged to support the gay pride parade I would say that is quite a departure from the way things were when I was a missionary.

Thank you! Not only for sharing your experience, but for getting the point I was trying to make.

[illyume]

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

I served in a mission with a sizable contingent of fundamentalist Mormon polygamists, and they were strictly off limits to us. We were not allowed to talk to them or go near them if we could help it, and a picture like this would certainly have been grounds for some kind of discipline.

I don't remember any rules against gay pride parades but I don't think that ever came up. I think it would have been a no-brainer in that time and place that such things were forbidden, though.

Our baptismal interviews always concluded with the "Big 4" questions: Murder, Abortion, Homosexuality, and Polygamy. If the investigator had any of that in their past, they could not be baptized until they had been interviewed by the mission president. I mention this only as evidence that in that time and place homosexuality was considered serious business.

So yes, if missionaries are now encouraged to support the gay pride parade I would say that is quite a departure from the way things were when I was a missionary.

Similar experience for my mission (2007-2009, stateside).

I didn't have any fundamentalist Mormon polygamist groups in my mission's areas, but we were pretty strictly told to avoid going near any sorts of political demonstrations, including Pride parades and the like.

We also had the same big-4 questions for our baptismal interviews. So, yeah, that seems to me to be a pretty clear indicator of where homosexuality is (or was) considered as far as seriousness of sin.

[ElizaRSkousen]

Hi, Ive been a long time lurker. I wanted to post this link that I thought some of you might appreciate. (Aiming this at Emmalee, Thinker, yjacket, lizzy60, mgridle1, etc). What do you think?

(sorry to hijack a thread, but while reading through it, it reminded me of this article)

http://curtporritt.com/wp-content/uploa ... OSTASY.pdf

[Arenera]

Hi, Ive been a long time lurker. I wanted to post this link that I thought some of you might appreciate. (Aiming this at Emmalee, Thinker, yjacket, lizzy60, mgridle1, etc). What do you think?

(sorry to hijack a thread, but while reading through it, it reminded me of this article)

http://curtporritt.com/wp-content/uploa ... OSTASY.pdf

For you: Revelation for the Church - Revelation for Our Lives

In coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost.

[mmm..cheese]

I would speak with the Stake President about what is happening there and at least get a statement from him (see if he is supporting gay marriage in the Church, or not). Maybe they are working on the situation?
Somebody needs to let a higher PH leader know if there is something anti-church happening. I am not there so I have no idea what is really going on.

[EmmaLee]

Hi, Ive been a long time lurker. I wanted to post this link that I thought some of you might appreciate. (Aiming this at Emmalee, Thinker, yjacket, lizzy60, mgridle1, etc). What do you think?

(sorry to hijack a thread, but while reading through it, it reminded me of this article)

http://curtporritt.com/wp-content/uploa ... OSTASY.pdf

Meh, not much. Many active members of the Church are in apostasy. Christ has things well in hand though - the Church is his to worry about and he will take care of what needs taken care of.

[EmmaLee]

I would speak with the Stake President about what is happening there and at least get a statement from him (see if he is supporting gay marriage in the Church, or not). Maybe they are working on the situation?
Somebody needs to let a higher PH leader know if there is something anti-church happening. I am not there so I have no idea what is really going on.

If you're referring to the Riverton situation, the stake president knew all about it and let Bishop Augenstein proceed with his blessing. So they'll need to move on to the next "higher" PH leader. Good luck!

[mmm..cheese]

It all depends the context. The Bishop might be trying to do what he thinks is expected of him by the Church, but if they are doing wrong then yeah they should go to the next PH authority.

[EmmaLee]

It all depends the context. The Bishop might be trying to do what he thinks is expected of him by the Church, but if they are doing wrong then yeah they should go to the next PH authority.

Read through Bishop Augenstein's Facebook page - all the context anyone needs, loud and clear. There is no doubt higher church authorities are aware of this - how could they not be?!

[illyume]

It all depends the context. The Bishop might be trying to do what he thinks is expected of him by the Church, but if they are doing wrong then yeah they should go to the next PH authority.

Read through Bishop Augenstein's Facebook page - all the context anyone needs, loud and clear. There is no doubt higher church authorities are aware of this - how could they not be?!

So the lack of response from higher priesthood authority thus far must likely be one of the following, correct?

1) Church leadership is okay with what the Augensteins are doing
2) Church leadership is not entirely okay with what the Augensteins are doing, but see calling in some form of discipline or putting a stop to it as likely to cause more of a problem than allowing them to continue
3) Church leadership is not okay at all with what the Augensteins are doing, and are allowing them to do this thing for now, so that the judgements they exercise upon them will be just.

If so, which of those three do you presume is most likely the case?

[Lizzy60]

I would speak with the Stake President about what is happening there and at least get a statement from him (see if he is supporting gay marriage in the Church, or not). Maybe they are working on the situation?
Somebody needs to let a higher PH leader know if there is something anti-church happening. I am not there so I have no idea what is really going on.

A counselor in the Stake Presidency gave the opening prayer for this combined PH/RS 5th Sunday meeting, and the Augensteins sent a video recording of the entire meeting to Church HQ and asked permission to post it online. They were told they could not because it was recorded in a meetinghouse, but that it was okay to publish transcripts of the talks online.

This is all verified (at least it's what the Bishop and his wife are saying) on their FB page, shortly after the meeting, which was Jan 30.

Also, a gay church member wrote about his experience of attending this meeting, and his account has been published in LDS Living magazine. The Top 15 would have be hiding under a rock if they didn't know this was going on.

[abijah]

I would speak with the Stake President about what is happening there and at least get a statement from him (see if he is supporting gay marriage in the Church, or not). Maybe they are working on the situation?
Somebody needs to let a higher PH leader know if there is something anti-church happening. I am not there so I have no idea what is really going on.

A counselor in the Stake Presidency gave the opening prayer for this combined PH/RS 5th Sunday meeting, and the Augensteins sent a video recording of the entire meeting to Church HQ and asked permission to post it online. They were told they could not because it was recorded in a meetinghouse, but that it was okay to publish transcripts of the talks online.

This is all verified (at least it's what the Bishop and his wife are saying) on their FB page, shortly after the meeting, which was Jan 30.

Also, a gay church member wrote about his experience of attending this meeting, and his account has been published in LDS Living magazine. The Top 15 would have be hiding under a rock if they didn't know this was going on.

very disturbing. the “betimes with sharpness” period has passed here, in my opinion.

i feel for church leaders though and don’t judge them. they have a very difficult job which i’m sure is becoming even more stressful with volatile issues like these.

[Lizzy60]

You'll notice I didn't try to counsel the Brethren on what they should be doing, just stating what has been posted online concerning their knowledge (or not) of what is going on.

If I was personally being accused, in my office, by parents, of causing the suicides of gay teenagers because of what the church is teaching about homosexuality, I honestly can't tell you what I would do. It's an agonizing position to be in.

[EmmaLee]

It all depends the context. The Bishop might be trying to do what he thinks is expected of him by the Church, but if they are doing wrong then yeah they should go to the next PH authority.

Read through Bishop Augenstein's Facebook page - all the context anyone needs, loud and clear. There is no doubt higher church authorities are aware of this - how could they not be?!

So the lack of response from higher priesthood authority thus far must likely be one of the following, correct?

1) Church leadership is okay with what the Augensteins are doing
2) Church leadership is not entirely okay with what the Augensteins are doing, but see calling in some form of discipline or putting a stop to it as likely to cause more of a problem than allowing them to continue
3) Church leadership is not okay at all with what the Augensteins are doing, and are allowing them to do this thing for now, so that the judgements they exercise upon them will be just.

If so, which of those three do you presume is most likely the case?

From the information available, I'd say it probably falls somewhere between 2 and 3 - or I should say, a mixture of the two, depending.

[Robin Hood]

I would speak with the Stake President about what is happening there and at least get a statement from him (see if he is supporting gay marriage in the Church, or not). Maybe they are working on the situation?
Somebody needs to let a higher PH leader know if there is something anti-church happening. I am not there so I have no idea what is really going on.

A counselor in the Stake Presidency gave the opening prayer for this combined PH/RS 5th Sunday meeting, and the Augensteins sent a video recording of the entire meeting to Church HQ and asked permission to post it online. They were told they could not because it was recorded in a meetinghouse, but that it was okay to publish transcripts of the talks online.

This is all verified (at least it's what the Bishop and his wife are saying) on their FB page, shortly after the meeting, which was Jan 30.

Also, a gay church member wrote about his experience of attending this meeting, and his account has been published in LDS Living magazine. The Top 15 would have be hiding under a rock if they didn't know this was going on.

very disturbing. the “betimes with sharpness” period has passed here, in my opinion.

i feel for church leaders though and don’t judge them. they have a very difficult job which i’m sure is becoming even more stressful with volatile issues like these.

The "Top 15" do not have authority to instigate any disciplinary procedures against this bishop, or anyone else involved. The law of the church does not permit it. In this case it would have to come from the stake president. If the SP is in on it though, there isn't much that can be done immediately.

[mgridle1]

I would speak with the Stake President about what is happening there and at least get a statement from him (see if he is supporting gay marriage in the Church, or not). Maybe they are working on the situation?
Somebody needs to let a higher PH leader know if there is something anti-church happening. I am not there so I have no idea what is really going on.

A counselor in the Stake Presidency gave the opening prayer for this combined PH/RS 5th Sunday meeting, and the Augensteins sent a video recording of the entire meeting to Church HQ and asked permission to post it online. They were told they could not because it was recorded in a meetinghouse, but that it was okay to publish transcripts of the talks online.

This is all verified (at least it's what the Bishop and his wife are saying) on their FB page, shortly after the meeting, which was Jan 30.

Also, a gay church member wrote about his experience of attending this meeting, and his account has been published in LDS Living magazine. The Top 15 would have be hiding under a rock if they didn't know this was going on.

very disturbing. the “betimes with sharpness” period has passed here, in my opinion.

i feel for church leaders though and don’t judge them. they have a very difficult job which i’m sure is becoming even more stressful with volatile issues like these.

The "Top 15" do not have authority to instigate any disciplinary procedures against this bishop, or anyone else involved. The law of the church does not permit it. In this case it would have to come from the stake president. If the SP is in on it though, there isn't much that can be done immediately.

Exactly right, for as much hierarchy we have in the Church, when it really boils down to it the major centers of power are actually held very locally-at the ward/branch/stake level. Which is why I don't really think this is as much of the Q15 problem as a membership problem. The membership has an opportunity to completely reject this type of stuff . . .you don't sustain the Bishop or the SP when the vote is taken. That's the solution; that is the check on incorrect doctrine being taught from the pulpit.

If a Bishop posted on his facebook page support for Abortion, marched in pro-Abortion marches, etc. then as a member you should know that in his position he will advocate for those types of things-if you don't want him to advocate for it as a Bishop-don't sustain him.

Members have a lot more power than they think they do-they just don't exercise it

You want to get the attention of the Q15, have half a ward vote to not sustain a pro-homosexual Bishop . . .that will get their attention.

[mmm..cheese]

It all depends the context. The Bishop might be trying to do what he thinks is expected of him by the Church, but if they are doing wrong then yeah they should go to the next PH authority.

Read through Bishop Augenstein's Facebook page - all the context anyone needs, loud and clear. There is no doubt higher church authorities are aware of this - how could they not be?!

So the lack of response from higher priesthood authority thus far must likely be one of the following, correct?

1) Church leadership is okay with what the Augensteins are doing
2) Church leadership is not entirely okay with what the Augensteins are doing, but see calling in some form of discipline or putting a stop to it as likely to cause more of a problem than allowing them to continue
3) Church leadership is not okay at all with what the Augensteins are doing, and are allowing them to do this thing for now, so that the judgements they exercise upon them will be just.

If so, which of those three do you presume is most likely the case?

Lol. I have no idea. I would say the last one is not likely at all. Why invite judgment on a PH holder that could instead be corrected? I don't know the individuals involved and do not know exactly what they are doing. I do think that some people affiliate with anti-church groups and that LGBTQ groups could possibly be in that category and introducing those ideas to the lessons at Church would be at odds with the handbook.
I also would be aware that some people could have civil rights goals more in mind rather than conforming to the standards of the Church.
There are people who would like to receive a gay marriage in the temple, which is a no-no.

[Thinker]

Hi, Ive been a long time lurker. I wanted to post this link that I thought some of you might appreciate. (Aiming this at Emmalee, Thinker, yjacket, lizzy60, mgridle1, etc). What do you think?

(sorry to hijack a thread, but while reading through it, it reminded me of this article)

http://curtporritt.com/wp-content/uploa ... OSTASY.pdf

Welcome, Eliza!
Some thoughts after scanning the article...

Some would argue continual revelation means continual change, but some of those changes have been away from God, IMO. Ie: concern with Popularity and fiting in with worldly shopoing malls and finances and politics.

Maybe they feel over their heads, besides tradition!
Lack of self awareness and accountability breed evil.
Children told what to do and to think freak out when exposed to the world - and continue to think and do as told.

When we think we know it all already, we’re damning ourselves (holding ourself back from learning more).

Main areas of apostasy in church:
*Revelation
*Action/Attitude - cognitive distortions
*Finances, and not sharing tithes with the poor, contrary to law of tithing (Deut 14:28-29) & Christ’s commandments

Apostates are those who are continually moving away from God.

Nom, middle way mormon, ultra-mormon... the best way is the middle way between extremes. A study sought to find what, if any, effect religious involvement had on physical healing. Of 3 groups, those excessively religiously involved and those not religiously involved at all, did poorest. Those moderately religiously involved did best.

Bottom line we seem to both agree with: take the best, leave the rest.

[Thinker]

A counselor in the Stake Presidency gave the opening prayer for this combined PH/RS 5th Sunday meeting, and the Augensteins sent a video recording of the entire meeting to Church HQ and asked permission to post it online. They were told they could not because it was recorded in a meetinghouse, but that it was okay to publish transcripts of the talks online.

This is all verified (at least it's what the Bishop and his wife are saying) on their FB page, shortly after the meeting, which was Jan 30.

Also, a gay church member wrote about his experience of attending this meeting, and his account has been published in LDS Living magazine. The Top 15 would have be hiding under a rock if they didn't know this was going on.

very disturbing. the “betimes with sharpness” period has passed here, in my opinion.

i feel for church leaders though and don’t judge them. they have a very difficult job which i’m sure is becoming even more stressful with volatile issues like these.

The "Top 15" do not have authority to instigate any disciplinary procedures against this bishop, or anyone else involved. The law of the church does not permit it. In this case it would have to come from the stake president. If the SP is in on it though, there isn't much that can be done immediately.

Exactly right, for as much hierarchy we have in the Church, when it really boils down to it the major centers of power are actually held very locally-at the ward/branch/stake level. Which is why I don't really think this is as much of the Q15 problem as a membership problem. The membership has an opportunity to completely reject this type of stuff . . .you don't sustain the Bishop or the SP when the vote is taken. That's the solution; that is the check on incorrect doctrine being taught from the pulpit.

If a Bishop posted on his facebook page support for Abortion, marched in pro-Abortion marches, etc. then as a member you should know that in his position he will advocate for those types of things-if you don't want him to advocate for it as a Bishop-don't sustain him.

Members have a lot more power than they think they do-they just don't exercise it

You want to get the attention of the Q15, have half a ward vote to not sustain a pro-homosexual Bishop . . .that will get their attention.

Good points.
Still, no need to wait for the pretend vote. I’d write a letter to bishop, SP and regional, area reps and GA as I wrote to many congressmen and justices about why supporting homosexuality is cruel not loving. Then I’d attend a ward or church that encouraged more godly principles. If enough members voted by absence, maybe then, it would get their attention... or the homosexual fanatics would turn the church into their party house. How dysfunctional and corrupt that would be - but no too much different than it is now I guess.