Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)

[ebenezerarise]

I think if it comes out that the Bishop himself was teaching false doctrine, from the pulpit or otherwise, he will be held accountable by Church leadership.

But using the church facilities to house a meeting of individuals who disagree with Church doctrine is nothing new. In some cases, church facilities are lent out to other faiths when circumstances dictate the need.

But clearly the Church has taught that we must, as members, have love for all our brothers and sisters regardless of the lives they lead. Indeed, wouldn't we want our chapels filled with individuals from all walks of life?

At least there the opportunity exists to have a dialogue. In such circumstances there is bound to be disagreements -- but wouldn't we rather be known as a people who will hear out others while expounding on our own truths?

I have watched with fascination as they whole gay movement has exploded in my lifetime and with it how my own feelings and emotions have been twisted with it. I have watched people I know and love, gay and otherwise, struggle with how they are accepted or not for whatever they believe.

I don't know enough yet to say whether this Bishop and others associated with him have crossed a line. Time will bear that out. But I do know we need to do all we can to not separate ourselves from "the heathen" to the point where we lose our own worthiness.

These are children of God, there's nothing wrong with treating them as such no matter what they believe.

[David13]

I think if it comes out that the Bishop himself was teaching false doctrine, from the pulpit or otherwise, he will be held accountable by Church leadership.

But using the church facilities to house a meeting of individuals who disagree with Church doctrine is nothing new. In some cases, church facilities are lent out to other faiths when circumstances dictate the need.

But clearly the Church has taught that we must, as members, have love for all our brothers and sisters regardless of the lives they lead. Indeed, wouldn't we want our chapels filled with individuals from all walks of life?

At least there the opportunity exists to have a dialogue. In such circumstances there is bound to be disagreements -- but wouldn't we rather be known as a people who will hear out others while expounding on our own truths?

I have watched with fascination as they whole gay movement has exploded in my lifetime and with it how my own feelings and emotions have been twisted with it. I have watched people I know and love, gay and otherwise, struggle with how they are accepted or not for whatever they believe.

I don't know enough yet to say whether this Bishop and others associated with him have crossed a line. Time will bear that out. But I do know we need to do all we can to not separate ourselves from "the heathen" to the point where we lose our own worthiness.

These are children of God, there's nothing wrong with treating them as such no matter what they believe.

Yes, but not promoting and encouraging and thus influencing others to promote and encourage and participate in their sin.
And also not using the church to do so, and doing so in the meeting, and also not doing so in a public forum like Facebook.

dc

[Finrock]

I just scrolled through their Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/susie.augenstein

The Bishop (and his wife) most certainly did hold a 3rd hour meeting in their Parkway ward on Sunday, in which the topic was LGBTQetc. etc. (sorry, don't know all the latest politically correct initials). There were several speakers, at least two of whom are also involved with 'Affirmation', which is a pro-gay 'LDS' group that is trying to change the doctrine of the LDS Church, and who believe same-sex sex is not a sin and does not need to be repented of. https://affirmation.org/ Bishop Augenstein and his wife, Susie, have a shared Facebook account, and almost every single post is about gay people and their causes - the gay cruise the Bishop and his wife are putting together - the gay 3rd hour Sunday meeting (which was indeed recorded) - their gay friends - the gay game night they have at their home once a month, etc. etc. Just by reading through what they post, they seem to be obsessed with the gay life (for example, I only came across one post about their own son, who is in the MTC getting ready for a mission, but dozens and dozens of posts about gay people and topics). If you're on Facebook, look for yourself and come to your own conclusion.

They videotaped the Sunday meeting, with the hopes of spreading it far and wide in the Church, but the Church said no (at least to their credit, they asked permission before sharing it around - they continued on though, saying they will most likely take the audio from it and share that, so not sure there's much difference between sharing the audio vs. the video - the audio is what matters, after all). In reading the comments on these posts - and especially on the posts about the 3rd-hour Sunday meeting, many LDS people are sharing the transcript and video of the meeting with their own Bishops and stake presidents. I wonder how long till this becomes the norm in the Church.

One thing I noticed is they couch and choose their words very carefully, but their overall message seems to be clear (to me anyway). I got zero impression that they believe same-sex sex and relationships are sinful, or that people with same-sex sexual sins should repent (you know, like we encourage people with opposite-sex sexual sins to repent). On the contrary, they delight and have joy in honoring people who are living in same-sex relationships. It is one thing to love people and care about them, regardless of their particular sins, which is something we all as Christians should do - it is entirely something else to believe and promote the idea that these particular sins are not sins and do not need to be repented of.

The Church is aware of this Bishop, and they are aware of this 3rd-hour Sunday meeting they held, etc. because he sent the video of this meeting to Church headquarters. Also, the online 'LDSLiving' magazine is owned by the LDS Church, and it printed one of the talks given at this Bishop's 3rd-hour Sunday meeting - so yes, the Church is very aware of all this. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, happens. I predict nothing will happen, and he will continue serving as Bishop - and we'll see more and more of this type of thing in more and more wards/stakes. It is good to be aware that this is happening so you're not blindsided when it happens in your own ward.

Edited to add - This was a post I'd written to put in the original thread before it was deleted. It may seem oddly placed now since both threads have been merged.

So, its your belief that by allowing a person who is pro-gay marriage to speak at a meeting at church constitutes apostasy for the bishop?

Did the bishop, at any time in the meeting, say "I support gay marriage. I believe gay marriages should be sanctioned by the Church. I believe that the Church is wrong for being against gay marriage. I think it is OK to be a practicing homosexual." Or anything to that affect?

Again, just speaking in principle, there is nothing inherently wrong with simply allowing people of opposing views to share their experiences, talk about their views, or express their opinions. We should be mature enough to be able to handle listening to people who don't agree with our perspetives and in affording them the respect and right to believe how they wish. Doing so doesn't constitute condoning or support. I think allowing for such dialogue, although rare (unfortunately), is a good thing and shows an individual who is quite comfortable with their beliefs, their views, and their religion. Being defensive and disallowing an opposing view in my mind is immature and shows insecurity.

-Finrock

[EmmaLee]

Many members are confused by some statements made by Elder Christofferson over the past few years. This link (below) is a good compilation of his comments on this subject. I know in my own ward and stake, MANY members took what he said as meaning there is nothing wrong with supporting same-sex marriage, and even encouraging people to participate in them (not understanding, apparently, that in do so, you are encouraging people to sin, just as much as if you encouraged your loved one to commit adultery). After Elder Christofferson's interview with Daniel Woodruff, there were dozens of posts on Facebook from active, recommend-holding members of my ward/stake (some in leadership callings) in full-on support of same-sex marriage and sexual relationships. Even after these "clarifications" have come out from Elder Christofferson, they are still of their original mindset - and yes, it is promoted in our Sunday meetings on occasion - and no, it has never been refuted that same-sex sexual relationships are sinful as much as any sexual sins are - why? Probably because people are afraid of bullies who will call them "anti-gay".

http://www.ldssmile.com/2015/06/29/elde ... -marriage/

[gkearney]

Just to clear up any confusion here about who we are talking about as some have suggested this was all a hoax of some kind. The following is taken from the church's own website about this ward:


Parkway Ward
12110 South 1300 West
RIVERTON
Utah
84065-7427
United States

Worship Service: Su 11:00 am
Congregation Phone: 1 801-253-7098
Congregation Leadership: Bishop Paul R. Augenstein 1 801-913-1335

[EmmaLee]

I just scrolled through their Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/susie.augenstein

The Bishop (and his wife) most certainly did hold a 3rd hour meeting in their Parkway ward on Sunday, in which the topic was LGBTQetc. etc. (sorry, don't know all the latest politically correct initials). There were several speakers, at least two of whom are also involved with 'Affirmation', which is a pro-gay 'LDS' group that is trying to change the doctrine of the LDS Church, and who believe same-sex sex is not a sin and does not need to be repented of. https://affirmation.org/ Bishop Augenstein and his wife, Susie, have a shared Facebook account, and almost every single post is about gay people and their causes - the gay cruise the Bishop and his wife are putting together - the gay 3rd hour Sunday meeting (which was indeed recorded) - their gay friends - the gay game night they have at their home once a month, etc. etc. Just by reading through what they post, they seem to be obsessed with the gay life (for example, I only came across one post about their own son, who is in the MTC getting ready for a mission, but dozens and dozens of posts about gay people and topics). If you're on Facebook, look for yourself and come to your own conclusion.

They videotaped the Sunday meeting, with the hopes of spreading it far and wide in the Church, but the Church said no (at least to their credit, they asked permission before sharing it around - they continued on though, saying they will most likely take the audio from it and share that, so not sure there's much difference between sharing the audio vs. the video - the audio is what matters, after all). In reading the comments on these posts - and especially on the posts about the 3rd-hour Sunday meeting, many LDS people are sharing the transcript and video of the meeting with their own Bishops and stake presidents. I wonder how long till this becomes the norm in the Church.

One thing I noticed is they couch and choose their words very carefully, but their overall message seems to be clear (to me anyway). I got zero impression that they believe same-sex sex and relationships are sinful, or that people with same-sex sexual sins should repent (you know, like we encourage people with opposite-sex sexual sins to repent). On the contrary, they delight and have joy in honoring people who are living in same-sex relationships. It is one thing to love people and care about them, regardless of their particular sins, which is something we all as Christians should do - it is entirely something else to believe and promote the idea that these particular sins are not sins and do not need to be repented of.

The Church is aware of this Bishop, and they are aware of this 3rd-hour Sunday meeting they held, etc. because he sent the video of this meeting to Church headquarters. Also, the online 'LDSLiving' magazine is owned by the LDS Church, and it printed one of the talks given at this Bishop's 3rd-hour Sunday meeting - so yes, the Church is very aware of all this. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, happens. I predict nothing will happen, and he will continue serving as Bishop - and we'll see more and more of this type of thing in more and more wards/stakes. It is good to be aware that this is happening so you're not blindsided when it happens in your own ward.

Edited to add - This was a post I'd written to put in the original thread before it was deleted. It may seem oddly placed now since both threads have been merged.

So, its your belief that by allowing a person who is pro-gay marriage to speak at a meeting at church constitutes apostasy for the bishop?

Did the bishop, at any time in the meeting, say "I support gay marriage. I believe gay marriages should be sanctioned by the Church. I believe that the Church is wrong for being against gay marriage. I think it is OK to be a practicing homosexual." Or anything to that affect?

Again, just speaking in principle, there is nothing inherently wrong with simply allowing people of opposing views to share their experiences, talk about their views, or express their opinions. We should be mature enough to be able to handle listening to people who don't agree with our perspetives and in affording them the respect and right to believe how they wish. Doing so doesn't constitute condoning or support. I think allowing for such dialogue, although rare (unfortunately), is a good thing and shows an individual who is quite comfortable with their beliefs, their views, and their religion. Being defensive and disallowing an opposing view in my mind is immature and shows insecurity.

-Finrock

I agree. So to be proactive, and show that I am loving and kind and open to those with opposing beliefs, I am going to invite my LDS friends and relatives who are living in adultery (and I know quite a few) to come speak at Church. Change the words "gay/gay marriage" above in your post to "adultery". If you don't, then you are being insecure and immature and defensive for disallowing an opposing view. In your mind, of course.

[Finrock]

I just scrolled through their Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/susie.augenstein

The Bishop (and his wife) most certainly did hold a 3rd hour meeting in their Parkway ward on Sunday, in which the topic was LGBTQetc. etc. (sorry, don't know all the latest politically correct initials). There were several speakers, at least two of whom are also involved with 'Affirmation', which is a pro-gay 'LDS' group that is trying to change the doctrine of the LDS Church, and who believe same-sex sex is not a sin and does not need to be repented of. https://affirmation.org/ Bishop Augenstein and his wife, Susie, have a shared Facebook account, and almost every single post is about gay people and their causes - the gay cruise the Bishop and his wife are putting together - the gay 3rd hour Sunday meeting (which was indeed recorded) - their gay friends - the gay game night they have at their home once a month, etc. etc. Just by reading through what they post, they seem to be obsessed with the gay life (for example, I only came across one post about their own son, who is in the MTC getting ready for a mission, but dozens and dozens of posts about gay people and topics). If you're on Facebook, look for yourself and come to your own conclusion.

They videotaped the Sunday meeting, with the hopes of spreading it far and wide in the Church, but the Church said no (at least to their credit, they asked permission before sharing it around - they continued on though, saying they will most likely take the audio from it and share that, so not sure there's much difference between sharing the audio vs. the video - the audio is what matters, after all). In reading the comments on these posts - and especially on the posts about the 3rd-hour Sunday meeting, many LDS people are sharing the transcript and video of the meeting with their own Bishops and stake presidents. I wonder how long till this becomes the norm in the Church.

One thing I noticed is they couch and choose their words very carefully, but their overall message seems to be clear (to me anyway). I got zero impression that they believe same-sex sex and relationships are sinful, or that people with same-sex sexual sins should repent (you know, like we encourage people with opposite-sex sexual sins to repent). On the contrary, they delight and have joy in honoring people who are living in same-sex relationships. It is one thing to love people and care about them, regardless of their particular sins, which is something we all as Christians should do - it is entirely something else to believe and promote the idea that these particular sins are not sins and do not need to be repented of.

The Church is aware of this Bishop, and they are aware of this 3rd-hour Sunday meeting they held, etc. because he sent the video of this meeting to Church headquarters. Also, the online 'LDSLiving' magazine is owned by the LDS Church, and it printed one of the talks given at this Bishop's 3rd-hour Sunday meeting - so yes, the Church is very aware of all this. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, happens. I predict nothing will happen, and he will continue serving as Bishop - and we'll see more and more of this type of thing in more and more wards/stakes. It is good to be aware that this is happening so you're not blindsided when it happens in your own ward.

Edited to add - This was a post I'd written to put in the original thread before it was deleted. It may seem oddly placed now since both threads have been merged.

So, its your belief that by allowing a person who is pro-gay marriage to speak at a meeting at church constitutes apostasy for the bishop?

Did the bishop, at any time in the meeting, say "I support gay marriage. I believe gay marriages should be sanctioned by the Church. I believe that the Church is wrong for being against gay marriage. I think it is OK to be a practicing homosexual." Or anything to that affect?

Again, just speaking in principle, there is nothing inherently wrong with simply allowing people of opposing views to share their experiences, talk about their views, or express their opinions. We should be mature enough to be able to handle listening to people who don't agree with our perspetives and in affording them the respect and right to believe how they wish. Doing so doesn't constitute condoning or support. I think allowing for such dialogue, although rare (unfortunately), is a good thing and shows an individual who is quite comfortable with their beliefs, their views, and their religion. Being defensive and disallowing an opposing view in my mind is immature and shows insecurity.

-Finrock

I agree. So to be proactive, and show that I am loving and kind and open to those with opposing beliefs, I am going to invite my LDS friends and relatives who are living in adultery (and I know quite a few) to come speak at Church. Change the word "gay" above in your post to "adultery". If you don't, then you are being insecure and immature and defensive for disallowing an opposing view. In your mind, of course.

First of all, your comparison is a false comparison. You can't change the words as you suggest and my post remain logically or meaningfully consistent. Secondly, changing the word "gay" to "adultery" in my post above would turn logical/reasonable statements in to nonsensical constructs. Thirdly, I would not be opposed to allowing someone who supports "adultery marriages" (whatever that means), to at least speak. In doing so I wouldn't be condoning "adultery marriages" neither would I be supporting them.

-Finrock

[EmmaLee]

I just scrolled through their Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/susie.augenstein

The Bishop (and his wife) most certainly did hold a 3rd hour meeting in their Parkway ward on Sunday, in which the topic was LGBTQetc. etc. (sorry, don't know all the latest politically correct initials). There were several speakers, at least two of whom are also involved with 'Affirmation', which is a pro-gay 'LDS' group that is trying to change the doctrine of the LDS Church, and who believe same-sex sex is not a sin and does not need to be repented of. https://affirmation.org/ Bishop Augenstein and his wife, Susie, have a shared Facebook account, and almost every single post is about gay people and their causes - the gay cruise the Bishop and his wife are putting together - the gay 3rd hour Sunday meeting (which was indeed recorded) - their gay friends - the gay game night they have at their home once a month, etc. etc. Just by reading through what they post, they seem to be obsessed with the gay life (for example, I only came across one post about their own son, who is in the MTC getting ready for a mission, but dozens and dozens of posts about gay people and topics). If you're on Facebook, look for yourself and come to your own conclusion.

They videotaped the Sunday meeting, with the hopes of spreading it far and wide in the Church, but the Church said no (at least to their credit, they asked permission before sharing it around - they continued on though, saying they will most likely take the audio from it and share that, so not sure there's much difference between sharing the audio vs. the video - the audio is what matters, after all). In reading the comments on these posts - and especially on the posts about the 3rd-hour Sunday meeting, many LDS people are sharing the transcript and video of the meeting with their own Bishops and stake presidents. I wonder how long till this becomes the norm in the Church.

One thing I noticed is they couch and choose their words very carefully, but their overall message seems to be clear (to me anyway). I got zero impression that they believe same-sex sex and relationships are sinful, or that people with same-sex sexual sins should repent (you know, like we encourage people with opposite-sex sexual sins to repent). On the contrary, they delight and have joy in honoring people who are living in same-sex relationships. It is one thing to love people and care about them, regardless of their particular sins, which is something we all as Christians should do - it is entirely something else to believe and promote the idea that these particular sins are not sins and do not need to be repented of.

The Church is aware of this Bishop, and they are aware of this 3rd-hour Sunday meeting they held, etc. because he sent the video of this meeting to Church headquarters. Also, the online 'LDSLiving' magazine is owned by the LDS Church, and it printed one of the talks given at this Bishop's 3rd-hour Sunday meeting - so yes, the Church is very aware of all this. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, happens. I predict nothing will happen, and he will continue serving as Bishop - and we'll see more and more of this type of thing in more and more wards/stakes. It is good to be aware that this is happening so you're not blindsided when it happens in your own ward.

Edited to add - This was a post I'd written to put in the original thread before it was deleted. It may seem oddly placed now since both threads have been merged.

So, its your belief that by allowing a person who is pro-gay marriage to speak at a meeting at church constitutes apostasy for the bishop?

Try not to put words in my mouth, Finrock. Where did I say that that constitutes apostasy? Show me where I said that, or retract your statement. You are breaking forum rules when you do this. In answer to your question though, the LDS Church says same-sex marriage is against the doctrine of the Church (and therefore, God, if you believe the LDS Church is headed by Christ) - so logic would dictate that the LDS Church considers it apostasy to be pro-same sex marriage. Christ spews lukewarm people out of his mouth - fence-sitters - those who can't decide between following him or following the world. If same-sex marriage is a sin, as the LDS Church says it is, then why would anyone think it was okay to have proponents of same-sex marriage, and people who are LIVING in a same-sex marriage (as was the case in this Sunday meeting mentioned) preach at an official LDS meeting? It's up to the LDS Church though, who they deem appropriate to preach in their official Sunday meetings. Not my call.

Did the bishop, at any time in the meeting, say "I support gay marriage. I believe gay marriages should be sanctioned by the Church. I believe that the Church is wrong for being against gay marriage. I think it is OK to be a practicing homosexual." Or anything to that affect?
His entire Facebook page, post after post after post (and I only read for about 1/2 an hour), is dedicated to these things.

Again, just speaking in principle, there is nothing inherently wrong with simply allowing people of opposing views to share their experiences, talk about their views, or express their opinions. We should be mature enough to be able to handle listening to people who don't agree with our perspetives and in affording them the respect and right to believe how they wish. Doing so doesn't constitute condoning or support. I think allowing for such dialogue, although rare (unfortunately), is a good thing and shows an individual who is quite comfortable with their beliefs, their views, and their religion. Being defensive and disallowing an opposing view in my mind is immature and shows insecurity.
Like I said, the same should apply to EVERY sin then. Adultery - no problem - preach it on Sunday in church. Theft - same. Fraud - same. Murder - same. This isn't differing "perspectives" - this is a war for the souls of mankind, but the world, and sadly, many in the Church, have made it politically incorrect to sound a warning about this particular favorite sin to the point where now, it is actively preached in church (including in my own ward), and nothing is said to the contrary lest bullies shush them. And before you spout off about "we all sin" - yes, we do - so I guess we should all just shut up and not say anything about anything. Hey, Brian, time to close down the forum for good.

-Finrock

[EmmaLee]

First of all, your comparison is a false comparison. You can't change the words as you suggest and my post remain logically or meaningfully consistent. Secondly, changing the word "gay" to "adultery" in my post above would turn logical/reasonable statements in to nonsensical constructs. Thirdly, I would not be opposed to allowing someone who supports "adultery marriages" (whatever that means), to at least speak. In doing so I wouldn't be condoning "adultery marriages" neither would I be supporting them.

-Finrock

Not at all. But let's try again - I'll spell it out for you -

Here's what you said -
"So, its your belief that by allowing a person who is pro-gay marriage to speak at a meeting at church constitutes apostasy for the bishop?

Did the bishop, at any time in the meeting, say "I support gay marriage. I believe gay marriages should be sanctioned by the Church. I believe that the Church is wrong for being against gay marriage. I think it is OK to be a practicing homosexual." Or anything to that affect?"

Now let's change it to -
So, its your belief that by allowing a person who is pro-adultery to speak at a meeting at church constitutes apostasy for the bishop?

Did the bishop, at any time in the meeting, say "I support adultery. I believe adultery should be sanctioned by the Church. I believe that the Church is wrong for being against adultery. I think it is OK to be a practicing adulterer." Or anything to that affect?

If you were the Bishop, and you not only allowed someone to speak in an official church meeting who believes this way, but you organized it and promoted it, and you yourself are a proponent of adultery (going by dozens and dozens of your FB posts) - and you think there's nothing wrong with doing that, then I don't know what else to say, as we obviously believe in two very different gospels and Gods.

[Finrock]

I just scrolled through their Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/susie.augenstein

The Bishop (and his wife) most certainly did hold a 3rd hour meeting in their Parkway ward on Sunday, in which the topic was LGBTQetc. etc. (sorry, don't know all the latest politically correct initials). There were several speakers, at least two of whom are also involved with 'Affirmation', which is a pro-gay 'LDS' group that is trying to change the doctrine of the LDS Church, and who believe same-sex sex is not a sin and does not need to be repented of. https://affirmation.org/ Bishop Augenstein and his wife, Susie, have a shared Facebook account, and almost every single post is about gay people and their causes - the gay cruise the Bishop and his wife are putting together - the gay 3rd hour Sunday meeting (which was indeed recorded) - their gay friends - the gay game night they have at their home once a month, etc. etc. Just by reading through what they post, they seem to be obsessed with the gay life (for example, I only came across one post about their own son, who is in the MTC getting ready for a mission, but dozens and dozens of posts about gay people and topics). If you're on Facebook, look for yourself and come to your own conclusion.

They videotaped the Sunday meeting, with the hopes of spreading it far and wide in the Church, but the Church said no (at least to their credit, they asked permission before sharing it around - they continued on though, saying they will most likely take the audio from it and share that, so not sure there's much difference between sharing the audio vs. the video - the audio is what matters, after all). In reading the comments on these posts - and especially on the posts about the 3rd-hour Sunday meeting, many LDS people are sharing the transcript and video of the meeting with their own Bishops and stake presidents. I wonder how long till this becomes the norm in the Church.

One thing I noticed is they couch and choose their words very carefully, but their overall message seems to be clear (to me anyway). I got zero impression that they believe same-sex sex and relationships are sinful, or that people with same-sex sexual sins should repent (you know, like we encourage people with opposite-sex sexual sins to repent). On the contrary, they delight and have joy in honoring people who are living in same-sex relationships. It is one thing to love people and care about them, regardless of their particular sins, which is something we all as Christians should do - it is entirely something else to believe and promote the idea that these particular sins are not sins and do not need to be repented of.

The Church is aware of this Bishop, and they are aware of this 3rd-hour Sunday meeting they held, etc. because he sent the video of this meeting to Church headquarters. Also, the online 'LDSLiving' magazine is owned by the LDS Church, and it printed one of the talks given at this Bishop's 3rd-hour Sunday meeting - so yes, the Church is very aware of all this. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, happens. I predict nothing will happen, and he will continue serving as Bishop - and we'll see more and more of this type of thing in more and more wards/stakes. It is good to be aware that this is happening so you're not blindsided when it happens in your own ward.

Edited to add - This was a post I'd written to put in the original thread before it was deleted. It may seem oddly placed now since both threads have been merged.

So, its your belief that by allowing a person who is pro-gay marriage to speak at a meeting at church constitutes apostasy for the bishop?

Try not to put words in my mouth, Finrock. Where did I say that that constitutes apostasy? Show me where I said that, or retract your statement. You are breaking forum rules when you do this.

I asked you a question so that I could understand your position. I made no statement.

Did the bishop, at any time in the meeting, say "I support gay marriage. I believe gay marriages should be sanctioned by the Church. I believe that the Church is wrong for being against gay marriage. I think it is OK to be a practicing homosexual." Or anything to that affect?
His entire Facebook page, post after post after post (and I only read for about 1/2 an hour), is dedicated to these things.

As in he says these very statements I asked you about? Or is that your interpretation of his words?

Again, just speaking in principle, there is nothing inherently wrong with simply allowing people of opposing views to share their experiences, talk about their views, or express their opinions. We should be mature enough to be able to handle listening to people who don't agree with our perspetives and in affording them the respect and right to believe how they wish. Doing so doesn't constitute condoning or support. I think allowing for such dialogue, although rare (unfortunately), is a good thing and shows an individual who is quite comfortable with their beliefs, their views, and their religion. Being defensive and disallowing an opposing view in my mind is immature and shows insecurity.
Like I said, the same should apply to EVERY sin then. Adultery - no problem - preach it on Sunday in church. Theft - same. Fraud - same. Murder - same. This isn't differing "perspectives" - this is a war for the souls of mankind, but the world, and sadly, many in the Church, have made it politically incorrect to sound a warning about this particular favorite sin to the point where now, it is actively preached in church (including in my own ward), and nothing is said to the contrary lest bullies shush them. And before you spout off about "we all sin" - yes, we do - so I guess we should all just shut up and not say anything about anything. Hey, Brian, time to close down the forum for good.

-Finrock

What you suggest is a false equivalency. Also, I don't believe that anyone should be "shushed". I believe in open dialogue where all people are treated respectfully and given a voice. The assumption has to be, however, that neither side is superior to the other.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

First of all, your comparison is a false comparison. You can't change the words as you suggest and my post remain logically or meaningfully consistent. Secondly, changing the word "gay" to "adultery" in my post above would turn logical/reasonable statements in to nonsensical constructs. Thirdly, I would not be opposed to allowing someone who supports "adultery marriages" (whatever that means), to at least speak. In doing so I wouldn't be condoning "adultery marriages" neither would I be supporting them.

-Finrock

Not at all. But let's try again - I'll spell it out for you -

Here's what you said -
"So, its your belief that by allowing a person who is pro-gay marriage to speak at a meeting at church constitutes apostasy for the bishop?

Did the bishop, at any time in the meeting, say "I support gay marriage. I believe gay marriages should be sanctioned by the Church. I believe that the Church is wrong for being against gay marriage. I think it is OK to be a practicing homosexual." Or anything to that affect?"

Now let's change it to -
So, its your belief that by allowing a person who is pro-adultery to speak at a meeting at church constitutes apostasy for the bishop?

Did the bishop, at any time in the meeting, say "I support adultery. I believe adultery should be sanctioned by the Church. I believe that the Church is wrong for being against adultery. I think it is OK to be a practicing adulterer." Or anything to that affect?

If you were the Bishop, and you not only allowed someone to speak in an official church meeting who believes this way, but you organized it and promoted it, and you yourself are a proponent of adultery (going by dozens and dozens of your FB posts) - and you think there's nothing wrong with doing that, then I don't know what else to say, as we obviously believe in two very different gospels and Gods.

Adultery and same-sex marriage are not equivalent, except that they are both against what the Church teaches.

-Finrock

[David13]

I just scrolled through their Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/susie.augenstein

The Bishop (and his wife) most certainly did hold a 3rd hour meeting in their Parkway ward on Sunday, in which the topic was LGBTQetc. etc. (sorry, don't know all the latest politically correct initials). There were several speakers, at least two of whom are also involved with 'Affirmation', which is a pro-gay 'LDS' group that is trying to change the doctrine of the LDS Church, and who believe same-sex sex is not a sin and does not need to be repented of. https://affirmation.org/ Bishop Augenstein and his wife, Susie, have a shared Facebook account, and almost every single post is about gay people and their causes - the gay cruise the Bishop and his wife are putting together - the gay 3rd hour Sunday meeting (which was indeed recorded) - their gay friends - the gay game night they have at their home once a month, etc. etc. Just by reading through what they post, they seem to be obsessed with the gay life (for example, I only came across one post about their own son, who is in the MTC getting ready for a mission, but dozens and dozens of posts about gay people and topics). If you're on Facebook, look for yourself and come to your own conclusion.

They videotaped the Sunday meeting, with the hopes of spreading it far and wide in the Church, but the Church said no (at least to their credit, they asked permission before sharing it around - they continued on though, saying they will most likely take the audio from it and share that, so not sure there's much difference between sharing the audio vs. the video - the audio is what matters, after all). In reading the comments on these posts - and especially on the posts about the 3rd-hour Sunday meeting, many LDS people are sharing the transcript and video of the meeting with their own Bishops and stake presidents. I wonder how long till this becomes the norm in the Church.

One thing I noticed is they couch and choose their words very carefully, but their overall message seems to be clear (to me anyway). I got zero impression that they believe same-sex sex and relationships are sinful, or that people with same-sex sexual sins should repent (you know, like we encourage people with opposite-sex sexual sins to repent). On the contrary, they delight and have joy in honoring people who are living in same-sex relationships. It is one thing to love people and care about them, regardless of their particular sins, which is something we all as Christians should do - it is entirely something else to believe and promote the idea that these particular sins are not sins and do not need to be repented of.

The Church is aware of this Bishop, and they are aware of this 3rd-hour Sunday meeting they held, etc. because he sent the video of this meeting to Church headquarters. Also, the online 'LDSLiving' magazine is owned by the LDS Church, and it printed one of the talks given at this Bishop's 3rd-hour Sunday meeting - so yes, the Church is very aware of all this. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, happens. I predict nothing will happen, and he will continue serving as Bishop - and we'll see more and more of this type of thing in more and more wards/stakes. It is good to be aware that this is happening so you're not blindsided when it happens in your own ward.

Edited to add - This was a post I'd written to put in the original thread before it was deleted. It may seem oddly placed now since both threads have been merged.

So, its your belief that by allowing a person who is pro-gay marriage to speak at a meeting at church constitutes apostasy for the bishop?

Did the bishop, at any time in the meeting, say "I support gay marriage. I believe gay marriages should be sanctioned by the Church. I believe that the Church is wrong for being against gay marriage. I think it is OK to be a practicing homosexual." Or anything to that affect?

Again, just speaking in principle, there is nothing inherently wrong with simply allowing people of opposing views to share their experiences, talk about their views, or express their opinions. We should be mature enough to be able to handle listening to people who don't agree with our perspetives and in affording them the respect and right to believe how they wish. Doing so doesn't constitute condoning or support. I think allowing for such dialogue, although rare (unfortunately), is a good thing and shows an individual who is quite comfortable with their beliefs, their views, and their religion. Being defensive and disallowing an opposing view in my mind is immature and shows insecurity.

-Finrock

I agree. So to be proactive, and show that I am loving and kind and open to those with opposing beliefs, I am going to invite my LDS friends and relatives who are living in adultery (and I know quite a few) to come speak at Church. Change the word "gay" above in your post to "adultery". If you don't, then you are being insecure and immature and defensive for disallowing an opposing view. In your mind, of course.

First of all, your comparison is a false comparison. You can't change the words as you suggest and my post remain logically or meaningfully consistent. Secondly, changing the word "gay" to "adultery" in my post above would turn logical/reasonable statements in to nonsensical constructs. Thirdly, I would not be opposed to allowing someone who supports "adultery marriages" (whatever that means), to at least speak. In doing so I wouldn't be condoning "adultery marriages" neither would I be supporting them.

-Finrock

First, you post nonsense about what EmmaLee posted.
Second, that is what the Bishop has done here, he is promoting, sanctioning and encouraging sin. The sin of same sex sexual relations.
And third, if you have pro adultery speakers it is indeed to promote adultery.
dc

[David13]

First of all, your comparison is a false comparison. You can't change the words as you suggest and my post remain logically or meaningfully consistent. Secondly, changing the word "gay" to "adultery" in my post above would turn logical/reasonable statements in to nonsensical constructs. Thirdly, I would not be opposed to allowing someone who supports "adultery marriages" (whatever that means), to at least speak. In doing so I wouldn't be condoning "adultery marriages" neither would I be supporting them.

-Finrock

Not at all. But let's try again - I'll spell it out for you -

Here's what you said -
"So, its your belief that by allowing a person who is pro-gay marriage to speak at a meeting at church constitutes apostasy for the bishop?

Did the bishop, at any time in the meeting, say "I support gay marriage. I believe gay marriages should be sanctioned by the Church. I believe that the Church is wrong for being against gay marriage. I think it is OK to be a practicing homosexual." Or anything to that affect?"

Now let's change it to -
So, its your belief that by allowing a person who is pro-adultery to speak at a meeting at church constitutes apostasy for the bishop?

Did the bishop, at any time in the meeting, say "I support adultery. I believe adultery should be sanctioned by the Church. I believe that the Church is wrong for being against adultery. I think it is OK to be a practicing adulterer." Or anything to that affect?

If you were the Bishop, and you not only allowed someone to speak in an official church meeting who believes this way, but you organized it and promoted it, and you yourself are a proponent of adultery (going by dozens and dozens of your FB posts) - and you think there's nothing wrong with doing that, then I don't know what else to say, as we obviously believe in two very different gospels and Gods.

Adultery and same-sex marriage are not equivalent, except that they are both against what the Church teaches.

-Finrock

But promoting, encouraging, supporting, advocating for, and celebrating them are. And indeed both are against church teaching.
dc

[Mcox]

I predict this bishop won’t be one for long. He mis used his authority in giving a platform(however innocently) to beliefs that are not consistent with church teachings
It’s a fine line between loving the sinner but hating the sin. Tolerance of evil, no matter how loving it seems, will be ones downfall.
The Sabbath day belongs to the Lord. This bishop was way out of line.

[gkearney]

It is likely safe to say that any Bishop whose actions call attention to himself is likely in line to be released.

[Finrock]

So, its your belief that by allowing a person who is pro-gay marriage to speak at a meeting at church constitutes apostasy for the bishop?

Did the bishop, at any time in the meeting, say "I support gay marriage. I believe gay marriages should be sanctioned by the Church. I believe that the Church is wrong for being against gay marriage. I think it is OK to be a practicing homosexual." Or anything to that affect?

Again, just speaking in principle, there is nothing inherently wrong with simply allowing people of opposing views to share their experiences, talk about their views, or express their opinions. We should be mature enough to be able to handle listening to people who don't agree with our perspetives and in affording them the respect and right to believe how they wish. Doing so doesn't constitute condoning or support. I think allowing for such dialogue, although rare (unfortunately), is a good thing and shows an individual who is quite comfortable with their beliefs, their views, and their religion. Being defensive and disallowing an opposing view in my mind is immature and shows insecurity.

-Finrock

I agree. So to be proactive, and show that I am loving and kind and open to those with opposing beliefs, I am going to invite my LDS friends and relatives who are living in adultery (and I know quite a few) to come speak at Church. Change the word "gay" above in your post to "adultery". If you don't, then you are being insecure and immature and defensive for disallowing an opposing view. In your mind, of course.

First of all, your comparison is a false comparison. You can't change the words as you suggest and my post remain logically or meaningfully consistent. Secondly, changing the word "gay" to "adultery" in my post above would turn logical/reasonable statements in to nonsensical constructs. Thirdly, I would not be opposed to allowing someone who supports "adultery marriages" (whatever that means), to at least speak. In doing so I wouldn't be condoning "adultery marriages" neither would I be supporting them.

-Finrock

First, you post nonsense about what EmmaLee posted.
Second, that is what the Bishop has done here, he is promoting, sanctioning and encouraging sin. The sin of same sex sexual relations.
And third, if you have pro adultery speakers it is indeed to promote adultery.
dc

What nonsense did I post about what Emmalee posted?

He is promoting, sanctioning, and encouraging sin simply because he allowed people who have same-sex attraction, who may be pro-gay marriage, etc. to speak at a meeting? Btw, there is a difference between allowing "preaching" and allowing "dialogue".

The same-sex/adultery equivalency is false. Just as the same-sex/murder equivalency is false. Its an emotional appeal. To try to make them equivalent is non-sense. Arguments that try to use such equivalencies to make their point are fallacious.

Simply allowing various sides to speak doesn't not, in any way shape or form, constitute promoting or condoning.

-Finrock

[PressingForward]

Assuming the Stake President was involved/informed of the topic and guest speakers of this meeting, I feel for our future.

[Thinker]

I can see valid points on different sides of this. The highest commandment is to love, but does love mean supporting or encouraging behavior known to be harmful?

Church meetings are intended to essentially teach the basics of the church, specifically, “Teach the gospel, increase in faith and righteousness, and strengthen individuals and families.” https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2 ... h?lang=eng Clearly, these speakers were going against the proclamation of the family - which is central to the gospel. To have guest speakers of another belief may be appropriate as part of a fireside that is more optional than part of a regular Sunday meeting all are expected to attend. This was disrespectful not just to the church but also to members who were kind of a captive audience for preaching lies. Homosexuality has been proven harmful statistically by the United States Center for Disease Control. If I were there, I would’ve been pissed at the bishop for subjecting me & others to lies attempting to deceptively make evil and sickness look good and healthy. I imagine some in that ward are upset about this. As bishop, he is responsible for what speakers and meetings are held - he has help but ultimately he is the one in charge. He didn’t have to come out and say, “Homosexual marriage is great!” His actions and face-book posts speak for themselves.

Yet, considering LDS living (church magazine) being so biased with homosexual lies, I wonder if either GAs are oblivious, apathetic, conflicted or subjecting to homosexual lies. Either way, it’s a reminder to think for oneself, study things out and along with the spirit discern between good and evil. Don’t be apathetic and never blindly follow!

[Thinker]

”Clearly not everyone in the homosexual movement is an extremist. Many are solid, law-abiding citizens who make important daily contributions to our society and do not believe in confrontation or hard-line rhetoric. However, many militant homosexuals and their supporters have different beliefs. They have adopted the following tactics with the goal of forcing their beliefs on society:

*Eliminating free speech by harassing and attempting to silence anyone who disagrees with them;
*Preying on children by indoctrinating and recruiting them into their lifestyle;
*Imposing their beliefs on others through activist judges and lawmakers requiring that everyone actively promote homosexuality in every institution (schools, workplace, churches, etc.);
*Destroying marriage and undermining the traditional family in order to annihilate any moral standard of behavior;
*Intolerance toward anyone who does not willingly submit to their agenda;
*Fighting for a discriminatory and unconstitutional double standard of justice by demanding that crimes against homosexuals be punished more severely than the same crimes against heterosexuals through 'hate crimes' legislation; and
*Deceptively portraying homosexuality as a harmless and victimless behavior.

The homosexual agenda is based on intolerance of anyone who disagrees with them and is a well-coordinated, well-financed, wide-ranging, intensive effort to infiltrate and influence organizations and society at large in order to spread misinformation with the goal of recruiting children...”
http://www.truenews.org/Homosexuality/real_agenda.html

[Rand]

Just what was it that caused the guy who wrote into LDSliving, to feel so loved, when he walked into the room. There was no interaction, no one jumped up and celebrated him, hugged him, shook his hand, introduced themselves to him, was it just the apparent validation of having people, other LGetc, it seems, speaking and taking part in the meeting. Just what in that act caused him to feel loved and accepted? I have seen people of a same sex attraction feel unloved in their ward, but to me, they were more outwardly embraced than any other member of the ward, yet still felt rejected. Why?
It almost looks like it is more of an idea of being validated, rather than loved or accepted. And to validate, you have to confirm their feelings. To confirm their feelings, you almost have to accept their attactions as not only acceptable, but desirable.

[eddie]

Durzan,
I'm sure glad you put this back up, I pictured the forum members with torches ready to string you up!
Rough crowd! Hahaha

[simpleton]

Numbers 25
25 And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.

2 And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.

3 And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel.

4 And the Lord said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel.

5 And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baalpeor.

6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;

8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.

9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

10 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

11 Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy.

12 Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace:

13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.

14 Now the name of the Israelite that was slain, even that was slain with the Midianitish woman, was Zimri, the son of Salu, a prince of a chief house among the Simeonites.

15 And the name of the Midianitish woman that was slain was Cozbi, the daughter of Zur; he was head over a people, and of a chief house in Midian.

16 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

17 Vex the Midianites, and smite them:

18 For they vex you with their wiles, wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of a prince of Midian, their sister, which was slain in the day of the plague for Peor's sake.



As we can see from the above the God of Isreal does not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance... And also look what Phinehas was blessed with from chucking or thrusting a spear through Zimri and Cozbi, He, Phinehas and his children were blessed with an everlasting covenant, even the priesthood, forever.
And you might ask, cannot we marry whom we want to? Seems that God did not think so. So God killed 24,000 of the sons of Isreal for simply wanting those fine looking daughters, commiting whoredoms with them and basicly wanting them for wife....

Now we are doing worse than the children of Isreal did back in those days, we want to encourage the sodomites ( beings as it turns out they are our children, brothers, sisters, parents neighbors etc.) into what should be " the Holy church of God" through this new age invented "Jesus" that just loves everybody and our sins along with it and we shall became one big happy family with Jesus at the head.....

2nd Nephi 28 fits us in supposed "Zion" perfectly.


Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up.

13 They rob the poor because of their fine sanctuaries; they rob the poor because of their fine clothing; and they persecute the meek and the poor in heart, because in their pride they are puffed up.

14 They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.

15 O the wise, and the learned, and the rich, that are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, and all those who preach false doctrines, and all those who commit whoredoms, and pervert the right way of the Lord, wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!

16 Wo unto them that turn aside the just for a thing of naught and revile against that which is good, and say that it is of no worth! For the day shall come that the Lord God will speedily visit the inhabitants of the earth; and in that day that they are fully ripe in iniquity they shall perish.

17 But behold, if the inhabitants of the earth shall repent of their wickedness and abominations they shall not be destroyed, saith the Lord of Hosts.

18 But behold, that great and abominable church, the whore of all the earth, must tumble to the earth, and great must be the fall thereof.

19 For the kingdom of the devil must shake, and they which belong to it must needs be stirred up unto repentance, or the devil will grasp them with his everlasting chains, and they be stirred up to anger, and perish;

20 For behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good.

21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

22 And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance.

23 Yea, they are grasped with death, and hell; and death, and hell, and the devil, and all that have been seized therewith must stand before the throne of God, and be judged according to their works, from whence they must go into the place prepared for them, even a lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment.

24 Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!

25 Wo be unto him that crieth: All is well!

26 Yea, wo be unto him that hearkeneth unto the precepts of men, and denieth the power of God, and the gift of the Holy Ghost!

27 Yea, wo be unto him that saith: We have received, and we need no more!

28 And in fine, wo unto all those who tremble, and are angry because of the truth of God! For behold, he that is built upon the rock receiveth it with gladness; and he that is built upon a sandy foundation trembleth lest he shall fall.

29 Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough!

30 For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.

31 Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.

32 Wo be unto the Gentiles, saith the Lord God of Hosts! For notwithstanding I shall lengthen out mine arm unto them from day to day, they will deny me; nevertheless, I will be merciful unto them, saith the Lord God, if they will repent and come unto me; for mine arm is lengthened out all the day long, saith the Lord God of Hosts.

So if we repent, if we repent, if we repent, if we repent....God will be merciful....

But from what I see we are digressing as a whole, not progressing. We are now throwing our arms around the sin of sodomy, besides many other sins, all in the name of our new found "Jesus" who does not discriminate against any body and our sins.
"Wo unto those that are at ease in Zion", that is for those that think the above Nephi 28 does not apply to us in Mormondom.
Apply and liken all of the scriptures unto us especially Isaiah.
They do not have any good to say at all to us wicked in Zion. Choose ye this day whom ye shall serve, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob , or, the master of Sodom and Gomorrah...

Psalms 14:

1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord.

5 There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.

6 Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the Lord is his refuge.

7 Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the Lord bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad.

[cyclOps]

To enter in to a Celestial marriage is one of the main reasons we came to this earth. Celestial marriage is between a man and a woman and will never include same sex marriage. That is truth.

I see why that is an enormous challenge to those who have same sex attraction. God loves all his children, and I try to love everyone as He does. I certainly don’t hate those with same sex attraction, nor do I think they are less than. We all fall victim to temptation on some days, and withstand it on others. God sets the standard. We must obey His commandments because it is the only way we can become like Him.

[ebenezerarise]

Hmmm....just wondering if anyone here sees how similar this seemingly appears to be to the Brigham Young-Orson Pratt disputes in open meetings about the Adam-God doctrine.

Until I hear the whole meeting -- and the Bishops remarks in particular about it -- i will withhold judgment. I think there is a lot of knee jerking going on here and, as always it seems on LDSFF, devastating extremism.

[mirkwood]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater