HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 03:02:46 GMT

From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
>In article <1992Oct10.031759.27535@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>,
>press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
>[...]
>>Do you recall my posting what your prophets taught? It matters
>>little to me what you believe. The important part is what the
>>prophets(LDS) taught.
>
> So, it doesn't matter how actual Mormons interprete and
> *implement* the words of their leaders.  What matters is how
> non-Mormons interprete these same words.  Thus the non-Mormon
> interpretation is the *only* correct way to understand Mormonism.
> And the beliefs of actual Mormons are meaningless, irrelevant,
> and non-representative.

        Jason, you do not expound doctrine of the Mormon Church.  I, for
one, am interested in your personal opinions -- but your personal
opinions do not always reflect what the LDS teaches.

        Repeatedly you have dismissed LDS leader's writings as merely
speculation, or as incorrect.  While the leader's writings are not
'canon', they do represent the teachings of the LDS, as the leaders
themselves interpret them.  One LDS leader who, now dead, has been
ridiculed by todays membership as formulating false doctrine is Mormon
Apostle McConkie.  Recently the following quote was pointed out to
me--quoting Ezra Taft Benson, speaking of McConkie after his death:

   "Often when a doctrinal question came before the First Presidency
   and the Twelve," he continued, "Elder McConkie was asked to quote
   the scripture or to comment on the matter.  He could quote
   scripture verbatim and at great length."  He "provided the entire
   Church with an example of gospel scholarship.  He could teach the
   gospel with ease because he first understood the gospel."
   (Ensign, June, 1985, p. 16).

       In fact most of _Mormon Doctrine_ is based upon quotations of
Joseph Smith, citations of LDS Scripture, and quotes from Joseph
Fielding Smith and other LDS leaders.  It is highly inaccurate to
characterize his works as *merely* "his opinion."

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: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:16:19 GMT

From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
> In article <1992Oct14.174340.15126@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT
> >        As for me, I will stick to:
> >
> >  'I am Jehovah, and there is none else, there is no God [Elohim] beside
> >   me.' Isa. 45:5.
> >  'before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.'
> >   Isa 43:10.
> >
>
>  Now you'all notice this, these two verses don't come from s KJ version,
>  or RvS, or even a Jerusalem Bible

Kermit, the LDS beleive the Bible is accurate 'when translated
correctly'.  Please translate correctly the above 2 verses and tell
me what you have a problem with.

>  but this is the exact phrasing from a JW old testament.

Ah....  The real reason, the 'Kermit-JW-psychosis'.

Once again, I am not JW.  Although, I know when they get to that
'burning bosom' stage there is no dealing with facts.

Mark
<standard disclaimer>
From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith)
Subject: Coming Attractions on Mormonism
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 11:33:43 GMT
Keywords: criteria doctrine christian

I have been carefully collecting the latest round of Mormon/Anti-Mormon
bashing on the net. Most interesting. I am starting a project which I
am guessing will take me approximately three months to complete (to be
posted about the first of the 1993 year). The project will address two
major topics: What is Mormon Doctrine? and Are Mormons Christians?

The first topic will review the problems of determining exactly what
is Mormon Doctrine, it will present a liberal and a conservative criteria
for judging whether something is Official Mormon Doctrine, it will
consider the objections which Anti-Mormons might raise to the criteria,
and it will present three examples (from the net) where Anti-Mormon claims
will be compared with both criterias.  I should note that the two criterias
were not created by myself but were proposed several years ago in a Sunstone
Symposium.

The second topic will review the arguments presented by most Anti-Mormons
which claim that Mormons are not Christians. I propose to systematically
review the arguments posted by Lindsey, Rose, and Fuller. In many cases,
we will find that their presentations of Official Mormon Doctrine do not
meet either of the criterias described in the first topic. However, I think
that in many of those cases the argument can be examined further by asking
IF ANYONE had adopted those particular teachings would it necessarily
mean that they were not Christian?

Since I am sure that most net readers could care less about the Mormon/Anti-
Mormon exchanges, I will post a warning at least 24 hours in advance. In
this warning I will identify the subject headings that I will use so that
one will be able to add the subject headings to their KILL file.

Once again, I anticipate taking about three months to carefully organize,
research, and write (in a somewhat conherent fashion) several lengthy files
responding to the recent exchange. The result will be posted in early or
mid January 1993.
-- 

              Willard C. Smith
  Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa
   Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com
From: pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Flat earth?
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:02:47 GMT
Reply-To: pwhite@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of CDC

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.
 
The author's take on the verses in question is that the intent was not to show
the actual form of the earth but is in those verses talking in common terms much
in the same way that we say the the sun rises and sets even though that is not
the actual case.
 
Peter White
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex,soc.singles
From: jhansen@convex.com (James Hansen)
Subject: Re: Robertson Roulette
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:14:51 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1bj7f7INNfd5@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:

>Here's a puzzle.  There is one word in the rest of this article which makes
>it practically certain that this text came from a real paper source by way
>of a scanner.  What is that word, and why does it betray the true origin of
>the text?

Sepitrarion?  Don't know the reason; the word just looks like an anagram
or mangling of the word separation.

--
James B. Hansen                                  {sun,uunet}!convex!jhansen
CONVEX Computer Corporation                              jhansen@convex.com
3000 Waterview Parkway, P. O. Box 833851
Richardson, TX 75083-3851                              Phone: (214)497-4802
From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: "Mr. Gomes, I've Re-Read My Bible"
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:14:06 GMT
Organization: Applied Presuppositionalism, Ltd.

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.

What surprises me is Christians who adopt essentially the same position.

--
Tom Albrecht
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians? (Was: WANTED: Former LDS, ...)
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:09:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct14.151642.9653@infonode.ingr.com>, tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes...
>In article <Bw3Juu.6x6@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:

[...]

> The first part of the quoted material expresses the sentiment,
> that salvation and exalation are not the same thing, 
> 
> You can be saved and not be in the Celestial Kingdom. And yes there
> will be many in the Celestial Kingdom who are not married. 
> 
	I recall during an investigators meeting with two LDS 
missionaries, that it is taught that when the Bible uses the phrase 
'eternal life' that it refers to exaltation. Sister Johnson and Sister 
Curtiss couldn't answer a question that I had. If exaltation is as a 
result of one's performance and endeavors, why does Jesus in John 
10:28 say that eternal life is a gift? "I give them eternal life, and 
they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand."

> And yes, you haven't got a clue as what is being discussed so
> any real information as to why or why not will be beyond you.

	I didn't realize that my density was showing.  Thanks for 
pointing that out.

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith)
Subject: Re: Joseph a true latter-day prophet
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 10:52:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.044008.16073@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
>
>  Robert, I would'nt put much stock in Willard's usage of the 'anonymous'
>  material above.  There was a reason the publication Willard refers to
>  was printed 'anonymously'.   The author merely downplays the importance
>  of the supposed First Vision -- in contradiction to the historical
>  LDS position.  The First Vision was always considered of utmost
>  importance to Smith's claims of restoring the Gospel.  Now that it
>  is known to be false beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is merely cast
>  aside.  (Anonymous, Distorted View, pp. 29-31,34,39)
>  I am unaware that Quinn ever admitted authoring the pamphlet.

When I read this, I walked over to my shelf, plucked the pamphlet off the
shelf, and read it, especially pages 29-31, 34, and 39. The problem has
never really been whether or not Joseph Smith experienced the First Vision
as much as the signficance and meaning the First Vision had to him. Later
mormon leaders and pamphleteers would build up what they thought was the
significance by stating absurd things like, when Joseph Smith came out
of the grove he knew this and that, and this and that. Nonsense! The varying
versions of the First vision have shown us that the significance that
Joseph Smith placed on the experience was much different.

However, the Tanners, Walters, Brodie, etc. have tried to claim the
experience never happened. I think that Quinn, et al. have demonstrated
that basically the main events did take place, and that Joseph Smith's
many descriptions do agree on the essential experiences.

As for whether or not Quinn authored "Jerald and Sandra Tanner's Distorted
View of Mormonism," in 1977 he would neither confirm nor deny when asked
(although I saw him smile broadly when he said it). When I was a graduate
history student at the "Y" it was a *given* by the religion grads and the
student "researchers" that Quinn was the author. Finally, one of Quinn's
graduate researchers told me that Quinn had privately admitted it to him. 
-- 

              Willard C. Smith
  Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa
   Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com
From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians? (Was: WANTED Former LDS,...)
Date: 10 Oct 92 20:08:38 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:

> Don't worry about it, Mark Fuller has never claimed that he was a Christian
> except by inuendo. He claims to to be a full fledge JW. and since every
> execept the JW's wont except them as christians

May I ask that we PLEASE not have a replay of Are Mormons Christians
with Mormon changed to JW?
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Flat earth?
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:58:36 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <29206@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> pwhite@ems.cdc.com writes:
}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.
}-- 

Is to laugh.  In "fingerprints" the opposing facts simply are not mentioned.
In the bible, they are presented both ways.

You make an absolute claim about the bible.  What would be the impact if I
were to present instances of exactly that, by book, chapter, and verse?
Would it have any impact at all on your belief system?  Why or why not?
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Tony Rose doesn't answer challenge
Date: 13 Oct 92 02:19:44 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

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!
> 
>One can now see his true motives!
> 
> 
>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   |
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
> 


Roger:

I didn't avoid your offer.  I simply missed it (if it existed).  I spend
many hours a day at home answering letters to this and other newsgroups
and I try to respond to EVERY personal letter I receive.

Anyway, if you wish to withdraw your personal attack on me, I would be
more than happy to discuss with you.  Do you wish to do it over this
newsgroup, in personal mail, or on the phone?  It makes no difference to
me.  I will even pay for call if you wish to do it that way.

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
case.  It makes no difference,  you can see my true motives, when I am
aware of what is offered to me.

If you reply to this on the newsgroup and you wish for me to see it,
please send a copy to my personal mail basket so I can be sure to read it.

If not, please don't accuse me of avoiding something that I don't know
about, because I don't read every letter on this newsgroup.  I just don't
have that kind of time.
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:42:18 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <13756@pogo.wv.tek.com> daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:
|I also want to reply to your rather silly accusation that I have been ignoring
|the threats the "opposition" has made to to the OCA:
|
|> Have you forgot to mention the threats the opposition have made
|> to those who support the bill?  I've read and heard a little more
|> since the last postings.

My question was to show that there was and is at least two sides
to this issue.  I  haven't followed it, but the threats have gone
both ways.  You (Dave) may not have been the one to bring up the
violence on the part of the OCA groups, but I believe, it has been
part of this thread.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: YO! MC drieux jus drew, I mean posted, what's this B*SH-it
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 03:14:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.143344.19043@wetware.com> 
drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>Modern Day Problems:
>In any case, don't give up, just type slower :-).
>Chimo
>Bob.

Yo, I get the BoB part, but what's a Chimo? Is that street lingo for chimera
or Qui-mo as in Qui-mo sabe? How's 'bout a little 411 for a change, know
what I'm sayin'?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (The only thing God didn't do to Job was give him a computer.)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What brought you to atheism?
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:58:41 EST

> In article <1992Oct7.054101.26900@netcom.com>, 
> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
> 
>> 
>> I've thereby regained my confidence in my atheism.  How can I believe
>> in a god who can't be found even when I go looking for him?  If he
>> does exist, then why should I believe in him if he hides from me?
>> 


I wonder if you might be missing a point here by trying to be
objective about all this. Searching for God isn't the point -
it's faith that brings it to life. When you believe in something
your life is brought into a new plane of reality - if you believe
deeply in UFO's - you'll probably see one, if you believe deeply 
in ghosts then sooner or later you'll get haunted.

this is not to say there's no objective reality to UFO's, ghosts or
God which you might bump into without believing, but belief is life's
most important door, i think. Looking for God might not get you too far, 
but believing in him will change your life and set in motion all sorts 
of things. (but so will believing in Isis).

how do you have faith without proof? Neat trick, but most people 
manage it every day. 

    ando.

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:18296 alt.atheism:19030
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus's bloodline mystery and two different Jesus's was (I'm God.)
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:55:52 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications, Plano Tx.


 		 "Just a myth"

Kent Sandvik writes:

>Hello again, should we take this one as a good example where the myth
>is false, or not? Or are the two different genealogies, just, a myth???


Consider the possibility that with the incarnation of Christ,
not only the prophecies of the Jews but also the archetypal
myths of the rest of humanity were fulfilled.  C. S. Lewis
noticed this and it led ultimately to his conversion from
skepticism to Christianity.

Thanks for keeping us on our toes.

Regards,
Gerry Palo
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Usenet Forum
Date: 13 Oct 92 12:48:51 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

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?

Well, it's been six months since I made the last proposal, so if
someone wants to start an RFD, let them.

I'm not going to start it though.

It seemed to me that the last time around that there were a
*lot* of misunderstandings and concerns that were not resolved or
even adequatly addressed except for from a handfull of
respondants.

(Maybe it was just me, but) I don't recall seeing many objections
raised except by a very vocal few.

I guess that I was expecting more of a negative response or even
more of a response in general during the discussion than just
hearing opposing points of view from just a handfull.

If someone really wants a Usenet forum, why doesn't someone with
newsadmin priviledges just skip all this and create alt.mormon or
alt.religion.mormon?

If someone wants to startup and RFD, I'll contribute to the
dicussion, but I won't spearhead it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:01:27 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Oct12.222009.2428@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>,
 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?"

[...]
> When the typical lds defender is cornered on certain opinions
> they have about their beliefs, the fall back is, it's not cannon.

That's because most, if not all, the areas you try to pin us down
on are fringe areas, quasi-doctrine, and very controversial; and
there is wide spread opinion even among Mormons about them.

So a typical tactic is to pick one of these areas, and then find
a church leader of some sort that has made *any* kind of statement
about this area in *any* kind of Mormon-related publication. 
They then try to pass this off as "Official Mormon Doctrine", and
then can't understand why Mormons protest or respond that such
statements are the persons own opinions/speculations and are not
part of the LDS canon of scripture.

Mormons are not inerrantists.
Mormons do not believe in infallable prophets or leaders.
Mormons do not believe in infallable scripture.

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