HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Subject: Mormon Church suppresses evidence in murder trial (SLCM1192-intro)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Corp.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:48:50 GMT


Once again, it is a pleasure to present another issue of the Salt
Lake City Messenger.  This is the newsletter produced by Jerald and
Sandra Tanner, and it is loaded with information.  For those of you who
have expressed your gratitude for this service, once again, you're
very welcome.  I am glad that you find the information helpful and
informative.

This issue is dedicated to the shady dealings of the Hoffman case and
the McClellin manuscripts that began the killings.  In this issue, 
we find that the Mormon church suppressed valuable evidence in the
case.  This certainly brings into question the credibility of the Mormon
church and it's leadership.  It makes me wonder what else have they
suppressed and in what cases?  We already know about the "clensing"
of the History of the Church, and of the deception by high church
officials in the Reed-Smoot case.  The mind boggles with wondering
what else is not on the up and up.  Could Paul H. Dunn's experience
be the norm, and not the exception?

By the way, have you heard about Mark Hoffman's new prision job?
He's printing up baseball cards for Paul H. Dunn.

The remainder of the newsletter is devoted to an examination of the
whole Warnke affair.  Finally, a short devotional is included that
is not only uplifting and enlightening, but contains very valuable
information that we can all apply to our lives.

Read and enjoy.

God Bless,

-- 
=============================================================================
= Glenn Clapp                          |  gclapp@thunder.sim.es.com         =
= Evans and Sutherland Computer Corp.  |  My opinions are my own, but then  =
= Salt Lake City, Utah  (801) 582-5847 |  that's my opinion.                =
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: vbaker@hamp.hampshire.edu
Subject: Re: Satan Persecutes Mormons
Organization: Hampshire College
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:13:02 GMT

In article <13DEC199214543291@acad3.alaska.edu>, 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.

I suspect that you haven't really thought this through.  If widespread 
persecution indicates led-by-Christness, then there are many groups that 
are far more led-by-Christ than Mormons.  Homosexuals, for instance.

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

Those who persecute _anybody_ do so out of arrogance and xenophobia.  If
decieved by Satan equals arrogant and xenophobic, and if persecution of 
Mormons isn't any more indicative of decieved-by-Satanness than persecution 
of anybody else is, then I agree with you.

> 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.

So, a person is a 'humble follower of Christ' if and only if he or she 
doesn't rail against the Mormon Church?  What about non-Christians who 
don't rail against the Mormon Church?

> It's not real complicated.

No, it's not.

Look.  Mormonism isn't especially persecuted, anymore.  There isn't a vast
anti-Mormon terrorist movement lurking everywhere, turning away potential
converts and struggling to lead the faithful into apostacy, headed by 
Satan and His writhing moaning hordes.  That's a paranoid fantasy with 
no base in reality.  All there really is is one group of obnoxious
exclusionist Christians fighting to be accepted by another group of
obnoxious exclusionist Christians.  It's as simple as that.

Christ, God, Satan, and so on have nothing to do with it.  And, I imagine,
prefer it that way.


Vincent Baker
Ex-Mormon, Non-'decieved by Satan,' Non-'humble follower of Christ.'
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Bible verses for two days
Date: 17 Dec 92 03:26:01 GMT
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu writes:

>"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you and say all kinds of  
>evil against you falsely for My sake."

>"Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for  
>so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

>Comments expected.

And so here is one: The above sounds suspiciously like a way
to get `slaves' to "behave".

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:31:00 GMT
Organization: n.o.y.b

In article <BzGp8w.J74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:
>pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>>>being christian to being pagan.
>>>		 	  ^^^^^
>>>I hate to nitpick, but this is the DUMBEST word in modern spirituality today.
>>>ANd so many (not you) of these 'pagans' are about as true to their 'beliefs'
>>>as the average Christians.  Yeargh.
>>Why is "pagan" a dumb word? Do you know what a pagan is? Here's my
>>definition so far from alt.pagan, enjoy:
>I had read this before, but...
<MUNCH>
>non-believers.  For a person to call themselves pagan is to, at best, engage in
>mocking Christians (not that I have any problem with that, mind you.)  I just
>think it is better to use, h, I dunno, the actual NAME of your faith system, if
>it has one, and if it doesn't, then why throw a silly Christianity-derived term
>on there?  I find the word is used largely for attention-getting and pretense.
>
>Matt I.

Nope. There *are* other names, such as Earth-based, or Goddess-based, religions,
but considering that there is *NO* ->One True Text<-, and if you ask 10 pagans
about their beliefs, you'll get 11 opinions, it's a category. Esp. since most
of the West is nominally (that is, they claim to be) Xian, it makes a label
that can be flung at them, so they get the general idea. Until xianity is
no longer the "accepted" norm, we may be stuck with it. (This is, btw, called
"realism").

	mark
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Satan Persecutes Mormons
Date: 16 Dec 92 10:28:28 GMT
Organization: The Turing Project, Public Access Internet Host

In article <13DEC199214543291@acad3.alaska.edu> 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.

Queers are more persecuted than Mormons, I guess that means we are Gods
chosen people :-)

-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24113 alt.atheism:23931 alt.slack:3525
From: holt_c@cubldr.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:00:37 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1gp3brINN6cc@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
> 
> lungtt@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) on Wed Dec 16 21:38 1992 posted:
> |
>  
> |Is this a branch of the Church of Christ known in Indianapolis or Boston?
> |If it is, be careful!  These guys are nuts.  Christ purportedly said
> |"I am the vine, you are the branches..."  If this group is not connected,
> |they're simply not part of the vine.  Period.
> 	I think he was originally refering to the Mormons. You might be
> thinking of the Boson based "Church or Christ Scientist", a different church.
>  
>  
Actually, it was the Boston Church of Christ.

							Sincerely,
							Lieutenant Wilkes
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Slaves to Jesus was Defining the kingdom of God
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:09:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.191657.28648@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> In article <1992Dec11.054357.11126@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
> >> Well, I have been born, grown, etc. and I _still_ say that it would not be a
> >> big "sacrifice" to die for just three days.
> >I don't think the story relates that J flew out of the sky
> >and died for three days. there is alot leading up to that. If
> >he felt pain and rejection like othjer humans(I believe he did)
> >it makes a _big_ difference. However we can leave it at that
> >on this point.
> 
> The reason I argue against it is that you seem to think it makes a difference.
> You think it matters that Jesus was able to come back after three days.  It
> is important to your religion that Jesus felt pain and rejection, true, but it
> is also important to your religion that he came back after three days.  If
> Jesus did not come back after three days, your religion would be worthless.

Certainly, my apologies if my emphasis on his other acts led
you to think I believed otherwise.

> 
> If you really think the resurrection made no difference, fine.  But if you
> think it did, then you shouldn't reply to criticism by saying "the resurrection
> doesn't matter, it was the pain and rejection that mattered".

I agree the resurrection is central to christianity. In christian
theology based on J's words, the death and resurrection was
necessary in the final act of sacrifice for his people, whether you
believe the action was piddly or not means little against the act itself.
> 
> >> Also, Jesus was not an ordinary human being.  For instance, he had no
> >> original sin.  If he wanted to sacrifice himself by being a human, the least
> >> he could have done is to not be a special human, but instead take on the same
> >> burdens--including original sin--as any other human.  Besides, it's only for
> >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? Being sinless was the requirement for the act. The word says
no one is without sin. I suppose the devil was taunting God with
this, i.e., that no one can buy them back to himself.
Besides, only God could do that. Why do want him to have original
sin?
> 
> If I argue that X is not Y, and you argue that X is necessary for Z, that
> is nonresponsive to the issue of X not being Y.

> 
> All that your answer does is say that Jesus can only do one of those two things
> Y and Z (understand being human, and be a perfect sacrifice).

That was one of my arguments. I don't see a contradiction that he
could do both.
From: kashyap@remus.rutgers.edu (Vipul Kashyap)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: In response to Jack Carroll on Hinduism?
Date: 14 Dec 92 00:33:12 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

>The Vedas, which are the basis of the religion of India, do not say that
>all forms of worship of God are equally correct. This is never said. For
>example, in many so-called "religions" the flesh of dead animals is
>offered to God. The Vedas say, however, that God does not accept such
>offerings, and that a person who eats meat can not understand the Lord
>at all.

Kalki, I would like to know where in the Vedas it says that. I myself
would be surpised to see that written anywhere. In one of the stories
of the Ramayana, Rama supposedly had a deerskin upon which he sat sometimes.
How else would he have gotten this skin if he had not killed an animal?
I also don't know where you arrived at the conclusion that meat eating is
prohibited by the vedas. There is no statement in the vedas to that fact.

The vedas, to my understanding, merely offer 'suggestions' to lead a 
better life. One of these suggestions is to refrain from eating things
which could possibly corrupt the mind. My own interpretation of that
statement is that if you can eat meat and still control your senses then
its perfectly fine.

>That Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead is directly stated in
>the Vedas. It does not rest on the opinion of any "sect."

I really doubt this fact also. I never really understood the ISKON mentality.
How can you claim that Krishna is the supreme manifestation of Brahman?
What makes Krishna so much more superior than another manifestation such
as Shiva, Vishnu, Ganapathi, Yahweh, Allah, Jesus or the many others?

>Many people who claim to be "Hindu" do actually engage in idol worship,
>or demigod worship, which the Vedas declare to be unacceptable for one
>who is on the progressive path of liberation. Goddess Kali or Lord Shiva
>cannot award anyone liberation. Only Vishnu or Krishna can do this. This
>is what the Vedas actually say, and you would do well to study them
>before you make further statements about "Hinduism."

I dont think you really understand the whole principle behind the origin of
idol worship (and minor deities and demigods). The whole origin of these
customs was to cater to the comman man. The vedas say that all paths of
worship are true, since they all eventually lead to the same end. If my
neighbor chooses to worship Kali or Shiva, then I believe that they can
attain moksha as easily as you can by worshipping only Krishna or Vishnu.

Srihari Gopal
gopal@rwja.umdnj.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: Heaven/Hell (was: Re: Perfect Love)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:27:45 GMT

>>>[...] if the Bible is TRUE, then God made us for
>>>His own purposes and has the right to do as He pleases. The software I
>>>help make is made for a specific purpose, and it doesn't get to choose
>>>...people choose, not the software. 
>>Someday I may have children.  I will have essentially "made" them.  Do
>>I have the right to do whatever I please with them?
>The bible compares the human parent/child relationship to God/creation,
>but not in this way. If I'm using a compiler to create a program, the
>compiler has essentially "made" the program. The compiler doesn't have
>the right to do whatever it pleases to the program, the creator (me)
>does. 
Now humanity has been compared to software and to a compiler.  In the grand
scheme of things, I refuse to believe that I mean nothing more than the 
expression of some childish divine will.  
I dunno.

Matt I.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Slaves to Jesus was Defining the kingdom of God
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:35:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.030601.18124@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
>He experienced the totality of sin on the cross by taking it all
>to himself, so he likely felt and had original sin on him too
>(as the metaphorical scapegoat)during and after the final sacrifice.
>I hope you don't think I'm cheesing out on this, but it goes back
>to the original point someone made that the sacrifice was nothing,
>as well as covering your point.

In _that_ case a _different_ question arises: Why did Jesus have to bother
with being a human being at all?  If he got a body so he could experience
humanity, and he could experience humanity _anyway_ by taking it into himself,
why did he even bother with the body?
--
"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)
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 15 Dec 1992 21:54:42 -0800
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cascade.ens.tek.com

In article <78395@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <1glgcdINNiis@cascade.ens.tek.com> davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes:
>>In article <77785@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>|>'sin' via _The Scribnew-Bantam Engish Dictionary_ is defined as:
>|>n.      1. willful breaking of a divine law or violation of the
>|>           principles of morality;
>|>        2. any serious fault or offense;
>|>vi.     3. to commit a sin.
>|>
>|>Which of these do you believe do not exist (the first or second
>|>part of 1, number 2, or number 3) ?  Depending on how you answer,
>|>do the others exist?
>|
>|  In the same breath I'd say all of them and at the same time, 
>|none of them. At any rate "we" are the ones who needs to be 
>|forgiving others. If we can get to a place where we can do that,
>|miracles will freely flow.
>
>David, you don't think there is any serious fault or offense being
>committed or possible to be committed?  

  Yes, I can see what to me are serious faults being committed all
of the time.

  Still, we need to find that forgiving place within ourself where we 
can forgive those who have wronged us. I feel that Jesus was suggesting
prayer as of way of finding that place. (Matthew 6:14-15). So what is the
point you are wanting to make by your question?

>Do you believe this 
>physical body we live in can be hurt or cause hurt?  

  I feel that the physical body in and of itself can not cause hurt. Though
it can be hurt. I feel that there is a deeper essence of our being that
resides within the body. When that deeper essence of the self is more focused
upon the ego than the soul, than I feel that the ego causes the body to act in
a different way than if it were the soul that was being listened to by the 
self. When that deeper essence of the self becomes more focused upon the soul, 
than the body causes love, harmony and beauty to happen. Forgiveness of others
like in Matthew 6:14-15 is able to happen in most creative ways.

>Does the physcial body we live in exist to you?

  Yes, it does.


		Two strong impulses: One, 
		to drink long and deep,
		the other,
		not to sober up too soon.
					Rumi


	David Hatcher

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Defining the kingdom of God
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 02:21:16 GMT

Mr. Sandvik suggests that unless I can show valid each of the
assumptions I listed in my simple counter-example to his claim
"there's no logic in Christianity", I walk the "same thin line of
reasoning Christian philosophers are (in)famous of".

I fail to see the relevance.  If Mr. Sandvik agrees that what I
presented was an example of logic in Christianity, then he must
withdraw his claim.


                              Gregg Skinner
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Anthony Rose; ANSWERING
Date: 11 Dec 92 12:13:38 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <37QZ02jc2ehb01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>,
 agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:

[...]

> Has he issues a doctrinal warning on the book?  Does he allow it to be
> continually be sold under "missionary" section of the Church's bookstores?
> Not a good postion to argue from.  If he doesn't endorse it, he certainly
> wouldn't allow it to be sold under that title, in the missionary section,
> of all the LDS bookstores.  Trust me!  The prophets have a past record
> of cleaning out books that they don't approve of.  This one wouldn't be
> an exception.

_Mormon Doctrine_ has not been in the "missionary" section of the
"Deseret Bbook" store in Logan for several years.  Its in the
General Authority's section along with McConkies other
comemtaries, as well as commentaries by others: Neal A. Maxwell,
Boyd K. Packer, et cetera.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:23619 alt.atheism:23375 alt.slack:3425
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 11 Dec 1992 22:43:09 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


In article <1992Dec11.183641.3054@cs.cornell.edu> rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten) writes:
|God doesn't have to approximate pi; He knows it.
 
 
	Can god give PI EXACTLY ? Someone wrote me some Email and pointed out
that if we ask god to tell us what PI is, he will spend all his time 
saying it (it is a radical # I think) and not be able to butt his holy
nose into our lives......
 
	WELL....GET  YOUR GOD TO DROP EVERYTHING AND TELL US WHAT PI
IS.....
 
:-)

-- 
A. TRENT PHILLIPS |" A mirror is a negative space with a frame and a place for
  also known as   | your face, it reveals what the rest of us see. It conceals
   WHITE  ROOK    | what you'd like you to be."--Blue Oyster Cult
-------bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu-----aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu-------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten)
Subject: Atheist, speak up.
Organization: Cornell University, CS Dept., Ithaca, NY
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:32:52 GMT

What does it mean to be a Christian?


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1gnr97INN9kc@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <BzFn99.5BA@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 18 Dec 1992 08:13:59 UTC

In article <BzFn99.5BA@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> 
ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:
>ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield) writes:
>>Perhaps he, like I, is one of those people who is able to think for himself
>>and realize that christianity is not for everyone.  I do not fear the
>>christians or their beliefs in eternal damnation.  I want nothing to do
>>with a god that would even consider the idea of damning someone for
>>eternity.  I do not fear change, I relish it, that is why I changed from
>>being christian to being pagan.
>		 	  ^^^^^
>I hate to nitpick, but this is the DUMBEST word in modern spirituality today.
>ANd so many (not you) of these 'pagans' are about as true to their 'beliefs'
>as the average Christians.  Yeargh.

Why is "pagan" a dumb word? Do you know what a pagan is? Here's my
definition so far from alt.pagan, enjoy:

>Hmm, OK, let me give you *my* definition of pagan:
>1) Non-Semitic Religions
>	For example: Christianity represents a pagan interpretation of
>	the scriptures of Judaism and Islam represents a return from the
>	pagan aspects of Christianity towards Semitic ideals;
>	(separation of creator and creation, pure monotheism, no
>	idolatry).
>2) Various Religions of Babylon excluding Judaism
>	For example: the Jews in exile in Babylon were exposed to a
>	great variety of pagan religions coming from Greece, Persia,
>	India and from Mesopotamia itself; yet they kept Judaism alive,
>	in its original language, against all odds.
>3) Religions prior to conversion to Christianity or Islam
>4) Islam
>	Christians refered to Moslems as pagans during the Crusades.
>	Moslems refered to Christians as idolaters and non-believers.
>5) Neo-Pagan religions
>	Attempts to rediscover religions lost or nearly lost to
>	Christian conversion.
>6) Religions that attempt to combine all the world's religions into one.
>	For example, Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy.
>7) A personal and unique religion or interpretation
>8) Misc. Religions that I've missed
>
>See anything you like?
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24293 alt.pagan:14437