HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:58:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.063151.649@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
>
>Myths concerning BoM archeaology became so widespread that the
>Nationanal Museum of Natural History, Smithstonian Institute,
>had to produce a statement concerning the BoM.  In part it says,
>   '... the fact that none of the principle Old World
>   domesticated food plants or animals (except dog) occurred
>   in the New World in pre-Columbian times.  American Indians
>   had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs,
>   chickens, horses, donkeys, camels, before 1492. ...'
>
>The BoM bears the marks of a man writing about early 1800's
>upstate New York.  I can mail you a xerox of the statement,
>it is dated 1986.
>
>Mark
 
   The event's as you've "reported" them as a little skewed
   and the whole thing has been discussed to death before,

   May I suggest that you mail Barry O, and get his notes.

   If you want to start from scratch (again), I suggest
   that you read (it was either a BYU studies Winter '87 or
   a Dialog from the same time period.)  There was also
   an attempt at the recovery in one of the FARMs bulleins

   (But you have that information already) This is an old
   and oft discussed topic




But your point, is that since the BoM can not be believed then
Mormons should be able to gain a testimony of it, right?




-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians? (Was: WANTED Former LDS,...)
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:59:56 GMT

From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
> In article <1992Oct2.203636.29896@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.
..
> >        Agreeing with McConkie on the question of who "Elohim" and
> >"Jehovah" are, the Apostle James E. Talmage stated:
>
> 	Gee Talmage (who wrote _Jesus The Christ_ maybe 40 years before
>   McConkie wrote either _Mormon Doctrine_ or McConkie's Christ multi-volume
>   set) would be glad to know that that you think that they have stated
>   the LDS position on Christ and God properly.

I'm glad to see an LDS standing by the church's position rather than
knifing the dead GA's.

>  By the way do you see that the poetic utterins of David are sufficent
>  for NT doctrine?

All I see is the LDS leading people to a different god -- not the one
historically worshipped by the Jews and Christians.

Do you really beleive the Mormon god is 'Min',  sitting on a throne
with an errection?  Thats what the Pearl of Great Price says.

Mark
<standard disclaimer>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:07:43 GMT

From: robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr)
> Do they teach the following teaching of Jesus:
 [... lots of words about Jesus deleted ...]

         But, remember the LDS position: Apostle Bruce R. McConkie
rightly stated: "Salvation comes only by worshiping the true God."
(Promised Messiah, p. 163) McConkie also rightly stated that "the mere
worship of a god who has the proper scriptural names does not assure
one that he is worshiping the true and living God," because the "true
names of Deity" can be applied to "false concepts of God." (Mormon
Doctrine, p. 270) Remember that the Apostle Stephen L. Richards
admitted that Joseph Smith, Jr., gave "a new conception of God and the
Godhead." (Contributions of Joseph Smith, p.1)

         And this does not even touch the LDS position that Jesus is
Jehovah, with his father being some other god named 'Elohim'.  Although
these are 'scriptural names', it does not describe 'the true and living
God' of the Bible.

Mark
<standard disclaimer>

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 23:07:47 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Oct9.180117.22191@linus.mitre.org>, zobell@lute.mitre.org
(Steve Zobell) wrote:
> Here we have a nice little example of how false beliefs (such as
> religions) are started and maintained.  A liar like Dr. Kennedy says
> something untrue.  People like Richard believe what they hear, not
> necessarily because it sounds true, but perhaps because it verifies
> something else they believe or because it makes them feel better about
> their lifes.  People who think and investigate before they believe
> expose the lie.  But now, the believers already believe and will 
> defend the lies even in the face of strong counter evidence. 

My main concern is that believers want to believe what they think is 
real, and when they find any kind of outside source that verifies their
beliefs, they will blindly believe every word without any ounce of
private skeptical background analysis. Sigh.

I've tried to read various books dealing with the historical aspects
of Jesus, and the more I read, the more I'm personally convinced that
historically speaking this person was not a very important one in the
perspective of events in Israel 2000 years ago. Moreover, it seems
we have many other Messiah candidates, and the whole place was 
an explosive area full of fanatical Jews and Romans trying to keep
the situation under control. The interesting aspect is how one of these
Messiah candiates ended up as a Gentile religion figure.

Anyway, I don't blindly believe author A or B; I'm trying to make
my own mind based on information. And this is a far better situation
than using someone solely for evidence. Moreover, I'm neither a good
skeptical thinker, but I'm aware of my weak points in thinking.

Cheers,
Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Idaho
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:36:42 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research

In article <1992Oct9.142839.20827@csrd.uiuc.edu>, skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg M. Skinner) writes:
|> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1992Oct8.150649.24255@csrd.uiuc.edu>, skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu
|> >(Gregg M. Skinner) wrote:
|> >> >I guess it was a naive attempt to map this Idaho joke to those
|> >> >who don't believe Jesus was a God.
|> >> 
|> >> It's not necessary to guess.  I stated that the post relates to the
|> >> criticism that most "evidence" for "Jesus" comes from believers.
|> >> 
|> >> Nothing more, nothing less.
|> 
|> >And the criticism is actually valid.
|> 
|> In the spirit of the parody, then, we can levy a like criticism
|> against those who tell us that Idaho is a state.  Most (if not all)
|> the "evidence" we have seen for "Idaho" comes from believers.
|> 
|> (There are, of course, vast differences between the claim that Idaho
|> exists and the various claims about Jesus.  Valid criticisms can be
|> made of the latter.  But this particular criticism is pathetic.)
|> --

There is one CRUCIAL difference. A disbeliever in "Idaho exists" can independently verify
that the statement is true (by going there) - he does not HAVE to rely on the testimony
of the believers.  

A  disbeliever in "Jesus walked on the water" can not do this. All that we have is the
testimony of the believers. Furthermore, this testimony is internally inconsistent, 
contradicts other testimony of non-believers on other matters, and comes at least 30-80
years after the fact (not to mention contradicting our knowledge of the world around us).

Using this criticism is not "pathetic", it's a necessary step in determining the credibility
of the evidence!


|> Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.
|> 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: QUESTION
Keywords: Typical Anti-Mormon Misuse of Social Statistics
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:18:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.112556.7628@cbnews.cb.att.com> wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith) writes:
>Mr Rose claims that Utah has the highest teen pregnacy rate. Not true.
>Available information show that the rate for out-of-wedlock-births in the
>state of Utah was ...

Teen pregnancy and out-of-wedlock are not the same thing....

You also have to take into account different amounts of poor minorities that
have high birth rates.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Flat earth?
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:01:03 GMT
Reply-To: pwhite@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <1992Oct14.173719.22964@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
|> In article <29016@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> pwhite@ems.cdc.com writes:
|> }There is a book, "The Fingerprint of God" (I think the author's name is Hugh 
|> }Ross) which does an excellent job of talking about creation and how, in fact, the
|> }Bible is consistent with a large number of scientific facts.
|> 
|> Naturally!  When a book contains contradictions within itself on a topic,
|> half of them are right.  Q.E.D.
|> 
|> 
|> Cleverly, they don't mention that the other half contradict the ones mentioned
|> and observable reality...

Not so in the Fingerprint of God, also not so in the Bible. Perhaps in other
books.
-- 
Peter White
disclaimer: None of what is written necessarily reflects 
     			a view of my company.
			If you don't know the truth, I hope you'll find it.
			If you do know the truth, I hope you'll maintain 
			   at least some semblance of humility.
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Usenet Forum
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:43:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct13.054255.21734@macc.wisc.edu>, bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner) writes...
>Ok, it's time for a show of hands.  How many of you who voted against
>putting the LDS discussion into a unique USENET forum now regret it?


Dana,
	I didn't vote on the CFV, but I am not certain that we would 
have a different forum here. The LDS forum was to have been moderated. 
I think that it is safe to say that many of the posts that have been 
seen here would never have been approved. And so, in all likelihood, 
this newsgroup would not have changed.

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<ksand-061092185313@wintermute.apple.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:19:53 GMT

In article <ksand-061092185313@wintermute.apple.com> 
ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>Eh? We are the most intelligent animal on this planet, and also 
>mostly responsible for the ecological mess. It has nothing to
>do with crutches, it's a fact.

Very good. I knew you would like this free will stuff. Jah! Ras TafarI,
eh?

>Hehehe, I have NIV indexed on my computer, I guess that's a statement
>that I have actually done searches in the Bibles. What's your point
>anyway, I someone does not believe in a nomad tribe ritual or myth,
>it's the person's private issue.

OK, read the part where the Lord delivers our kind FROM slavery.

>Yes, it's true, the family should take responsibility of me until 
>I'm old enough to take care of myself.

Oh really? And when will that be?  :::B^}

>If you maintain that we have 
>free will and could take care of ourselves, watch CNN instead of 90210.

Failure is nothing to be ashamed of. When one walks the freedom walk,
one will sometimes fall on one's face. But, there is no need for shame.
Learn from your failures, that is the only way to learn. Doing the right
thing is not easy, but what else is there for us to do? Surely you don't
propose that we be puppets on a string, slaves to an all knowing slave
master? There is a time to grow up and that time is now. In whose image
were we created any how?

>OK, flying saucers have taken over the US government, right here, right
>now. And people don't see it. Isn't it strange?

That's Jehovah-1 (aka Wotan, Yahweh, RA, etc). See the Book of the
SubGenius for details. The SubGenius must have SLACK!!!!!

>Sigh. In your definition God is the landlord, and gave people free
>will to roam around in a bad apartment. And if people die by falling
>through the wall, your landlord is stating that: "Too bad, they had
>free will to jump through the wall anyway, it's not my fault that
>the apartment is in shambles". It would certainly not work in a
>court case.

I never defined God as a landlord! The transcendent is transcendent and
that certainly includes transcendence over landlord-renter
relationships. Keep at that freedom talk though, you'll get the hang of
it.  ::B^}

>> I don't care who the guy is, I know my right.
>> How about you Kent, do you know your right?
>> The right to stand, and the right to fall?
>> The right to succeed, and the right to fail?
>> The right to live, and the right to die?

>I find it interesting that when one's own faith is poor, the
>individual falls into a sermon mode in order to convert the
>other side using plain faith. How pathetic. Please, could 
>we stick to logical reasoning instead of evangelical mumbo-jumbo,
>thanks?

What is non-logical about the above statements?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:19:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.111844.59702@cc.usu.edu>, slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
> 
[...]
> The protrusion in question is protruding fron the stomach area,
> (I'd guess about halfway between the navel and the solor-plexus)
> not the groin, or between the legs.
> 
> Maybe the figure is wearing a strap-on dildo and just put it on
> too high.  :-)
> 
Good one. Non-binary thinking.

Or the painter needed to place the penis higher for emphasis.

barry--
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:08:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.103514.59693@cc.usu.edu>, slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
> 
> [...]
[me]
> >>> Do the magical undergarments really protect one from the devil?
> >> 
[Jason]
> >> Why don't you ask him yourself?

Jason, this was a slap meant to imply I follow the devil(or do you
have some other explanation), but I didn't cry about it.

> > 
[me]
> > He said No. He just asks you to wear them 'cause they look funny.
> 
> Go ahead an mock me then.  I don't care, because I know the Lord
> looks upon the heart and not the outward appearance.

Jason, my response was designed against your slap?

> 
> Barry, Tony, Mark,
> 
> If you ever succeed if persuading me to leave the LDS Church, I
> would become an atheist before affiliating myself with
> "Christians" like you.
> 
> You might win the battle and still lose the war.

Fine, I promise I will never force you to live or hang out with me.

[concerning the repellant undergarments]
> > something "restored" that christianity lost. why the embarrassment?
> 
> Because, Barry, you court us into disclosing that which is most
> sacred to us, and when we do you mock us for what you see.

Jason, Joseph gave you those garments. You accepted them from Joseph
(indirectly). I'm asking if they protect you from the devil. Why keep
ducking into the bushes. Just answer please.
I am not trying to "entice" you into relinguishing power. Does talking
about the garments(in public for instance)nullify their power?

> 
> It's like persuading someone to disrobe in public and then
> laughing at them at them if they do, or mocking them and their
> body parts.

I promise not to ask you to disrobe in public, honest. I'm asking
about the power of the garments. After all, Joseph gave the world the
restored gospel. You affiliate with the restoration. the garments are
part of the restoration. I want to know why they exist, and if they
have power to repel the devil.

> [...]
[me]
> > Well, are they mentioned in scripture?
> 
> *I* believe they are.  But it's *my* interpretation of the Biblical
> passages.  Your interpretaion differs, no doubt.  So posting the
> passages or references is moot.

Ok, what passages did Joseph Smith give? 

> 
> I don't want to argue or even debate about it, because doing so
> won't affect my salvation that I have worked out between God,
> Jesus, and me one iota.

You love to argue and debate about everything else that doesn't
alter your standing with God. Why the hush, hush all of a sudden?

> 
> Therefore, you and I would come to an impasse.
> 
Gosh Jason, when did THAT ever stop you from arguing on the net?

barry--
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 10 Oct 92 20:09:44 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct9.143411.12488@news.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <24LM02pw25ca01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.020716.26998@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>In article <cfhR02OR24a101@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>>>If you get on the wrong plane you will arrive in the wrong city!  If you
>>>>sincerely believe in the wrong Christ, you will end up in the wrong
>>>>eternity.
>>>How far does this go, Mr. Rose?
>>>Your statement implies that anyone who deviates in the slightest from
>>>correct doctrine(or at least correct Christology) is damned. Is this
>>>correct?
>>You are adding words that I am not saying!
>I used a question mark. I'm trying to get you to clarigy.
>
>> What I am saying is that if
>>you believe and trust in all your heart in the wrong thing, then you are
>>wrong.  You can be right in every area of theology, but if you are wrong
>>on the area of who God is and who Jesus is, then you are wrong enough to
>>lose you soul for eternity.  Other doctines are periphal.  That is what
>>I am saying.
>I don't see how you're saying anything different from what I said.
>You write
>(If you are wrong on the area of why God is(theology) or who Jesus
>is (Christology) then you are wrong enough to lose your soul for
>eternity.)
>
>Is your position really that anyone who does not agree with your
>Christology is damned? This seems to be what you are saying, sir.
>-Ekr

No, that is FAR from what I am saying.  But Mormons LOVE to twist what I
am saying to make it sound like what you are saying I am saying.  I think
the issue is dead.  The audience can see my point and what you are trying
to do with it.



Don't follow me!  Follow HE!
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:03:41 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Oct13.024229.6978@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>,
 press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
>>  press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
>> [...]
>>> the lds says(like Jason), do you presume to know the
>>> interpretations better than the lds? 
>> 
>> No, what we are saying is: "Do you presume to know the *LDS*
>> interpretations better than the LDS?"
> 
> I think not. Joseph Smith Jr. displaced the christians with His
> interpretations and said in effect, these interpretations are
> correct, yours are skewed, corrupted, abominations, etc. You
> wish to ignore this historical displacement?

Thank you for proving my point.  This is *your* interpretation
of what Smith said, *not* the *LDS* interpretation of what Smith
said.

[...]
>> Mormons are not inerrantists.
> 
> The lds cannon scriptures contain errors?

Yes, they do.  No Mormon I know of ever claimed they are word
perfect.  The only ones I know making *that* claim are
anti-Mormons.

Look at Ether 12:23-25; 1 Nephi 19:6.

>> Mormons do not believe in infallable prophets or leaders.
> 
> Your inspired prophets babble on in unispired rhetoric?

They are just as human as you and me.  Humans make mistakes. 
Maybe you believe that prophets lose their ability to succom to
pride, boasting, or other human weaknesses (like Moses, Sampson,
and Peter).

>> Mormons do not believe in infallable scripture.
> 
> Mormons have no infallible scripture?

No, they do not.  Despite your attempt to force infallability
upon us, it just doesn't apply.  Anything that involoves humans
is subject to human errors.  That's just the nature of things.

> Do the magical undergarments really protect one from the devil?

Why don't you ask him yourself?

> Are the undergarments infallible? 
> Are devil repellent undergarments
> mentioned anywhere in the christian scriptures. Were these undergarments
> part of the "secrets of the kingdom" that were lost with the twelve
> apostles?
> You will no doubt be tempted to defuse these questions, but they are
> serious. 

No, they are cantankerous, insolent questions intented to inflame
and stir up contention, and to ridicule another's beliefs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc