Re: Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
Posted: June 6th, 2018, 6:08 pm
How come?Robin Hood wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 4:21 pm If the SP is in on it though, there isn't much that can be done immediately.
Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
https://ldsfreedomforum.com/
How come?Robin Hood wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 4:21 pm If the SP is in on it though, there isn't much that can be done immediately.
Standards of the church? Who do these people think they are? They seem to think that earthly men run the church; they forget, or don't care, that God, Jehovah, runs the church. It is his church and his rules apply. Can people just arbitrarily demand that sinful activities be condoned and become church policy? Do gay people have the right, or a foot to stand on, in demanding gay marriage in the temples? Do they have a right requesting a Bishop to marry them at any location or setting?mmm..cheese wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 4:44 pmLol. 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.illyume wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 3:21 pmSo the lack of response from higher priesthood authority thus far must likely be one of the following, correct?EmmaLee wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 3:12 pmRead 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?!mmm..cheese wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 3:05 pm 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.
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?
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.
So sad that he’s using his fame for bad. So unnerving when adults fall for peer pressure, going along with harmful lies, like they are still teenagers.Lizzy60 wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 6:43 pm Dan Reynolds (Imagine Dragons) was on Ellen today, talking about how he's trying to change the LDS doctrine on homosexuality. I pasted a quote where he calls homosexuality "beautiful and perfect and normal." He was the main attraction at the LoveLoud concert in Orem last year, the one the church "applauded".
https://www.billboard.com/articles/news ... -interview
“Feeling a little bit of shame in my life over something I shouldn’t have been shamed about helped me to kind of identify to some degree with what our LGBTQ youth face all the time in orthodox religion,” the Utah native told host Ellen DeGeneres. “Which is feeling guilt and shame over something that is beautiful and perfect and normal.”
I do not know what is happening in the riverton ward. I saw a post on reddit about it as well and it seemed like something strange. I would not worry about the Church allowing gay marriage in the temples, or bishops being forced to marry. I mean, I would not turn a blind eye to it, but I think we have leaders who are aware of this possibility. I am sure there is a gay activist somewhere with their gay activist girlfriend/boyfriend who are hellbent on persuading the Church to have doctrine that gay people can be eternally married as well. I just do not want to jump to any conclusions about the way a Bishop is presiding over his ward since it would put me in an awkward position if he is doing nothing wrong to begin with, yet I am accusing a judge in Israel. I have to look out for myself first.righteousrepublic wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 6:08 pmStandards of the church? Who do these people think they are? They seem to think that earthly men run the church; they forget, or don't care, that God, Jehovah, runs the church. It is his church and his rules apply. Can people just arbitrarily demand that sinful activities be condoned and become church policy? Do gay people have the right, or a foot to stand on, in demanding gay marriage in the temples? Do they have a right requesting a Bishop to marry them at any location or setting?mmm..cheese wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 4:44 pmLol. 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.illyume wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 3:21 pmSo 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?
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.
Can civil rights eradicate laws of God without consequence? Aren't these people messing with God, even if they, in any way, declare they do not believe in God or his laws, or are not willing to conduct their lives according to his commands? Should God soften and allow sin to now become acceptable?
Aren't people who are bent on bringing sin to the table and wanting it condoned, allowed and performed, bringing Satan before the Lord?
Aren't we told that the church would be under increased persecution? So if the church relents and allows all this evil to be allowed, would there be any need for persecution? Would then the LDS church just be another lawless church?
perhaps political relevance & religious progressivism compensate for talent, skill & artistic depth?mmm..cheese wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 7:34 pm Imagine dragons... a band with 2 good songs and the rest are basically some of the worst noises I have ever heard called music.
In terms of disciplinary action all the 15 can do is bring concerns to the attention of the stake president. What he does with it is up to him.EmmaLee wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 6:08 pmHow come?Robin Hood wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 4:21 pm If the SP is in on it though, there isn't much that can be done immediately.
I still have 4 days of the social media fastEmmaLee wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 3:12 pmRead 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?!mmm..cheese wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 3:05 pm 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.
I don't think church leadership is unified on this issue at all.illyume wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 3:21 pm
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?
Okay, thanks, I understand all that. After reading your post again, I was misunderstanding the bit I quoted above. I thought you meant there's nothing that can be done to the stake president immediately, if he was in on it - and I was thinking 'why can't something be done immediately to the stake president' (as in, remove the SP from his calling) - but you were referring to the bishop. Got it.Robin Hood wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 11:13 pmIn terms of disciplinary action all the 15 can do is bring concerns to the attention of the stake president. What he does with it is up to him.EmmaLee wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 6:08 pmHow come?Robin Hood wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 4:21 pm If the SP is in on it though, there isn't much that can be done immediately.
General authorities have no jurisdiction in these matters.
The 15 could reprimand the bishop, or insist on his release, but they cannot instigate or insist he is disciplined for his standing in the church.
Yes it is specifically designed to ensure that NO ONE believes, thinks or says that homosexuality is wrong, sin and against God's laws. Never mind that the vast majority of people who believe in homosexuality don't believe in God. It's not just about destroying traditional marriage-it is about destroying God himself.
Said that the changes we saw announced last conference session was just the beginning and that we ain't seen nothing yet. Mentioned that 13 Temples would be dedicated next year (or something like that).
Talked a bit about how we need to be fully committed to the Gospel and quoted the first Great Commandment. Asked us to ask ourselves what our motivations are and to work towards keeping the First Great Commandment.
Just looking at how people are attacked right now for having a different view or belief, I can see this really escalating into much worse things very quickly.Mentioned how he and the other members of the Twelve discuss how they could be killed in the future, but how all of them couldn't be gotten. The keys will not be taken from the Earth; thus he was boldly reaffirming that the Rough Stone Rolling is the Church. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=48286
Has already happened during the prop-8 effort in California. I found cases of demonstrators turning violent and statements about others not wanting to remain peaceful as the organizers desired. There was vandalism to temple grounds and a meeting house and an anthrax type scare targeting the church. It wouldn't take much for this to heat up again, just needs a point of contention really.Sirius wrote: ↑June 7th, 2018, 1:45 pm Like the violence coming out of the race war, how long before the violence comes to those that believe homosexuality is a sin, from the lgbt community and those that support them? This definitely has nothing to do with "tolerance" for them or their community, as is shown by the intolerance towards anyone that doesn't share their same views or accept their lifestyle.
It could indeed happen quickly, but I think the build up to the next event will be slow and steady. I'm anticipating such a build up after the 'Be One' event along with the current rate of change within the Church. Certain parties are going to expect their desired changes to come forth, and will grow increasingly restless when it doesn't. I think we'll see some increasing division and contention inside of the church within a year. Could also be that some future announcements or changes ratchet up the tension as well.Just looking at how people are attacked right now for having a different view or belief, I can see this really escalating into much worse things very quickly.
Members who want more equality for LDS women regarding PH and leadership positions, as well as the pro-gay-marriage LDS members, are already using the "Be One" theme, and quotes from some of the talks, to bolster their position on the necessity of members employing "bottom-up revelation" to achieve their goals. I'm watching one such posting over at Wheat and Tares.BackBlast wrote: ↑June 7th, 2018, 2:05 pmHas already happened during the prop-8 effort in California. I found cases of demonstrators turning violent and statements about others not wanting to remain peaceful as the organizers desired. There was vandalism to temple grounds and a meeting house and an anthrax type scare targeting the church. It wouldn't take much for this to heat up again, just needs a point of contention really.Sirius wrote: ↑June 7th, 2018, 1:45 pm Like the violence coming out of the race war, how long before the violence comes to those that believe homosexuality is a sin, from the lgbt community and those that support them? This definitely has nothing to do with "tolerance" for them or their community, as is shown by the intolerance towards anyone that doesn't share their same views or accept their lifestyle.
I remember documenting all of this at the time in a vain attempt to show which side of the issue was the violent side, or at least more prone to turn to violence. I was met with a hand wave of "the oppressed have reason" justifying the behavior.
It could indeed happen quickly, but I think the build up to the next event will be slow and steady. I'm anticipating such a build up after the 'Be One' event along with the current rate of change within the Church. Certain parties are going to expect their desired changes to come forth, and will grow increasingly restless when it doesn't. I think we'll see some increasing division and contention inside of the church within a year. Could also be that some future announcements or changes ratchet up the tension as well.Just looking at how people are attacked right now for having a different view or belief, I can see this really escalating into much worse things very quickly.
Just a guess![]()
I just read this article and thought of your post above. It is coming.Sirius wrote: ↑June 7th, 2018, 1:45 pm Like the violence coming out of the race war, how long before the violence comes to those that believe homosexuality is a sin, from the lgbt community and those that support them? This definitely has nothing to do with "tolerance" for them or their community, as is shown by the intolerance towards anyone that doesn't share their same views or accept their lifestyle. As things get worse, do you foresee the lives of the brethren being threatened over this issue? I was just thinking of a few things Durzan mentioned from sitting in a stake conference where Elder Holland presided, and talked about..Said that the changes we saw announced last conference session was just the beginning and that we ain't seen nothing yet. Mentioned that 13 Temples would be dedicated next year (or something like that).Talked a bit about how we need to be fully committed to the Gospel and quoted the first Great Commandment. Asked us to ask ourselves what our motivations are and to work towards keeping the First Great Commandment.Just looking at how people are attacked right now for having a different view or belief, I can see this really escalating into much worse things very quickly.Mentioned how he and the other members of the Twelve discuss how they could be killed in the future, but how all of them couldn't be gotten. The keys will not be taken from the Earth; thus he was boldly reaffirming that the Rough Stone Rolling is the Church. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=48286
Maybe. But I suspect Harold B. Lee's death had more to do with it than anything else.churchistrue @ wheatandtares.org wrote: I read in a recent post that Pres. Kimball consulted with Pres. Oaks in the years prior to the 1978 revelation. I think it can be assumed that Pres. Oaks rightly modeled the “OK” side of how to disagree and express disagreement on the issue. And maybe he was part of the reason for why Pres. Kimball became more active in seeking the revelation and eventually received it.
wowEmmaLee wrote: ↑June 7th, 2018, 3:24 pmI just read this article and thought of your post above. It is coming.Sirius wrote: ↑June 7th, 2018, 1:45 pm Like the violence coming out of the race war, how long before the violence comes to those that believe homosexuality is a sin, from the lgbt community and those that support them? This definitely has nothing to do with "tolerance" for them or their community, as is shown by the intolerance towards anyone that doesn't share their same views or accept their lifestyle. As things get worse, do you foresee the lives of the brethren being threatened over this issue? I was just thinking of a few things Durzan mentioned from sitting in a stake conference where Elder Holland presided, and talked about..Said that the changes we saw announced last conference session was just the beginning and that we ain't seen nothing yet. Mentioned that 13 Temples would be dedicated next year (or something like that).Talked a bit about how we need to be fully committed to the Gospel and quoted the first Great Commandment. Asked us to ask ourselves what our motivations are and to work towards keeping the First Great Commandment.Just looking at how people are attacked right now for having a different view or belief, I can see this really escalating into much worse things very quickly.Mentioned how he and the other members of the Twelve discuss how they could be killed in the future, but how all of them couldn't be gotten. The keys will not be taken from the Earth; thus he was boldly reaffirming that the Rough Stone Rolling is the Church. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=48286
Thursday, 07 June 2018
New California Law May Punish Pastors for Helping Others Leave Homosexuality
Could California pastors be charged with a crime for using Christian doctrine to help someone leave homosexuality? This could be the case if a new Golden State bill, AB 2943, becomes law. Making matters worse, some critics claim it could even be used to impede sales of the Bible.
California, 11 other states, and D.C. already ban “reparative therapy” — which seeks to eliminate unwanted same-sex attraction or feelings of “gender” identity — for minors. The new bill, however, applies to adults as well and would prohibit not just therapists but anyone from offering such aid. It’s gold-plated hypocrisy: The same people who allow a physician to help a person “change his sex” (not actually possible), a quality certainly inborn, want to make it a crime to help someone change his sexual feelings — in the thinking that they’re inborn.
Yet AB 2943 goes further still and prohibits efforts to change even behavior. As National Review’s David French explains, if, for example, “a sexually active gay man or woman sought counseling not to change their orientation but rather to become celibate, then the services and goods provided in that effort would violate this statute.”
Full article here - https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/i ... osexuality
Doesn't surprise me in the least bit. 10 years ago had you asked if about it, I would have said homosexual "marriage" should be dealt by the states and the best solution is to get government out of it and that if it were legalized it wouldn't be that big of a deal. I bought hook, line and sinker the idea that well it's a sin but it doesn't affect me so whatever.Sirius wrote: ↑June 7th, 2018, 4:31 pmwowEmmaLee wrote: ↑June 7th, 2018, 3:24 pmI just read this article and thought of your post above. It is coming.Sirius wrote: ↑June 7th, 2018, 1:45 pm Like the violence coming out of the race war, how long before the violence comes to those that believe homosexuality is a sin, from the lgbt community and those that support them? This definitely has nothing to do with "tolerance" for them or their community, as is shown by the intolerance towards anyone that doesn't share their same views or accept their lifestyle. As things get worse, do you foresee the lives of the brethren being threatened over this issue? I was just thinking of a few things Durzan mentioned from sitting in a stake conference where Elder Holland presided, and talked about..Said that the changes we saw announced last conference session was just the beginning and that we ain't seen nothing yet. Mentioned that 13 Temples would be dedicated next year (or something like that).Talked a bit about how we need to be fully committed to the Gospel and quoted the first Great Commandment. Asked us to ask ourselves what our motivations are and to work towards keeping the First Great Commandment.Just looking at how people are attacked right now for having a different view or belief, I can see this really escalating into much worse things very quickly.Mentioned how he and the other members of the Twelve discuss how they could be killed in the future, but how all of them couldn't be gotten. The keys will not be taken from the Earth; thus he was boldly reaffirming that the Rough Stone Rolling is the Church. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=48286
Thursday, 07 June 2018
New California Law May Punish Pastors for Helping Others Leave Homosexuality
Could California pastors be charged with a crime for using Christian doctrine to help someone leave homosexuality? This could be the case if a new Golden State bill, AB 2943, becomes law. Making matters worse, some critics claim it could even be used to impede sales of the Bible.
California, 11 other states, and D.C. already ban “reparative therapy” — which seeks to eliminate unwanted same-sex attraction or feelings of “gender” identity — for minors. The new bill, however, applies to adults as well and would prohibit not just therapists but anyone from offering such aid. It’s gold-plated hypocrisy: The same people who allow a physician to help a person “change his sex” (not actually possible), a quality certainly inborn, want to make it a crime to help someone change his sexual feelings — in the thinking that they’re inborn.
Yet AB 2943 goes further still and prohibits efforts to change even behavior. As National Review’s David French explains, if, for example, “a sexually active gay man or woman sought counseling not to change their orientation but rather to become celibate, then the services and goods provided in that effort would violate this statute.”
Full article here - https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/i ... osexuality![]()