HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians? (Was: WANTED: Former LDS, ...)
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:48:21 GMT

In article <Bw67JK.7LH@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsd.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, 
>> 
>	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."
>

 Point taken.  Yeh, I remember being told that kinda crap when I was on
 my mission. When I asked for references, I was given a partial list that
 didn't quite back up the claim.

 To my understanding, there are different claims in different parts of the
 New Testament.  To understand the context of each passage requires more
 than casual perusal and massive simplifications. Some of these things
 come out only with "fasting and prayer." Simple appeals to reason are
 sometimes insufficent.  although it becomes a lot easier with the Holy
 Ghost...

 Just for context: 


 The previous verse, which is the first part of a sentence. (the last
 phrase is what was quoted.)

 "My sheep hear my voice, and I _know_ them, and they _follow_ me:

 "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish..."

 The parelle verses are those who dicuss the Living Water.

  To my understanding, the phrase "Eternal Life", means a little
  more than simply the resurection of the just, it would also mean
  the type of life that is the result (deserved/gift/natural outcome)
  of those who hear the voice of Christ and follow him.

  [[ Ye notice that Jesus _doesn't_ spend a lot of time discussing the
     mechanics, only the results                                       ]]



-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Heresy was (Re: Mormons are not Christians)
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:27:53 GMT

In article <27Hs02qn25Rz01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.133934.7299@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Mormons have a simpler solution to the overall problem: Children are
>>>>born without sin. Children who die with out baptism before they are
>>>>accountable are believe to return to the presence of God.
>>>
>>>Can you back this up with Scripture?  What age is acountable?  Eight
>>>years old?  Is this in the Bible?
>>
>> And the precise support for the belief in children being sinless is
>> one of those that comes from the BoM. 
>>
>> The requirment that children are born in Sin is Augistine and Post-Augustine.
>> It is a non-Biblical doctrine perpertrated ;-) on the opiated masses.
>
>This is not true.  We are born into a sinful nature.  "there is NONE that
>is righteous, no NOT ONE"  (Romans 3:10)


 LDS: All who become accountable have chosen sin, except for Jesus who
      did not sin.

 Rose and other Evag. "Christians":  Even little children are inheirently
      Sinfull. It is their nature, because of a sexual act on th part of 
      their parents.



 There are several assumptions here 

  1)  Sex even in marriage is Sinful, Children as a product of that Sinfull
      act are created in Sin. Children are seperate from God and have
      no place in the kingdom of God. Jesus was wrong/misinformed.

  2)  Augistine is the originator of such specious arguments that man
      in inheirently sinfull. Calvin and other followed up such arguments
      with other non-biblical theories and philosophies.


 The bible clearly teaches that man chooses to sin. It does not teach that
 man can not choose to do good. Paul teachs that man even if he were not
 to ever sin and were to keep the "Law" i.e. (Mosiac Law) with absoulute
 perfect compliance, he would still be lacking in the Kingdom of God.

 There is the supposition that man would break the law, but there isn't
 any scriptural basis for beliving the heresy that little children aren't
 the essence of the His Fathers's Kingdom.


   Don't misunderstand me. If you want to claim that you are not 
   a perfect keeper of the law (i.e righteous in Romans) I would 
   call you a liar.





-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       |
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Joseph a true latter-day prophet
Keywords: LDS, Mormon, Joseph Smith
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:09:46 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Distribution: na
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct12.192217.22171@cbnews.cb.att.com> wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith) writes:
>
>As I was continuing to collect the Daily LDS Bashing to see if there is
>anything significant to add to my response, I read Robert Weiss' critique
>of the various accounts of Joseph Smith's first vision. Based on what Mr.
>Weiss chooses to relate and what he fails to discuss I am assuming that
>his source is based on the Tanners' material (which was composed around
>1968).
>
>If Mr Weiss wants me to take a few days off and type in a number of
>lengthy articles that directly responded to the Tanners I will be glad
>to do so.  If not, may I suggest that Mr Weiss, Rose, et al. take an
>hour or so and carefully look at a number of published responses:
>
>First, please look at Dean C. Jessee, "The Early Accounts of Joseph Smith's
>First Vision," _BYU Studies, vol 9 (Spring, 1969), no 3. He covers the basic
>documents, similarities, and differences.
>
>Second, D. Michael Quinn authored (anonymously) a small monograph in 1977
>entitled "Jerald and Sandra Tanner's Distorted View of Mormonism: A Response
>to Mormonism - Shadow or Reality?" Quinn addresses the Tanners' "selective
>application of criteria with reference to the First Vision" (which Mr Weiss
>seems to espouse) on pages 29 thru 41.
>
>Third, may I suggest Marvin Hill, "The First Vision Controversy: A Critique
>and Reconciliation," _Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought_, vol 15 (Summer
>1982), no 2.  Sometimes I think that only those graduate students who
>survived Hill's History of American Religion class or his course on Jacksonian
>Americana can appreciate how throughly he examines the differing points of
>view. I find it difficult to swallow the Tanners interpretation or to take
>Wesley P. Walters very seriously after watching Hill pick everything to
>pieces.
>
>Since all three articles have been published by "Mormon Miscellaneous" I
>doubt that there will be too much problem concerning typing them all in.
>Is it worth it? I doubt that the net critics will pay any attention to it.
>The only value that I can see is to have it in ascii form for the next time
>Weiss or someone one else decides to down load their data base again.
>-- 
>
>              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


Willard:

I would love to get my hands on those books you mentioned in this letter.
I AM interested!  COuld you help me get copyies?

thnx,
-tony
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Subject: Re: Joseph a true latter-day prophet
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:04:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.140539.20474@cbnews.cb.att.com> wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith) writes:
>



>Walters, the Tanners, etc. are looking for only ONE revival. The evidence

SOrry, I haven't had time to follow much lately.  Who is Walters?

-- 
=============================================================================
= 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.                =
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Mormons, a different Jesus
Keywords: LDS, Mormon, Joseph Smith
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:26:07 GMT
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.



     I follow the one that was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1,
Luke 2:4). 

     I think that the Mormons follow the one that was born in 
Jerusalem (Alma 7:10).


Please, please, if you are going to follow Jesus, make sure
you got the right one.  


Sincerely,



Brian Ceccarelli
brian@gamma1.lpl.arizona.edu
Tucson, Arizona
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: "Evidence" for "Jesus" comes from believers
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:02:19 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Oct15.145417.1402@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> Kent Sandvik wrote:
> >I'm sure Greg [sic] has a really good explanation why the one billion people
> >of China have food and shelter, and they don't believe in Jesus.
 
> Do not confuse the claim, 
> 
>    P -> Q (those who seek first God's kingdom and righteousness [note:
>    this is not the same as 'believe in Jesus'] will not lack food and
>    clothes)
> 
> with it's inverse, 
> 
>    not(P) -> not(Q) (those who do not seek first God's kingdom and
>    righteousness will lack food and clothes.)

OK, let's map this to the Chineese people. Using your statement
above, I could write down: "Chineese people who do not seek first
God's kingdom and righteousness will lack food and clothes". If you
think this is the case, fine with me. But most humans that use
common sense would immediately see that this is not true at all.
It takes a lot of faith to avoid the core truth, after all.

> Kent again asks about my purpose.  I'll repeat a third time: I'm
> making light of the criticism that most "evidence" for "Jesus" comes
> from believers.

And I'm also making light to show that this is actually the
case!
 
> He requested a "ticket to Jesus" something like a "ticket to Idaho."
> I made a jump in the discussion which was perhaps too large.  The
> statement which corresponds to "I can fly to Idaho" is "I can try out
> Jesus' claims."  Both lack specifics.  If I fly to Idaho, when I
> arrive I will have to check out specific claims, such as the locations
> of supposed rivers, etc.  Jesus' claim about food and clothes is also
> specific.  If the claim holds true, we have not proven Jesus'
> validity, no more than locating the rivers proves Idaho's existence.
> We simply move on to the next claim, until either one of them proves
> false (P -> not(Q)), or the claims are exhausted.

Well, you wanted to know if Idaho exists, and that's easy. I will
purchase a flight ticket and send you there. If it is as easy
to show that the miracle man Jesus existed, then all we need is
a 'ticket' so we all skeptics could find out that this actually
was the case. As long as the ticket is missing, we are right, or
what. Give us the ticket, and we will immediately shut up. It's really
that simple. Just don't send another "Idaho parody", thanks, that's
not evidence...

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: daniel@clsi.COM (Daniel Barclay)
Subject: Re: Robertson Roulette
Organization: CAD Language Systems Inc.
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:13:24

> 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?

1)
"Tn"?
A handful of "." that should be ","?
("computerdriven" instead of "computer-driven"?)
A "'" instead of a ","?

2)
Why does it "betray the true origin of the text?"
--
Daniel S. Barclay			CAD Language Systems, Inc.
					Suite 101, 5457 Twin Knolls Rd.
Why can't _I_ think of a signature?	Columbia, MD  21045  USA
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:05:14 GMT

> From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
> In article <1992Oct14.190632.21593@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT
> >From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
> >> IMHO, at a distance from which the people in the BoM claim to be
> >> getting to within 6 miles of the center of Jerusalem, I think is
> >> pretty darn good. Couple that with the description of his mother
> >> and the way that she concieved, you'r proably right there were
> >> two of 'em born at the same time.
> >
> >The LDS 'description of his mother and the way she conceived' is
> >not the Bible description.  The LDS historically have taught that
> >the 'virgin birth' was merely God the father, an exalted man with
> >a body of flesh and bones, having sex with Mary.  LDS leaders
> >have stated this repeatedly, their is nothing figurative in their
> >language.  Jesus was the son of the Father in a literal way, begot
> >in the same manner we beget children.
> >
>
>   Mark, Mark, Mark, you gotta keep your critisisms straight
>
>   Either your are arguing that Bethlehem is near Jerusalem in one
>   post or you are arguing that some Mormon's speculation about
>   the method of Christ's conception isn't kosher.
>
>   Keep your arguement is one thread or the other.  Which one are
>   you going for now, or can't you make up your mind.
>
>   This thread is about why Mormons worship another Christ (ie
>   the one born at the same time but in a different place) Sheesh... ;-)
>
>   Refering to the other thread that you haven't yet followed up on,
>   have you yet figured out why it is important that Mary has a special
>   child without the normal assistance. Would you like to explain
>   why you seem to foam at the mouth on the subject of virgin birth implies
>   free from Sin. You haven't yet show _this_ to be a biblical doctrine.

I have not been following the other thread because I do not beleive
the issue concerns the relative dirtyness of sex.  The issue is
that the Bible does not teach the LDS position: that God had sex
with Mary.  The prophecy said the sign would be that a virgin would
bear a child, not lose her virginity to an exalted man -- which is
what the LDS have historically taught.

I find it interesting that, within the same posting, you urge me to
argue why God could not have sex with Mary, and at the same time
refer to this long, and widely held LDS belief as 'speculation'.
In other words, if you deny it is an LDS teaching, why do coax
us to into an argument concerning 'whether it could have happened'.
I saw one of your LDS brothers from Alaska complaining about the spirit
of strife in this area.  I hope he sees your obvious attempt to
encourage an argument concernging whether God could have done it --
while at the same time deny that it is an LDS belief.

Mark
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Bring On the Cases....
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:49:32 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,politics.homosexuality
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Oct14.141304.18904@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com
(drieux, just drieux) wrote:
> ] Our company actually has a rule that it is illegal to discriminate
> ] based on sexual preferences. Actually this rule is now law in California.
> ] It's another great step towards equality amongst humans. I don't see
> ] *any* cases where homosexuals should not represent a company, with the
> ] exception of prejudice (which is not allowed anyway by the new laws,
> ] haha!).
> 
> sorta sums up the american way rather neatly 
> there kent....
> 
> Maybe in Richard's world there is some
> other way of doing things?

Actually Richard's world is illegal based on California law!

Cheers,
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: towfiq@justice.UUCP (Mark Towfiq)
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:05:41
Organization: Towfiq System
In-reply-to: ksand@apple.com's message of Sat, 10 Oct 1992 23:40:08 GMT
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: PLEASE HELP ME!  I need your advice!  Help me keep this love alive!
X-Mailer: GNU Emacs 18.58 with RMAIL and Supercite 2.2
	<ksand-101092163946@wintermute.apple.com>
Distribution: na

cm = cmaguire@time.Princeton.EDU (Cary Maguire)
ks = ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
dw = daw@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Dave Webb)

dw> I desperately need some help and advice.  I have been dating a
dw> Jewish girl from New York for the past 2 months and have developed
dw> a wonderful relationship...

cm> Perhaps you could consider a Baha'i approach.  Baha'is frequently
cm> run into similar dilemas, as the Baha'i teachings specifically
cm> encourage the fostering of world unity through interracial
cm> marriage.

ks> I would recommend common sense and private thinking.  They are
ks> free, and don't mess up with your life.  Best of all, they don't
ks> cost anything!

  How is this a beneficial recommendation?  If this were all that were
required, Mr. Webb would not have made such an emphatic plea to the
net!  Obviously he has done quite a bit of "common sense and private
thinking", and still needs a solution.

  Mr. Maguire's suggestion is also free, will not mess up your life
(from his testimony it looks like it will enhance it), and it also
does not cost anything.

  Also, in light of your quotation:

ks> Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to
ks> investigate.--F.M. Knowles

  I find it strange that you seem to be discouraging Mr. Webb from
perform the very investigation Mr. Knowles was speaking about.
--
Mark Towfiq				towfiq%justice@eingedi.newton.ma.us

"God has created man and endowed him with the power of reason whereby he may
arrive at valid conclusions.  Therefore, man must endeavor in all things to
investigate the fundamental reality.  If he does not independently investigate
he has failed to use the talent God has bestowed upon him."--`Abdu'l-Baha.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner)
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Organization:  University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center
Date: 16 OCT 92 12:32:34    

In article <48gE02Wb26Vu01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes...

>Do as the Bereans did, weigh everything against what we know is God's
>word, the Bible.  Since we know that God's word will not change (Mal 3:6)

There are some mighty big assumptions in these two lines.
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Historical/traditional answer to geneology of Christ
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:15:42 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications, Plano Tx.


		The Two Jesus Children

Link Hudson writes,

>
>Perhaps a better explanation lies in the traditional account which can be
>found in works written within the first few centuries of the resurection.
>According to this account, which can be found in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical
>History (if I remember correctly he refers to Africanus, and perhaps also
>to other sources where he read this information.)  It is a detailed
>story about how that the geneology of Luke is  in a sense an adopted 
>geneology.  Estha married a man and had a son and died.  Then she married
>another man and had a son and he died.  (She may have had other children
>too.  I don't know or remember.)  Anyway, one of the children, Heli,
>died without a son.  So according the coustom of the people (which you can
>look up in the Old Testament), Heli's half brother Jacob took Heli's
>late wife and "raised up seed unto his brother" and had a son named Joseph
>with her.
>
>And that, according to church history/tradition is the story of the
>geneologies.  
>

This is an interesting explanation, and to be valued because of its
early date and its source in the venerable Eusebius.  But it does seem
to be speculative in nature.  Not that my postings are any less so, beyond
the unelaborated references to Rudolf Steiner.  From the point of view
of the two-children reading (assuming it to be correct) Eusebius's 
account reveals that early Christians were puzzled too by the apparent
contradictions between Matthew and Luke.  This looks very much like many
of the modern attempts to explain them.  One must decide for oneself whether
it is convincing.  One remaining puzzlement is why Matthew and Luke lavish
so much detailed attention on these genealogies while the left out so much
else, including an indication or two that would have resolved the apparent
contradictions.  What I am suggesting here, and what Steiner suggests,
is that these issues are not just matters of minor detail but indicative of
far greater mysteries, the unfolding of which are wondrous indeed. 

By the way, there is also a statement in one of Paul's epistles (I don't
have my Bible with me) that discourages speculation about "genealogies",
or something to that effect.  I will look up the reference, but that 
passage may indicate that the two accounts were already then a source
of controversy to the extent that they were diverting attention from the
main message of the Gospel.

Thanks for the reference.

	Gerry Palo
From: ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W)
Subject: Re: Mormon Usenet Forum
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41.UAC
Organization: University of Alaska - Fairbanks
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:03:00 GMT

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?

I would like a newsgroup specifically for Mormon related discussion.  I would
like even better a place where Mormons could meet on Usenet and meet with each
other rather than spend most of their time defending themselves from vicious
attacks.  Some of these Mormon bashers are reminiscent of the hate mongers that
stirred up the mob that shot the Prophet.  It's a good thing they are scattered 
around the country on computer terminals.  If they ever got into the same room,
things could get ugly.

I vote yea.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc