HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism is not Christian should be the title, not Mormons.
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:59:24 GMT
Organization: AT&T



Tony,

I agree. *Mormonism* and what the Mormon prophets taught is the
real issue, not the individuals who are members.

barry--
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:10:23 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Oct12.204909.23793@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1bcjqmINNhch@cascade.ens.tek.com> davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes:
>>  From my perspective, God can be compared to a Master Gardner. And
>>all Master Gardners know that the best way to prevent weeds is to
>>plant more flowers. In my opinion, Christ can be likened to a Master
>>Gardner. Christ did not go around pulling weeds. He operated by means
>>of a planter of flowers. He went amoung the sinners and planted flowers
>>by helped them.
>
>If Jesus is a master gardener of this kind, he's an incompetent one.  To
>properly run a garden, of _course_ you have to pull weeds.

  Sorry, but for good weed control, you do not need to pull weeds. Just 
plant more flowers. The flowers will smother the weeds and keep them away. 

  Gardeners, really competent ones, approach gardening from the perspective
that weed control is best done by planting more flowers. They know the
advantage of using flowers to keep weeds away. Planting flowers also adds
beauty, and is a way of creating more life within a given area. And in
in the long run, the planting of flowers for weed control is a lot less 
work than approaching weed control as one of a weed puller. Without planting
flowers to keep weeds away, the weeds will always come back. What kind of
weed control is that?

  There is a flip in perspectives between a person who is working with life 
as God works with life, or as a planter of flowers, and the person who is 
fighting life and working against life by pulling it out by its roots. 

  Also you can be sure that the weed puller is going to blow it and instead
of pulling out weeds, yank a flower out by its roots instead. The same thing
happens in life. The person who thinks that they can correct sin by pulling 
it out by its roots it going to also pull out the flowers as well. 

>I believe that given the context, this means I have just demonstrated that,
>_from your own premises_, churches must be attacked.

  You lost me. I have no idea from where you got this wrong minded premise. 

>That is a problem with excessive proof-by-analogy: if your analogy is wrong,
>you suddenly end up with an airtight proof of the wrong thing....

  Maybe. But I do not see my Beloved God as anything other than a planter
of flowers. While he was hanging out with the sinners, Jesus Himself was 
not pounding on their doors telling them how damned they were because of 
their actions. Instead, he was filling thier hearts with His love and 
compasion. His approach was that of planter of flowers. Plain and simple. 



	Love is the life force breathed
	into the Heart/Mind flower center
	of harmonious human relationships.
			Al Huang

	David Hatcher
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: they have eyes yet they do not see, was (I'm God) [340+ LINES]
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:22:35 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
> >|Yeshua, if he even existed, did not pull the wool over many of the eyes
> >I thought most people believed he existed - some just don't attribute
> >the glory to him he deserves.
> 
> Well, let's just say the historical evidence is at best weak.
> 
> >|of Hellenistic Jews. It remained for Paul to take Christianity and
> >|market it to the remains of the Roman Empire. Clearly, "convert or die"
> >How can you say Paul preached what the Romans like in light of:
> >   Acts 16:19-22

Well, Romans really liked Paul, read the end of Acts where the Romans
save Paul from an angry mob of Jews ready to kill him. Paul
started Christianity, but he wasn't prepared to die for it.

Cheers,
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:18441 alt.atheism:19120
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:50:39 GMT
Organization: AT&T




The violence I read about in Oregon is pathetic. The repression
being argued for is also pathetic. What happened to "all men
(generic)are created equal..."?

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 06:11:51 GMT

From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
> article <1992Oct14.071253.1152@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS .MOT.CO
>>
>>>article <1992Oct13.180444.711@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.ari zona.e
>>>>    Wheat:    Book of Mormon, Mosiah 9:9
>>>>
>>>>    " . . . the introduction of wheat and of
>>>>European methods of cultivation have opened to
>>>>agricultural settlements thousands of square
>>>>miles in North America which were not available
>>>>to Indian groups raising maize by aboriginal methods."
>>..
>>
>>>   Since you can not seem to understand that Wheat is not a Mormon
>>>   Doctrine, testing the doctrine of Wheat by the Holy Ghost
>>>   doesn't seem to be advice I can listen or follow....
>>
>>        I believe Brian was attempting to point out that the
>>BoM, regardless of how fun it is to read, is full of holes.
>>Little indications is was the product of Joseph Smith's imagenation.
>>Have you ever read Mormon historian B.H. Roberts manuscripts?
>>He documents it better than I could.  You can get it from
>>Lighthouse Ministries 801-485-8894
>>
>>Mark
>
>   1)  Wheat in the Book of Mormon == Mormons are right ?

Wrong.  Wheat not in New World before 1492 == BoM false.

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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:14:27 GMT

From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
> In article <1992Oct14.174340.15126@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT
> >From: robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr)
> >> I guess if we accept the notion that there is only "one" god and his
> >> name is Elohim or Jehovah and he cannot devide himself or confer his
> >> Honor, name or Glory to another, then we are faced with more than a
> >> few scriptural absurdities.
> >
> >His name is Jehovah, and Elohim is a title.  I am uncertain what
> >you mean about a lack of 'deviding or confering'.  This may be
> >possible, but it is not the LDS position -- unless you mean 'devide'
> >in the sense of Jehovah being birthed by an exalted man in the
> >pre-existance.  This is what the Mormons teach.
> >
>
>   Let's get it straight Jehovah is also a title. The word derivies from
>   the non-prononced set of consonants that represent the title given
>   to Moses by the Lord on Mount Sinia and is derived (so I'm told)
>
>   from the question that Moses asked "And who shall I say sent me.
>   And the Lord answered him and said " I Am that I am sends you".
>
>   That's part of the reason that the Jewish leaders frothed a bit at the
>   mouth, when Jesus declared unto them "That before Moses was, I am",
>   accourding to Non-Lds sources I found, Jesus was in essese declaring
>   that He was the individual that spoke to Moses and gave the Law.

I dont think I have a problem with the above, although God gave us his
name as YHWH.  Whether you want to call it a title or a name is little
importance to me, as long as we remember that the LDS doctrine is that
these 2 name-titles are not interchangeble.  In the LDS, Jesus is
Jehovah, who was birthed in the supposed pre-existance by an exalted
man known as 'Elohim'.

>   Just as side note:  McConkie and other LDS "leaders" don't or haven't
>   written _any_ books that establish LDS doctrine, What (IMHO) their
>   intention is to persuade Lds and Non_Lds of various points.
>   Sometimes it is just as instructive to watch the discussion after
>   a given book is published and so who really objects..

It was a 'Doctrinal Exposition' by the First Presidency, of which
McConkie defined it quite well.  Did you read the qoute from
Benson praising McConkie for his doctrinal understanding?

Mark
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:01:01 GMT

From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
> IMHO, at a distance from which the people in the BoM claim to be
> getting to within 6 miles of the center of Jerusalem, I think is
> pretty darn good. Couple that with the description of his mother
> and the way that she concieved, you'r proably right there were
> two of 'em born at the same time.

The LDS 'description of his mother and the way she conceived' is
not the Bible description.  The LDS historically have taught that
the 'virgin birth' was merely God the father, an exalted man with
a body of flesh and bones, having sex with Mary.  LDS leaders
have stated this repeatedly, their is nothing figurative in their
language.  Jesus was the son of the Father in a literal way, begot
in the same manner we beget children.

Mark
<standard disclaimer>
From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:28:27 GMT
Organization: Applied Presuppositionalism, Ltd.

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

> Let's take a step back, folks, and remember what Mr. Albrecht is
> endorsing when he endorses OT based law. He's endorsing a law
> which is by modern standards unbelievably bloody and brutal. A law
> which defines the death penalty for such trivialities as refusing
> to obey one's parents. ...

Trivialities?  Tell that to the teachers who have to face 10 year-olds with
handguns in the classroom.  Tell that to the parents of an 8 year-old girl
gang raped by 12 year-old boys.  Now tell us that all this "trivial"
behavior comes from folks who take the Fifth Commandment seriously, if you
can do so with a straight face.

>                        Moreoever, it's a law based fundamentally
> on the threat of divine retribution upon the community.

This is talk.religion.misc, isn't it?  Besides, I wouldn't expect an
unbeliever in the God of scriptures to understand.  Unbelievers by
definition choose to live their lives as if there is no eternal system of
justice.  So you have no problem with a little temporal injustice, however
you choose to define injustice.

> Even if I were a Christian, I don't see how I could live that way.

Exactly.

--
Tom Albrecht
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: God created the Word?
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:06:48 GMT

Can anyone explain the following verse in terms of the Trinity (note: I am not
a JW):
   The Lord possessed (created) me (the Word) in the beginning of His way,
   before his works of old.
                          Proverbs 8:22
--Ray Cote
From: robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:41:33 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego


Tony Rose says:

>Anyone who does not follow the right Jesus Christ is damned.

Perhaps you would care to comment on how one knows for sure whether
the "Christ" he follows is the true one or only an exceptionally
good replica of the real "Christ"? 

Robert
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Immaculate conception [was:Re: LDS are not EV Christians
Date: 12 Oct 92 13:58:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

>In article <1992Oct9.135130.7571@infonode.ingr.com>, tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>>>  It is only a falicy if you are a non-Christian. Of course, the Catholic idea
>>>of immaculate conception is un-Biblical 
>>>and not really relevant to the virgin birth of Christ. Any
>>>orthodox Christian teaching says that Jesus needed to be born of a virgin to
>>>remain sinless (i.e. free from original sin). 

	The doctrine of Immaculate Conception as espoused by the Roman 
Catholic Church is that Mary was conceived without `original' sin.


=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: "Mr. Gomes, I've Re-Read My Bible"
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:40:01 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

In article <86VPsB5w165w@topcat> topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:
>v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
>
>> I've got a very simple solution to all this:  
>> 
>> If the Bible really says that homosexuality is immoral, it's simply wrong and
>> should be flushed down the Proverbial Toilet...
>
>I would expect this sort of response from an unbeliever.  It is perfectly
>consistent with the unbelieving attitude towards God and His holy law.
And applies to those of us who accept it.  For those who reject it, it is
simply a work of fiction.  And not relevent.  Period.

>What surprises me is Christians who adopt essentially the same position.
I do not advocate flushing the Bible.  It is perfectly valid FOR THOSE WHO
ACCEPT IT.

I figure I'll take care of myself and my family.  I'll let God decide how
to deal with others.  After all, I'm a sinner and am in NO position to
complain about the sins of others.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Subject: Re: Tony Rose answers challenge
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:32:40 GMT

In article <b3MT02kE25BF01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
 
>
>In article <1687D9F7C.HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com writes:
>>Recently Tony said he was trying to understand the Mormon
>>religion and to discover the truth.
>>
>>I answered him with a challenge to meet on common grounds
>>and I'd explain the LDS doctrines to him.  This seemed
>>reasonable to me.
>>
>>Time has now passed, and no response!
>>
>
>Roger:
>
>I didn't avoid your offer.  I simply missed it ...
 
Reason accepted
 
>Anyway, if you wish to withdraw your personal attack on me, ...
 
Accused in public, withdrawn in public
 
>If indeed you make this offer, and I missed it or forgot to resond to
>your letter, I honestly apologize, however, I don't think this is the
 
Accepted
 
 
A poor Wayfaring Stranger [some say, a Strange One] in a strange land,
 
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Disclaimer: Not my employer's opinion; probably                     |
 |             not your's either; and                                  |
 |             only mine, when authorized!                             |
 |                                                                     |
 |                                   Try: Roger_Holfeltz@stortek.com   |
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Is life too hard? or A Spiritual Exercise
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:46:56 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Oct9.235422.23582@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>,
press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) wrote:
> I've seen this. Many times when people have imbibed too much, they
> can be found on the streets, in parks, in the bathroom, bedroom,
> everywhere sing HUUUUUUUUU in hopes of feeling better. Sometimes it
> works, and sometimes not.

So that's the reason my 17 month old son is running around on the
grass court shouting "HUUUUUU" time after time... Maybe he's the 
prophet of this new emerging movement? Or then he still remembers
this from his earlier incarnation as a mystic monk?


Kent
It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that
virginity could be a virtue.  -- Voltaire
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 9 Oct 92 02:16:54 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Oct8.201955.25396@news.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
|In article <70498@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|>Agreed.  And we have Christianity spread thoughout the world.  It spread 
|>from Jerusalem out rather quickly.  Within a few days of Pentecost there
|>were 3,000 (Acts 2:41) and then 5,000 (Acts 4:4) believers within 
|>Jerusalem.  
|I don't BELIEVE Acts? Why should I? If I did, I would be Christian.

I'm glad you recognize the events as potentially life changing, if
one would believe.

|You're engaging in circular argument.
|
|>|Well, Osiris rose from the dead, Mitras died weekly in the Mitras cult
|>
|>Where are their bodies today?   Jesus never died again - he is alive.
|So you say. I could say similar things about Mitras.
|With exactly the same sort of evidence.

I'm not sure what you are asking or offering.

I looked up these two groups today.  The Mitras movement was said to
never have a historical founder.  The Osiris movement centered around
Osiris (who was said to be the god of the dead).  It seemed Osiris
was tricked into getting into a coffin and I guess died. (?)   A
lady went and found him and collected his obviously scattered body
parts and conceived his son, who avenged his fathers death.  It didn't
have anything about Osiris rising from the dead.

|-Ekr

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: $stephan@sasb (Stephan Fassmann, Software)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians? (Was: WANTED: Former LDS, ...)
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:59:46 GMT
Organization: BYU

In article <1992Oct16.173905.28599@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
>Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians? (Was: WANTED: Former LDS, ...)
>From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
>Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:29:52 GMT
>From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
>- ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.CO
>-        According to a revelation given by Joseph Smith, those who will
>-not submit to Celestial Marriage are "appointed angels in heaven, which
>-angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of
>-a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory... these
>-angels... remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their
>-saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not Gods, but
>-are angels of God forever and ever." (Doctrine and Covenants 132:16-17)
>
>>These also have "Eternal Life" and in the Celestial Kingdom...
>
>   Fair enough, eternal life as a servant, serving others who
>went to the temple and put on the funny white gown and let someone
>reach their hands inside and touch them.  Sounds like "Truth Restored"
>to me.
>
>> Not all refereces in the NT that talk about "salvation" could be
>> the same as references to exalation.
>
>And none of these verses speak of devil-repellent underwear,
>bloody (Masonic) oaths, goofing around with some guy behind
>a veil, etc...  Hard to beleive rejecting all this puts a
>person in a postion of eternal damnation.
>
>Mark
><standard disclaimer>


I am curious about your sources.

_____________________________________________________________________
|Stephan Fassmann  Internet: $stephan@sasb.byu.edu  GEnie: S.FASSMANN
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|The Random Acts of Kindness will Continue until Morale Deteriorates|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Jesus's bloodline mystery and two different Jesus's was (I'm God.)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:04:53 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy,alt.atheism

In article <Bw4qvz.JrK@inews.Intel.COM>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul
Harvey) wrote:
> This is a good example of the trouble you get into when you assume that
> myth must be either true or false. Myth is often based on historical fact,
> so undoubtably there were Joshuas born to Josephs and Marys as these are
> very common names. But myth is never constrained by the need to be
> historically correct as should be painfully apparent in the Bible. Myth
> is METAphoric, transcendent of true/false reductionism. Just think about
> the notion of virgin birth, is that a metaphor or what?

Hehehe, I still maintain that this was a screwup, and you might 
call it a myth, but the genealogies are wrong, false, misleading,
contradicts each other, and cause just confusion and suffering.
Yes, I guess it's one attribute of a myth, right?

As for a virgin birth, either it's true or false, do you mean
we have also both-case situations. This man was born by a virgin
that wasn't a virgin. Nice logic.

Kent
It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that
virginity could be a virtue.  -- Voltaire
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.