HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:43:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.120400.19036@cbnews.cb.att.com>, wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith) writes:
> In article <1992Dec16.000221.14664@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
> 
> >My argument was that Bringham Young was a prophet ansd president
> >which gives him the big three titles. Yet nothing he wrote was ever
> >considered scripture, yuet he himself thought much of his words
> >were scripture:-) Some prophet. The net lds downplay most of his
> >bizarre statements hiding behind the noninfallible veil. Some prophets.
> 

[what is, and what is not considered LDS scripture; deleted]

Willard missed what I said entirely. The LDS boast of living
prophets is full of holes, and Bringham is a good example.
The LDS hide behind the non-infallible veil, that no one is
perfect. 
It's probably my fault that you missed because I mentioned scripture.
Certainly words from the Lord through ANY living prophet should be
considered scripture, yet this Gift seems to be lacking;read on.
Now my point again. The LDS living prophet displays no more
ability to prophecy from the LOrd than your average orthodox
believer.
Bringham, as an example spoke alot of words that sound impressive,
yet there is little or nothing of substance that even Mormons
recognize as coming from the mouth of the Lord.
Not much has changed since Bringham that I have read or seen
which  indicates to me the "living prophet" boast is empty?

> It has been my experience that most anti-Mormons would prefer a extremely
> liberal criteria for determining what is and is not official Mormon doctrine.
[...]

I understand your response was used in the past against articles
that questioned what is and is not scripture in the church. My
post was not referring to that. 

barry--
From: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The constancy of the universe
Date: 16 Dec 1992 17:36:06 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) says:

>In article <1992Dec2.040637.13204@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes ...
>>>In article <1992Dec1.055652.11367@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>>  Note
>>>>also that Eistain's equations are _not_ the law of gravity, but are a
>>>>_description_ of the laws of gravity.
>>>
>>>I have no idea what you are talking about. What is the difference?
>>
>>This is exactly the point I've been trying to make.  The universe does
>>not obey Einstein's equations.  It doesn't know or care about
>>Einstein's equations.
>
>That is obvious. You don't think that "law" in "physical law" means the same 
>to me as "law" that you must obey or go to jail, do you?
>
To me a physical law is something that you have to obey wether you want to
or not.  For instance, if you fall out of a plane you will accelerate at 
9.8 m/(s^2) until you reach terminal velocity. 

>
>>How do you know that natural "laws" never change?  Because they have
>>never been _observed_ to have changed?
>
>What you say would translate in legal terms that there is no evidence that
>they have changed. I'd add that there is no probable cause, either. Or can
>you think of some?

For instance, there is reason to believe that the value of the Newtonian
gravitational constant is not a constant, but actually changes with time 
(By about one part in 10^11 per year.)

-- 
All propositions are true in some sense, false in some sense and
meaningless in some sense.  
                               --Hagbard Celine H.M. S.H.
<this is a signature virus, to spread it, just copy into your sig-file>
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Slaves to Jesus was Defining the kingdom of God
Date: 15 Dec 92 05:43:31 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Dec15.050919.18019@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
>> >You obviously don't believe this, but being sinless(or spotless
>> >and without blemish in the spiritual sense as the yearly sacrificial
>> >lamb was required in the perennial sacrifice for Israel)was necessary
>> >for the final sacrifice.
>> This is non-responsive.
>Why?

Because it answers the wrong question.  I was questioning the inconsistency
between Jesus lacking sin, unlike humans, even though he was supposedly trying
to be a human.  You replied he had to be sinless in order to do a second thing
(be a sacrifice), which even if true does not answer the question of how he
could be sinless while doing the first thing (be like a human).

>Why do want him to have original
>sin?

Because all other humans (except Mary) have original sin, so if Jesus wants
to understand what it is like to be a human, he has to have it too.
--
"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 (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:23682 alt.atheism:23448 alt.slack:3441
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:00:25 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Dec11.232659.22699@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh) writes:
>You can continue to sin out of your own weakness 
>but always be forgiven when you admit your guilt.

	Yes, oh lord! I'm admit it! I am guilty of being rational! I am 
guilty of not being gullible! Oh, why did you create me with a mind? Why 
could I have not been an innocent sheep? Why, have you created me, with the 
full knowledge that I would be too rational to percieve your divine 
existance?
	I cast out this evil which we call a mind! I forsake my education, 
which is only the work of the devil, for it leads me astray! I shall never 
question, never think....


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: A.J.Robinson@lut.ac.uk
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Reply-To: A.J.Robinson@lut.ac.uk (Alan Robinson)
Organization: Loughborough University, UK.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 13:57:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.222128.2813@gacvx2.gac.edu> emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp) writes:
>A person should be of religion "x" if religion "x" seems appropriate for that person.
>
>People are different, after all.

Tell that to the JW's knocking on your door every Sunday morning.
And to the Christians whose book of rules tells them that everyone else
is Hellbound and should be saved (converted to Christianity) at all costs.

Alan.
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 14 Dec 92 10:30:58 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Dec11.125607.12737@waikato.ac.nz> arron@waikato.ac.nz writes:
>You should be a Christian because...
>
>Other religions say it doesn't matter which one you choose,

Nonsense.  Read the Qur'an to see what Allah does to kafirs.  Read the
Hindu scriptures and the teachings of the Buddha to see what happens
if you don't work towards your liberation from samsara.

>for aethiests

High time to learn the spelling of "atheist".

>it's a safe option if you ARE wrong.

No, it isn't.  This is the only life I have, and I'm not going to
waste any of my (limited) time and energy on rubbish.

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 15 Dec 92 06:58:07 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Distribution: world,public
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec14.192145.18552@en.ecn.purdue.edu>,
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) wrote:

> Of course, the Bible clearly states that God's wisdom will appear as
> foolishness to "the world", which you would explain as a "cushion" against
> such a work as this.  

Hmm, a very interesting notion. So if God's wistom will appear
as foolishness, and we can't separate foolishness from wisdom,
I'm sure we will never understand God's wisdom. In other words
why bother with things we won't understand anyway? Good old
Wittgenstein, sit down, sit down...

I'm not yet sure about your statement, would it also imply
that God's wisdom looks like foolishness for Christians as well?
Then it would mean that the universal set of foolishness is really
something nobody could never get a grep of. Or do we have 
cases where certain Christians know, and others not, and the issue
is how to separate out those who know from those who don't?

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bwebster@pages.com (Bruce F. Webster)
Subject: Re: MILITARY PURPOSE OF JONESTOWN MASSACRE
Reply-To: bwebster@pages.com
Organization: Banzai Research Institute
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:45:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.210852.2847@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu  
writes:
>
> [long, imaginative post deleted]
>

Uh, shouldn't this be in rec.arts.sf.written?  On the other hand, the author  
might be a good contributing editor to the Tanners' newsletter. ;-)  ..bruce..

Bruce F. Webster
bwebster@pages.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"KINGDOM, THE  In the old days, the Saints through the kingdom of God would  
fill the whole world through their sacrifice, hard work, cooperation, charity  
and righteousness. That didn't work, so now we're just going to buy all the  
land."  -- _Saintspeak_, Orson Scott Card
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Why do people give Mormons a hard time?
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:27:07 GMT

1) They go door-to-door.  I'm not saying they shouldn't,
   but ANYONE who goes door-to-door get a hard time.
   (sales people, census takers, poll-takers, etc)

2) While I have met some Mormons (at my door) and they
   are kind, friendly and not at all pushy (I told them
   I was not interested in the Church of LDS and they left me alone.)
   it is not obvious that they would turn out that way
   after reading the Book of the Mormons (LDS).
   It has alot of how God/Jesus will save you and love you,
   but some of the other stuff (that they did _not_ pre-mark
   for me...oh, yes, they gave me the Book for free! Well 
   worth listening to them for 10 mins or so.) is spooky.
   I suggest anyone considering the Church of LDS should
   read the entire Book first.

3) The squeeky wheel gets the grease.  In any group there
   will be a few loud extreamists that make the group
   look bad. 

I have nothing against Mormons as individuals, but I would
not encourage anyone to join their church.
Just my opinion.

Brian /-|-\
From: Bill
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Bible verse for the day.
Date: 14 Dec 1992 23:25:01 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: g222-15.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

"Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life."  
Proverbs 4:23

In Christs Love,
Bryan
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: A deep bit of flame bait
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:55:37 GMT

arron@waikato.ac.nz writes:

[blither, including]

>It seems to me that a lot of you readers in TALK.RELIGION.MISC really enjoy
>winding up Christians by putting out smart remarks/replies to any old subject.
>:
>However, it does leave me sad to think that all you guys out there are so happy
>to throw your insults at Christianity just because we appear to be dumb suckers
>:
>Christianity is real life, not textbook life, and you have to give it a go
>:
>Sorry that I care about you all, but it's too hard to stop me now.

The words "patronising" and "sod" come to mind.*

P.

* In the style of the great Angus Deayton. How's about 
alt.fan.have-i-got-news-for-you? Why should only Americans clog the 
alt.fan newsgroups?
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive  P a u l   M o l o n e y    "I'm pretty witty and you're itty bitty    pe
james  Trinity College, Dublin     And isn't it a pity the city can't see?   vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Summary: feelings...nothing more than feelings...
Date: 18 Dec 92 01:18:38 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Dec16.144033.5753@infonode.ingr.com>, tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
> 
> 	Ah so there is _no_ parellel between the <barnyard material>
> 	that Tony seems to think that Mormons _should_ believe, because
> 	it is contained in a book called "Mormon Doctrine", and the
> 	stuff that you think that we _should_ believe because it
> 	was contained in Young's "JoD".

No. I think Bringham was not a living prophet. Just that
the LDS would like to believe he was. I suppose you could
lump in all successive "prophets" too. And you know by now
I think the same of Joseph. He was a great story teller, and
it's difficult to match his talents, but it ends there(imo).
I _use_ the JoD to buttress my opinion.
> 
> 	You both seem to think ("slippery theology", that was _your_
> 	phrase?) that not having something that can nail mormons to the
> 	wall, is a major failing in the religion, nicht wahr?

I think it's an excuse to hide the failings of an empty boast,
i.e., the LDS have "living prophets", which imo, display no more
prophetic ability than your average Christian:-)
Thus "chameleon doctrines"(my phrase too).
> 
>  I thought that it was a neat "coherent summeral conclusion". 

You probably think the restored church has living prophets too.

>  I am sorry if you thought that I was comparing your brillent posts with
>  those of tony's, no really, I have much more respect for you than that.
>  If you really think that you have been insulted, I apoligise, I wouldn't
>  want your feelings to get hurt.

If you need to apologize, ok, accepted, but I assure you, words
from the net do not hurt my feelings. Take Care.
BTW, I like Tony. I think he is very sincere. I like you too,
although you can be trying at times.
I feel Tony gets frustrated and uses caps to make a point:-)

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Satan Persecutes Mormons
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:24:42 GMT

ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W) writes:

>The widespread persecution of Mormons is evidence that Jesus Christ did indeed
>organize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and leads it today.

>Those who persecute Mormons do so because they are deceived by Satan.

I'm not so sure that persecution can be *directly* attributed to Satan.
Persecution seems to be one of the nastier traits many humans posess.
Throughout history, there seems to always have been closed-minded people
who didn't quite grasp the concept that you can disagree with people with
different opinions without verbally or physically harassing them.

Don't persecute people you disagree with!  Debate with them!  ;)

>There are many humble followers of Christ outside the Mormon church.  They do
>not rail against the Mormon church.  Those who do are not humble followers of
>Christ.

>It's not real complicated.

Agreed.  While many acts of persecution and senseless violence have been
committed in the name of the Church, such acts are not Christian acts.
Unless I've misinterpreted the Gospels, Jesus taught that one should
be tolerant of other people, their actions, and their beliefs, although
one may disagree with those actions, beliefs, etc.


--
Michael Adams				| Science without religion is lame;
Actuarial Science Program @ UIUC	| religion without science is blind.
StarOwl@uiuc.edu (NeXTmail OK)		| 		-- Thomas Edison
an692@anon.penet.fi (anonymously)	| NBCS: B1f+t-w+g+k++s+me+h-qv
From: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM (Frank Farkas)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why do people give Mormons a hard time?
Date: 14 Dec 1992 15:50:09 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: qual





>Why in the name of the blazing blue Buddha do people hate Mormons so much?
>I am not a Christian in any socially meaningful sense of the term, but
>I have known a lot of Mormons, and a lot of other serious Christians,
>and in my experience, Mormons are the kindest, most hard-working, most
>decent, most moral, least objectionable Christians around. These are
>generalizations, of course, but I worked for a Mormon once, and he
>was one of the most decent men I have ever met -- and so were 
>most of his friends, his sons, etc.   I think their dogma is more than
>a little loopy, but geez...no more so than regular Christianity. 
 
>I do NOT want to start a flame war here, so let's keep this
>civilized, okay?

>Note: if any Mormons think that a question like this will do more harm than
>good, just post a message saying so. I don't want to bring any more
>flak on you than I know you already get.  I'm just baffled by the
>animosity many people have against the LDS church. Is it just
>sectarian back-biting?

I am a Mormon and I appreciated your message. Thank you for injecting some
balance into the lopsided issues on this newsnet. 

It would be a much different and a lot better world if we would just recognize 
the good in each other. I wonder what happens to children which are brought
up in an environment where they are only being told when they do something
which displease the parents? We adults are not that much different in our
needs.

In either case, ultimately what counts is what we do. We will not be judged
byg the hot air we emit, but the works which we actually perform.

Thanks once again. May the Lord God bless you.

		Frank
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rdetweil@boi.hp.com (Richard Detweiler)
Subject: Re: Satan Persecutes Mormons
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:59:17 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard

In article <92349.133725IK20050@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> World Leader <IK20050@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:
>I used to think that, too....I figured if something was
>the object of persecution, then it has to be right...
>
>But let's think back on other movements that were persecuted
>throughout history...were they right?
>
>Communism?
>Witchcraft?
>Noriega?
>
>---A.

Galileo?
Copernicus?
Baha'is?
Muslims?
Christians?
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 12/19/92   God's Promise in Romans 5:9
Date: 19 Dec 92 07:27:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	Much more then,
	being now justified by his blood,
	we shall be saved from wrath
	through him.

	Romans 5:9
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Why do people give Mormons a hard time?
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:31:35 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Dec15.093821.11960@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
 So-called Christians
> will readily kill one another on the battlefield, including Mormons killing
> Mormons.  However, not one JW will kill. Think, if the world was all JW's,
> there would be NO war... Hmmm... So, if you wants to talk about REAL
> "hard times", ask a JW what it's all about...

Could you tell us a little bit more about Armageddon, and will JWs
get into the ultimate battle destroying the enemy?

Cheers,
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel)
Subject: Re: Omnicient
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology - DSP
Distribution: world, public
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:35:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.145259.29567@oclc.org>, jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:
|> ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel) writes:
|> : 
|> : Not correct.  Foreknowledge and predestination are not
|> : the same thing.
|> 
|> I didn't say they were the same thing, I said that God had 
|> foreknowledge of our actions and still chose to create us, 
|> therefore our actions are predestined.  How can you deny
|> such a common sense idea?  If you want to convince me otherwise,
|> how about elaborating on your assertion?
|> 

Well, by my definitions, predestination means A&E had no
choice, God decided that they would sin.  Foreknowldge means
that God new ahead of time that they would choose to sin.
The difference seems clear to me.

|> :  My question would still be, why did God
|> : make it possible for us to sin, and why, knowing that
|> : A&E would fail, did he not intercede and prevent them.
|> 
|> I give up.  Why did he?  Isn't this evidence against your belief
|> in God?
|> 

I haven't the faintest idea why.  Christianity, nor any of
the religions of the Book, claim to posses or impart ALL
knowledge.  Though many of the adherents do.  Judaism,
Christianity and Islam all have passages which state that
we don't have all of the answers.  There are many things
I do not know, many things I do not understand, on many
subjects including religion.  If I was to reject every
model I didn't completely understand, I would be forced
to pitch a lot of the concepts which I use daily.  If you
were asking if it implied that I had doubts in my beliefs,
then the answer would be yes.

 
     If reason is the sword of the intellect, then 
     doubt must be the lantern.  For it is by doubt
     that we recognize the demons in our mind, and
     with reason that we remove them, or failing that
     to isolate their effects on our deliberations.



|> -- 
|> > Jeff Young <
|> > Personal   <               I'm not lost, I'm exploring.
|> > opinions   <

-- 
     The comments and spelling herein are mine and nobody
                     else lays claim to them.
================================================================
Lonnie D. Harvel                 |  ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu