HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W)
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41.UAC
Organization: University of Alaska - Fairbanks
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 06:06:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.214828.8103@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes...
>From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
>> lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:
>...
>> >   Jesus Christ: According to Mormonism Jesus Christ was one of the spirit so
>> >   of the God Elohim. Jesus was was Jehovah, the God of the old testament. Go
>> >   the Father visited Mary and had marital relations with her so that Jesus
>> >   could be born with a human body.
>>
>> No, there is no explicit Mormon teaching that teaches this.
>> The only thing that Mormons teach is that God, the Father is the
>> father of Jesus Chirst, not the Holy Ghost.
>>
>> There is no LDS doctrine that explains in unambiguous terms what
>> the *method* of conception was.
> 
>        No... but 'widely held official speculation.' The father of
>the Mormon Jesus is an exalted being of flesh and bones who begat
>Jesus' physical body in the same physical way our fathers begat ours.
>The Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie stated:

*     *     *     <material deleted>     *     *      *      *      *

In my opinion, discussions about God's sex life or lack thereof are
disrespectful to Him.  If He had wanted us to know all about it, I'm sure he
could have included a lot of information about it in the scriptures.  He
certainly left a lot of other information out, presumably because he didn't
consider it important for us to know at the present time.

And what is your fascination with this subject?  You seem to be a great deal
more interested in it than any Mormon I have known.  Are you sure your interest
isn't prurient?  And what if Mormons did believe that Christ was conceived as
the result of natural reproductive processes?  Does that make them any less
Christian?  Just who do you think set up the process of procreation, anyway?  I
don't believe it was a man.  If it was, somebody should give him a medal.

Your problem is you know the words in the Bible, but you have forgotten the
meaning of the words.  Maybe it is the Christians that aren't Christians?

In any case, why can't you just disagree with us without foaming at the mouth? 
Of course we're wrong by your estimation.  So what?  If you agreed with us you
would be a Mormon yourself.

Don't you think you could get closer to Christ by practicing your own faith
than by tearing down ours?  We Mormons believe it makes God sad to see his
children fighting about Jesus.  


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:42:02 GMT

In article <exukjb.283.718224886@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>>In article <fTq3rz2@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>>No, it was this idiot, what can I say. But maybe you are right. So, YO,
>>>ERIC and KEN, WAKE UP! What do you guys think about faith based on
>>>inductive logic?
>>I have no idea, since your meaning for "faith" is unclear.
>The most salient difference between belief and faith, as I have said before, 
>is the component of valuation involved in the faith attitude, and which is
>not present in the belief attitude.

Well, yes.  This seems fairly reasonable.  However, it's not the definition
that Paul seems to be using; as far as I can tell, he uses the word "faith"
to refer to every belief (valued or not) as well as a bunch of other things.
--
"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)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Jesus for President
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:42:38 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep26.204559.21636@ncsu.edu>, cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu 
(CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes:
> So he turns you and the others who are running into pillars of salt!

Won't help him.  He died under the age of 35, so doesn't make that requirement,
and is not a native born American Citizen.

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:28:05 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <BvEqEB.xB@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.014457.25899@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> 
>arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>In article <BvD58q.Fz5@inews.Intel.COM> 
>pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>>Of what use is an true metaphor?     
>>>Of what use is an false metaphor?   
>>Whether or not something is useful is rather different from whether or not
>>something is _there_.
>Yes, utility and existance are two different concepts.

If they are two different concepts, why did you try to back up "there is no
such thing as a true or false metaphor" by rhetorically suggesting that
true and false metaphors are not useful?

Just because true and false metaphors are not useful does not mean that there
is no such thing as one.
--
"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: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:16:23 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <69250@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
}In article <1992Sep28.192927.23673@linus.mitre.org> zobell@lute.mitre.org (Steve Zobell) writes:
}|
}|In article <69165@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
}|There is evidence against a global flood since there are archeological
}|sites from before the "time of the flood" that show no evidence of ever
}|being submerged (eg. the pyramids).
}
}Then it seems that the pyramids were build after the flood.  Weren't the
}Hebrews working on building things way after the flood?  Flood was in
}Genesis 9 and the Hebrews were building things for Pharoahs in Exodus.

let's look at the Biblical dates. I Kings 6:1 says that 480 years
passed from the start of the Exodus to the start of construction on the
first temple by Solomon. Gal 3:17 says that 430 years passed from the
cevenant with Abraham to the delivery of the Law to Moses. The chapters of
Genesis after the Flood accound give the periods in years that passed
between the births of various individuals from Noah to Abraham, giving a
period of 390 years from the Flood to the covenant with Abraham. Thus,
according to the Bible, the Flood took place 1300 years before Solomon began
construction of the first temple.

	a) This is a clear, direct, falsifiable claim. These are clear,
	unambiguous statements that a period of X years elapsed between
	two events.

	b) The event itself (a global Flood that wiped out all but 8 
	humans) would be pretty hard to miss or gloss over.

	c) Because there were any number of literate cultures in the
	near East, who recorded dynastic lists, raised monuments
	giving dates and length of reigns, and sent ambassadors to each
	others' courts, we can pretty reliably construct chronologies
	for near Easter history, particularly for Egypt, and without
	reference to (but supported by) dating methods such as carbon-14
	with corrections from tree-ring sequences.

	d) The upshot of which is that the building of the first temple
	can be dated to 950 B.C. +- some small delta, placing the Flood
	around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egytians (among others) have
	written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great 
	Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years
	before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian
	inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C.

	e) Therefore, either we have to reject the historicity of the
	Flood account; accept the historicity of the Flood account,
	but explain away the clear Biblical dating of the event; or
	accept the Biblical account and chronology, and reject the
	massive amount of written and archaological evidence estab-
	lishing the chronology of history in the near East.



Try again, Richard.
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered 9
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:17:41 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <BvBIpt.Fnr@acsu.buffalo.edu>, 
psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
[...]
> 	Could you amplify this? How does one know, using the 
> following, that something is from God?
> 
> D&C 50:19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he
> receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
> 
> D&C 50:20 If it be some other way it is not of God.
> 
> D&C 50:21 Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know,
> that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it
> as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?

This is difficult because we begin to use ambiguous and efemeral
terms to describe such things, but I will try.

Disclaimer:  The following is *my* personal opinion.  Other LDS
may not have the same or similar opinions, and should not be bound
by my opinion.

As I said in another post, the one thing that the devil cannot
imitate is peace of mind.

When one receives the word of the truth, he not only gets is from
the one preaching, but the Spirit also confirms the words of the
one preaching and/or preaches the truth can can expound upon to the 
receiver in a very personal way and in ways that one the receiver
can understand.
 
> D&C 50:22 Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth,
> understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.

In addition to this, the Spirit gives feedback to the preacher
(if they are there in person) that the truths being presented are
being received, even sometimes, how well they are being
received, and/or how it is effecting the receiveer.

This kind of three-way communication:

preacher  <->  Holy Spirit  <->  receiver

is what causes the preacher and ther receiver to understand one
another.  It is also a very uplifting (edifying) experience.

> D&C 50:23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is
> darkness.

The other form of communication;

preacher -> receiver

is rarely edifying, and difficult for a true understanding to
occur between the two.  Thus it is like darkness in comparison to
the other form.

> D&C 50:24 That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, 
> and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth 
> brighter and brighter until the perfect day.

The Sspirit will preach to you as much as you are able understand
for the moment, you are then tested to see if you will accept or
reject what you now understand before anything further is given
to you.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Family values defined
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:17:56 GMT
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research
Originator: jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts):
> No you are for you don't want to conform - we have to conform to some 
> extent.

then draw the line for us, pitts -- don't weasel out of
your "religious" (sneer quotes) fascist position on family
values.  tell us to what extent society should make us
conform, especially regarding the family.  don't forget,
however, that there are more perspectives to society than
just your brand of "religion."

and why do you ignore me, pitts?  it isn't because i'm
a homosexual, is it?  or is it that your tyrannical
position is so weak that it can't be justified in the face
of a successful alternative?  come on, pitts, if you're
going to eradicate the cultural elite, you'll need to face
us at some point...
-- 
Queer Without A Cause!
Jason Coughlin ( jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com )
"I find myself suddenly in the world, and I recognize that I have one
right alone: that of demanding human behavior of the other." -- Fanon
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: WANTED: Former LDS, now Born Again Christian for Thesis Project
Date: 26 Sep 92 21:09:11 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <b1aB02Bt23GI01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
*The question at hand is not whether or not God COULD HAVE revealed these
*things to Joseph and Brigham.  The question at hand is DID HE do this?
*To find out the answer to this, since you know the Bible is God's word,
*and that he is unchangeable (Mal 3:6) and does not lie, you can judge the
*newer revelations (BoM, D&C, etc..) by the older revelation (Bible) and
*if they match, then maybe he DID do this.  If they don't match, then he
*did not. End of Discussion!

Tony is on the right track.  However, we must be careful to define
in what way God is "unchangeable".  Although God is "unchangeable", the
same God who said to Moses, "Thou shalt not kill" commanded Joshua to
to slay every one of the inhabitants of several cities in canaan.

Robert
From: jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin)
Subject: Arrogance (was Family values defined)
Originator: jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 18:44:22 GMT
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts):
> No problem.  I don't preach myself - rejection of me is rejection of the
> Lord, for I preach Jesus as Lord and me his servant.

let's rearrange: "i preach jesus as lord and me his
servant.  therefore, rejection of me is rejection of
the lord."  sounds like unmitigated arrogance.
-- 
Queer Without A Cause!
Jason Coughlin ( jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com )
"I find myself suddenly in the world, and I recognize that I have one
right alone: that of demanding human behavior of the other." -- Fanon
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Metaphors, was (The Adam and Eve Thing)
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:07:54 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <BvIDuG.FAE@inews.Intel.COM>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul
Harvey) wrote:
> METAphors are neither true nor false, they are of course METAphoric.
> Do you have an example that proves my theory wrong?

Yeah, the turtle! Still waiting for your answer, mate.

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.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:17202 alt.atheism:18054
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 27 Sep 92 10:36:25 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) writes:
> In article <Bv3IGp.AH7@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com
> (Paul Harvey) writes:
> >>More precisely, I do not ever choose to believe something (that is
> >>insufficiently evidenced) simply because believing it would be "of
> >>value" or "useful".
> >
> >Then why do you believe anything?
> 
> Because I find that believing in things that *are* sufficiently
> evidenced is in fact "of value" and "useful".

Er, what's the difference between "sufficiently evidenced" and "of value /
useful"?

Can you give us an example of something which is useful to believe although
there's no evidence?  Or something for which there is tons of evidence but
which is entirely useless to believe?


mathew
-- 
"He is heterosexual.  It is a sort of breath of fresh air, isn't it?  The
 indecent assault, an expression of his sexuality." -- Judge Geoffrey Jones
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Metaphors, was (The Adam and Eve Thing)
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:10:31 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <fTmDrbc@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>Or are you saying that the metaphors above are all false?

You're doing it again.  Maybe the metaphors you gave aren't true or false.  So
what?

"The above metaphors are not true or false"

and

"There is no such thing as a metaphor which is true or false"

are _not_ the same thing.  You claim the latter, and have attempted to support
it with the former--and that doesn't support it.  The first one refers to
particular metaphors, and the second to all metaphors.  Just because particular
metaphors aren't true or false does not mean that the same is true of all
of them.
--
"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)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: More fun with METAphors was (The Adam and Eve Thing)
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<ksand-041092165220@wintermute.apple.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 05:36:41 GMT

In article <ksand-041092165220@wintermute.apple.com> 
ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>However, as you know, we could show if the turtle metaphor is true or 
>false. Figure out a way why this is not the case, and I could believe you.

OK, I challenge you. The metaphor is that the earth is carried through
its orbit on the back of a turtle. Now, prove that this metaphor is true
or false. Let me guess. You're gonna tell me that you've already dug a
hole in your back yard and you didn't find any turtle legs. You've
proven that the earth is not supported on the back of a turtle. However
you have proven nothing about the validity of the metaphor. Please,
prove to me that the metaphor is false. Please prove to me that this
metaphorical turtle does not exist or does exist. Keep in mind that a
physical turtle is not the same as a metaphorical turtle. Good luck,
post when you've got something. Happy hunting. And remember, metaphors
are transcendent of true/false reductionism.
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:13:29 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <BvGHur.2t4.2@cs.cmu.edu>, garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> My little encyclopedia says that the office of Inquisition
> was dissolved in 1820.  I'll leave it up to the more informed
> people in t.r.m. to enlighten "cotera."
> 
> Susan

My various Catholic friends tell me that the office was not abolished, but
renamed.  The present inheritor to the office of Grand Inquisitor is one Josehp
Cardinal Ratzinger.

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS: Goodbye!
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:05:11 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Distribution: na
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <92271.111654HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET> HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET writes:
>
>
>If the anti-Mormons would: 1- Stick to one issue at a time
>until that issue is resolved, and 2- Respond to the LDS answers
>instead of endlessly repeating their same attacks over and
>over, I might consider continuing the discussion.  As things
>stand, however, I am wasting my time.  (I am also in the
>process of finishing a book manuscript, and have no spare time
>whatsoever.)
>
>But no matter what the anti-Mormons say, I know that I am a
>Christian, and so does God.  I do not understand everything
>about the nature of Christ and God, and I no doubt have
>numerous erroneous ideas about scripture and doctrine.
>Nonetheless, I sincerely believe in Christ and try to follow
>him.  If that's not good enough for the anti-Mormons, that's
>their problem.

1.  I am not an anti-Mormon.
2.  I am trying to read and respond to all these posts and to all the
    personal mail I am receiving.  I have access to this newsgroup at
    work, and I do have to work!  I take printouts home everyday and
    research and respond for hours!  I will follow the above guidelines
    that you set forward above if you will.  We can wipe the slate
    clean and start over if you wish.

I am truly interested in the LDS.  Not from an antagonistic point of view,
but from an inquiry point of view.  I have read the above books you
referred to, and I still have questions.  I think that we believe many
different things, and we both cannot be right.  If your church really
has the Truth, then I want to know about it, and it should be able to
withstand the test of inquiry if it is True.

As I stated before, at the end of this lifetime, if you are right, I will
have no choice but to accept it.  Likewise, if I am right, you will only
have the same choice.  I think it is our responsibility to find out which
way is correct before we have no choice.  If you are sincerely interested
in Truth, then I would like for you to continue to post your side of the
discussions.  If you are not interested in Truth, but only in defending
what you already believe, then it would probably be best if you left the
discussions to those of us that are intereted in finding the Truth.

I am making an attempt to understand Mormonism.  I have questions that
Mormons don't seem to want to answer.  I just got back last week from
spending my week's vacation in Salt Lake City trying to make an attempt
to understanding the LDS church.  I drove 17 hours both ways for this
trip.  If you want to talk about Truth, then don't hang up the phone.  If
you want to argue over beliefs, then please hang up.

In love and respect:
-tony