HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: WANTED: Former LDS, now Born Again Christian for Thesis Project
Date: 1 Oct 92 23:22:31 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

I believe a misattribution has occured.  In a posting by
agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose), the following appeared:

In article <16673@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <Sep.23.04.10.56.1992.3815@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>
>In any event, the Church makes a great effort now not to
>criticise other religions.

It is unlikely that I wrote those words.  The article has expired, so
I can't check, but I think they are from Gordon Banks.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: WHAT IS ALL THIS?
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:55:12 GMT

In article <14403.156.uupcb@cccbbs.UUCP> 
dale.lature@cccbbs.UUCP (Dale Lature)  writes:
>I wonder if there's anyone who looks through this stuff that gets as
>sick as I do at the level of discussion.

Hey! Welcome to TALK.RELIGION.MISC! If you don't know what that means,
look it up in the dictionary, or a Funk and Wagnel's efen. Heavens to
mergatroids, ac and dc efen.

>Sure, it's very intellectual
>and many participants ave well thought out positions,  but is any of
>this really crucial?

Crucial to what?

>What about society and the world?

That's alt.save-the-world or alt.cultural-warfare.

>Is there any
>interest in something like what the church can be doing to have a
>positive influence?

That's alt.church.positive-influence, not to be confused with
alt.church.negative-influence .

>No one is impressed with the kind of theological tennis that goes on here. 

That's rec.sports.tennis.theological

>I've been looking for some people who might
>be interested in putting together an on-line place for , yes, some
>discussion, but also a place to find contacts with others who share
>common concerns about social issues, technological issues and
>theological community, and ways that those in the church who can use a
>computer and a modem can hook up with others across the country (and the
>world) to share resources, common experiences, etc.  How's that sound?
>Anyone else want something different.  Drop me a response

Why don't you create a new group, alt.fan.Dale-Lature ?
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered 9
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:21:38 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <BvMnKn.BqF@acsu.buffalo.edu>, 
 psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes...
>> 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 50:19-24 deleted]
> 
>>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.
> 
> 	So let me get this straight. We have been talking about how to 
> discern when a prophecy is true or false. Jason, I seem to be reading 
> you as saying that if there is a subjective feeling towards something 
> that is being said, that this feeling is the basis on which we discern 
> the veracity of a prophecy. Is this correct?

Are you arguing that promptings of the Holy Spirit are subjective
feelings?

They most definately involve feelings (as a sense?).  Whether
they are subjective or objective to anyone but the one
experiencing them, I can't answer.

You are losing me in your metaphysics.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: WANTED: Former LDS, now Born Again Christian for Thesis Project
Date: 26 Sep 92 06:09:31 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <38588@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr) writes:
>Glenn Clapp says:
>
>>And we believe that He has revealed everything we need.  He doesn't
>>need to reveal anything more than what He already has.
>
>First of all, you ought to be carefull when you use the word "we"
>My guess is that you intended the word "we" to refer to all those
>who you consider to be christians?  Many christians disagree that the Holy
>Spirit has been done away with.
>
>I also think it is sad that you Glenn would want to put a limit on
>what the Lord can or can't do.  If the Lord wished to reveal
>something to you in a personal way through an angel or through His
>holy Spirit, why would you want to deny Him this?
>
>If the Bible is a complete and final revelation of all that God
>wishes to reveal to man, then it has one defect.  It doesn't say
>anywhere that this is the case.  No where does it say in the Bible
>that come the year 100AD, the heavens would be sealed off and the
>Lord would cease to speak to man.  Infact, Christ profesied that in
>the last days, there would be prophets (both true and false one's)
>and by their fruits we should know how to distinguish one from the
>other.  Anyone who categorically denies the possibility of prophets 
>sent from God today is not well established in the words of Christ.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Robert


Robert is right in this area!  You CANNOT limit an omnicient, infinite
being.  If you do you are in trouble.  The only thing that can limit
and infinite being is his nature and his word.  His nature limits him
in the areas of, "he cannot lie, and suchforth", but his word does not
limit him in "revealing" things.  If God wants to reveal something to
you, who is going to stop him.  There is nothing in Scripture that says
he will not do this.  Of course the LDS members don't agree that God is
infinite (he is finite in the LDS concept; has a body of flesh and bones-
D&C 130:22).  But that is unimportant to this subject.

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!
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Honest Question For Any LDS
Date: 1 Oct 92 04:01:15 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (TONY ROSE)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

Could an LDS please explain a question that I have had concerning the
Scriptures you accept?  My question is this:

In the Doctrine and Coventents, Section 135 Verse 3, I read that the
Book Of Mormon "contains the fullness of the everlasting gospel".  This is
also stated in Section 27:5 and a few other places throughout the D&C.

The definition for "fullness", according to Webster, is: "complete".
The definition for "everlasting", according to Webster, is: "Eternity;
lasting through all time".

So for something to contain "the fullness of the everlasting gospel", it
must be "complete" and "final for Eternity".  I don't have a problem with
that, but I can't find things in the Book Of Mormon that the LDS people
tell me are part of the Gospel.  Like:

1. As man is God once was, as God is man may become.
2. Each individual has the potential to progress to become a god of their
   own world.
3. God has a body of flesh and bones.
4. God the father had a father who had a father, etc..
5. God the father is maried to our eternal mother and has millions of
   children.
6. Jesus Christ was begotten by an immortal father in the same way that
   mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.
7. Jesus Christ blood is not sufficient for the forgiveness of all
   (certain) sins.
8. Baptism for the dead.

"fullness" is defined by Joseph Fielding Smith in Doctrines of Salvation
Vol. 1 pg, 160 as "all ordinances and principles that pertain to
exaltation in the celestial kingdom."

If this is so, then why doesn't the book that contains the fullness of
the everlasting gospel tell me that I have to have Celestial Marriage in
the Temple, and that I have to Baptize for the dead, and all these other
things?  If I were to be stranded on an island and could have one book,
I would want the one that contains the fullness of the everlasting gospel.
The Book Of Mormon is claimed to be that book.  But if I have to do other
things that aren't in the book to reach the Celestial Kingdom, then
I can't get there.  Which is correct? Is the Book Of Mormon truely the
fullness of the everlasting gospel?  Or are these other things not
part of the gospel and not necessary for me to reach the Celestial
Kingdom?

Just curious,
-tony
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered 4
Date: 26 Sep 92 15:53:16 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <adwQ02Vz23UI01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, 
 agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
[...]
> Jason, you can rationalize these verses away, and add unimpled meanings
> all day.  This has no affect on me, it does have an affect on you though.

Neither do your interpretations of the Bible have any effect on
me.  They do, however, affect you -- which is as it should be.

[...]
> Nevertheless Jason, I will be praying for you!

That is kind of you.  I would return the graciousness, but I am
uncertain at to whether is would be wanted or not.  For now, permit 
me to at least wish you the best.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:17355 alt.atheism:18158
From: nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:13:40 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <fS9Uenb@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.233730.29345@unixg.ubc.ca> 
>morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
>>In article <Bv5JCt.LwE@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>, 
>pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>Sunrise and sunset could only be avoided under the following conditions:
>>   -- 0-degree tilt of the earth's axis to the ecliptic, AND

Shouldn't it be 90 degrees between axis and plane of ecliptic?

-Norman
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:53:45 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <BvCyIv.ACr@inews.Intel.COM>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul
Harvey) wrote:
> 2. Kent types so fast that he is the keyboard.
> 
> That is metaphorical. The issue of true/false is largely unimportant to 
> metaphors. I assume you are not a keyboard, but it doesn't matter.

This is a really artificial metaphor, sort of proof-of-concept where
anything cooked together will do.
 
> 3. When Kent runs, he is an Olympian runner.
> 
> I get the metaphor about your running speed, but I don't need to know if this
> is true or false. It makes no difference, it is not relevant to the metaphor.
 
Where's the metaphor here, that this person is an Olympian runner? That's
more of a logical quantity, that could be easily measured.

> So, what I'm saying is that I am sure that you can find metaphors that are
> true or false or neither. Just as I am sure that you can find some true
> statements in the works of fiction. So? I am saying that it is of little
> importance. The metaphor of the earth being carried on the back of a turtle
> is metaphoric. I doubt that you will find it by digging in your back yard.
> It is a metaphor, not a statement of fact. However, you may find it,
> metaphorically speaking.

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.
Your examples didn't justify your statement.

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.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:58:34 GMT
Summary: never enough to please

In article <1992Oct6.114200.13090@phillip.edu.au>, lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:
> 
[beliefs deleted]
>   My guess is that those Mormons you know who believe _all_ of these things are
> believing different meanings to commonly held expressions. See the rest of my
> original post regarding definitions. Do these Mormons believe in grace only or
> grace AND works???

I have no intention of becoming embroiled in yet another round of
LDS doublethink posing as a good argument for another Jesus, but I 
would like to re-emphasize this position of Grace only with works
resulting from that Grace.
The doctrine of Grace+plus Works leaves a believer in a state of
constant guilt. They never know if they have done enough! This leaves
them in the uneviable position to be exploited by any fast-talking yokel
with a pseudo channel to God to lay more guilt on such a believer that
they haven't done enough. It's a vicious circle folks. Don't get
caught in that trap. Our Lord came to free us from the bondage of
guilt and slavery to fast talking yokels who prrey on the sincere of
heart.

We now return to our normal programming.

barry--
From: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered....9
Date: 26 Sep 92 05:18:18 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:

>You are right to agree that he DID indeed teach it. And Brigham did
>teach is as the Prophet of the Church.

>According to Doctrine & Covenents (which IS connonized scripture), the
>words of the Prophets "shall be scripture" and thus cannonizes all the
>speaches by Joseph and Brigham.

etc.

It's really silly to claim to know more than the LDS about what the
LDS faith is.  You should know from discussions about Christianity
that it's often not obvious to an outsider how people will interpret
their sacred texts.  This is particularly true when the outsider is
interested in finding holes, rather than understanding.  Consider the
"satanic bible verses" that some of our atheist colleagues have posted
as an example.  These show -- using the same methods you are using
with the LDS -- that Christian must believe that God is a murderer,
etc.  The whole approach is just plain silly.

The LDS participants in Usenet are open enough that they have major
disagreements with traditional Christianity.  There's an LDS FAQ that
summarizes many of these differences.  It's not as if they were trying
to pretend that no differences exist.  I don't understand this
insistence on creating a set of beliefs that LDS don't actually
accept, and then arguing against them.  The only thing I can see that
this is likely to do is discredit you.  I just hope readers won't
conclude that this sort of approach is typical of mainstream
Christianity.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:19:13 GMT

In article <fTr1z8X@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>Would you call them foo and bar like Eric? :::B^}
Let me know when you understand the concept of a variable, Mr. Harvey.

I won't be holding my breath.

-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Family values defined
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:54:34 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <fTxZEXM@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <69731@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
>rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>>Depends on the situation - I can see why one would not want a homosexual
>>representing one's company.
>
>I see. And this bigotry you are displaying, would this be one of your
>examples of family values? Is homophobia a family value you will be

Oh, I see I have an irrational fear of homosexuals.  Or is it just
your claim that I do because I speak against their actions and not
the person?

>teaching your children? What other fine examples of "Christian Love" do you
>have for us?

Pray for those who persecute us.
Do good for evil.
Count is all joy when you suffer for Christ.
Love you neighbor as yourself.
Love does no harm to any one.
Love is the fulfillment of the Law.
Love God with all of your heart, soul, and mind.
Associate with people of all positions.
Don't consider yourself better than another.
Look out for the interests of others and not just yourself.
Obey God rather than men.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered 2
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:09:16 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <27Fk02T924CY01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, 
agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
>> agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>[...]
>>> To further stress the point.  The dates are really insignificant if you
>>> ask me.  Does the fact that he was not an Apostle when he wrote it mean
>>> that he was evil when he did and that the book is all wrong? Was he not
>>> educated enough before he became an Apostle?  And if any of these things
>>> are so, why didn't he correct his "mistakes" when he became Apostle?
>>
>>No, he didn't correct his mistakes because he wanted people to
>>see that he was as human as the rest of them.  I heard a qoutes
> 
> Yeah right!
> 
>>made to this effect to his son Joseph Fielding McConkie, but have
>>had trouble finding the source, since is was some years ago.
> 
> Likely!

Okay, I tracked down the source as best I could.
The alleged statement was made by Joseph Fielding McConkie in a
class that my brother attended.

Apparently, Joseph was talking with his dad (Bruce R. McConkie)
explaining that some of the errors he had made in _Mormon
Doctrine_ had been corrected in other latter works he [B.R.
Mcconkie] had written.  He asked his dad if he was going to go
back and correct _Mormon Doctirne_ to reflect the changes.

Bruce R. McConkie responded "Why should I cover my tracks?"  He
went on to explain that he did not intend for _Mormon Doctrine_
to be *the* definiative work on Mormon teachings, but that it was
supposed to be a springboard to get people to study the gospel. 
He also stated that he sincerely hoped that someday someone would
write a better work than _Mormon Doctrine_.
(Kenneth Dean Hunsaker, telephone interview, 29 Sep 1992)

>>In all of his publications, McConkie *clearly* states that *he*
>>alone is responsible for what is contained in them.  If you want
>>to take issue with his statements, you'll have to ask him to
>>defend them, not anyone else.
> 
> Kind of hard since he is dead.  If he were alive I certainly would
> send him a letter though.

And If he were alive, I think that writing him a letter would be
a good idea.  But since McConkie is gone now, so is the defender
of his opinions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mci41087@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Occaisionally)
Subject: Re: Jesus For President
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 02:04:24 GMT

agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:


>"You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will
> not hold anyone guiltless who misuses His name."
>                                                    Exodus 20:7

>God will not be mocked!

No, he will not.  But you will.  And if He doesn't have a sense of humor, or
enough sense to realize that it was not God that was being mocked, but rather
modern politics, then I guess He isn't God.  Besides, God can take care of
Himself quite well.  Or did you make the above remark for your own sake?  Do
you really think God needs to be defended by you, or do you just like the   
feeling you get calling someone else a blasphemer?
"Judge not, or you too will be judged."  Alas, you'll discount that one to the
context that fits you, as all those Christians are that have sadly fallen into
the oh-so-easy world of blaming everyone else in God's name.

Matt
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wiggins@lilac.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
	<70009@hydra.gatech.EDU> <1992Oct6.052415.17526@nuchat.sccsi.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:42:09 GMT

The writers of the different books of the NT (I think this was overlooked)
claimed to have been with Jesus and seen him *after he died*.  Including
Paul.  I assert that they all wrote what they did, because they saw him
after he died and then believed [totally].  The seeing came first.  Then
believing.  Then the writing.

Let me emphasize again, they all claim to have experience with the miracles
of Christ, as witnesses (some before, some after his death).  Not just
believing what other people said, but believing what *they* saw.  Now, if
anything they said didn't actually happen, I guess that makes them all liars
and one could blow off the entire Bible.

I assert that the "extraordinary evidence" was given to them, but not you.
And, you have the free choice of believing or not.  I think that we both
agree, though, that reality is a thing apart from either one of our
perceptions.  However, the fact remains that some choose to believe and others
not to believe what these writers are trying to persuade us to accept.

I also assert that one's assumptions are usually biased.  It would be better
to start out "devil's advocate" and negate the argument with later-found
truths as the argument progresses.