HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:55:04 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <39413@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr) writes:
>(Mark Fuller) writes:
>[about the "true" meaning of elohim and jehovah]
>
>I guess if we accept the notion that there is only "one" god and his
>name is Elohim or Jehovah and he cannot devide himself or confer his
>Honor, name or Glory to another, then we are faced with more than a
>few scriptural absurdities.  If, as Mark suggests, there is only one
>God and that Jehovah and Elohim are both proper names for the same
>"person", then how do we explain the FACT that Elohim and Jehovah
>mean different things?  Also, how do we explain the fact that the
>word Elohim is a plural expression litterally meaning Group or
>Council?  Now before you get all huffy and say that this is a simple
>mormon mutilation of the un-mutible holy word, consider this
>treatment of the issue given by a non-mormon a while back on s.r.c:
>
>
>            ELOHEIM - Why is it Plural?

Simple, because it refers to the three members of the Trinity, The Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit..

>The word "God" (Hebrew - eloheim) has the typical masculine
>plural "im" ending (cf. urim, thummim, churubim etc.).  In Gen 1 & 2
>it is particularly noticeable that the word is plural
>because of the "we", "us" and "our" used with it.  And this is
>not the only place where elohieim requires the plural form.  See
>Gen 3:5 where the construct, the plural participle "knowers of"
>(Hebrew yodhe) modifies eloheim, which therefore must be plural; and
>Gen 11:7, where "let us descend" (Hebrew  nerdhah) and "let us confuse"
>(Hebrew nabhlah) are both plural verbs.
> 
> 
>What the Bible scholars refuse to consider is that eloheim is plural
>because there is a plurality of Gods, and that the context here refers
>to more than one personage.

What is so beautiful about all this is the fact that not even a month ago
Mark was attackd by a Mormon for saying that they have more than one God.
That discussion went for a while and died.  Now, here we have (what I
think is a Mormon) explaining to us in gory detail how there IS indeed,
more than one God.  Which Mormon is lying?
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism & Christianity
Summary: crosses, icons, and sacred garments
Date: 17 Oct 92 03:42:44 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct16.132103.59776@cc.usu.edu>, slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
> In article <1992Oct16.173905.28599@newsgate.sps.mot.com>,
>  ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
> > tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
> [...]
> >> Not all refereces in the NT that talk about "salvation" could be
> >> the same as references to exalation.
> > 
> > And none of these verses speak of devil-repellent underwear,
> 
> "Devil-repellent underwear" is your term and Barry's not ours.
> 
> If I wanted to offend some people, I might start inquiring about
> the "devil-repellant" crucifixes they wear, and do they really
> repell the devil (aside from what Hollywood tells us). Or are
> they rather a symbol to remind the person of something.
> 
Everyone in the lds camp thinks differently on these matters? Some
say they are repellant, some say they are symbols of committment
to Jesus, etc?
I had an e-mail exchange with a lds where I indicated if the garmants
were thought of in the same vein as icons or crosses as a reminder only.
The respondant didn't exactly say, I got the feeling that is how it
was thought from that perspective.

I have been asking you Jason if they are thought of as repellant, and
you never say, so I assume they are. I have reason to believe that, as
I have read testimonies of ex-lds who thought of them as such and
didn't want to take them off, even for a bath.

barry--
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin)
Subject: Re: Gay attitudes...
Originator: jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 13:50:21 GMT
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh):
>weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
>>   [flaunting means putting on wigs and dancing in the street.]
>>   Stable people, gay and straight, do not flaunt their sexuality 
>>and private lives. So please, "girls," keep it in the bedroom and
>>let the rest of us be judged for who we are and not by the distorted
>>image you portray. You deny all of us the opportunity to be accepted
>>as decent, constructive members of the community, which we are.
> 
> I have a number of gay friends, and one of my coveners is gay. All
> of these men are IMHO very mainstream in their attitudes and appearances.

you've stated that you have a number of gay friends who
are "mainstream" (whatever *that* is).  how does that
relate to the view expressed in the letter that those
gay people who "flaunt their sexuality" (whatever *that*
means) are responsible for the oppression of *all* gay
people?

-- 
Queer Without A Cause!
Jason Coughlin ( jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com )
"I find myself suddenly in the world, and I recognize that I have one
right alone: that of demanding human behavior of the other." -- Fanon
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 13 Oct 92 03:14:16 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <ldj573INN8qb@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM writes:

>>Do you recall my posting what your prophets taught? It matters little
>>to me what you believe. The important part is what the prophets(LDS)
>>taught. The importance bearing on their displacement of christianity
>>by revelation. When the revelation is shown to be in error, the 
>>standard LDS response is they were speaking as men, and not prophets:-)
>
>Thank you for your second honest response, that is that you don't care at
>all what I or any other LDS thinks. Barry cares only about his interpretations
>and what he thinks. I wonder where I got the idea that anti-mormons are
>closed minded.

That is not what Barry said!  HE didn't say that what mattered was his
interpretation of what was said.  He said,  what matters is what THEY
meant by what they said!  It doesn't matter how anyone interprets it,
what matters is what was meant when the person said it or wrote it! ANy
other interpretation is wrong!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians?
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:57:43 GMT

From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
> In article <1992Oct14.010227.9510@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>,
> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
> > ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
> >> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
> >> [...]
> >>> Hmmm...  Looks to me like the figure has a *very* long outie
> >>> navel or it is ment to be the figure's right fore-arm.
> [...]
> > Maybe he was singing to a crowd with a microphone, and placed
> > the microphone between his legs to pause for the painting.
> > Or he was blessing a crowd with a stick of some sort and placed it
> > between his legs for the painting. Binary thinking will lead
> > you to the penis explanation.
>
> Barry, the figure in question is seated.
> The protrusion in question is protruding fron the stomach area,
> (I'd guess about halfway between the navel and the solor-plexus)
> not the groin, or between the legs.
>
> Maybe the figure is wearing a strap-on dildo and just put it on
> too high.  :-)

God, as pictured in the LDS Scriptures, is 'wearing a strap-on dildo'?
If one of us had said that, the LDS crowd would have cried foul. :(

While you may wish to view the substantial protrusion from the body
of Min as merely a withered arm growing out of his stomach, this
fails to deal with why this object was originally removed from the
pre-papyrus copies of LDS Scripture.  It also fails to deal with
why the hired 'Dr. Webb' falsified other 'hypocephalus' which he printed
in his LDS publication -- removing the penis in other copies of the
same scene.

Ian Barber wrote a book, in response to the Tanners, called
'What Mormonism isn't'.  In it, he admits it is a phalluc scene,
but claims the ritual portrayal of the phalluc was not obscene.
He goes on to say that such an emphasis on a phallus would
be obscene in our western culture and that this is "evidenced
by the fact that the phallus has been removed from several printings
of the Pearl of Great Price, including current versions."
(pg. f-5)

Even your hero Hugh Nibley had some illuminating things to say
about the God Min:  He refers to Min as behaving with shocking
promiscuity and 'indulging in incestous relationships with those
of his immediate family;'.  (Abraham in Egypt, pg.210)
He also wrote that Min's special 'Bull-titles' refer to his sexual
realtionships with his mother. (ibid, p.211)

If you want to think it is a 16 inch "outie-naval", thats your
perogative.  But I don't think it is a widely held opinion.

Mark
<standard disclaimer>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Claim of the rapture on October 28, 1992
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:17:18 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1bhvvrINNkk@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike
Huben) wrote:
> I've seen some posters plastered on immobile objects claiming that the
> Rapture will take place on October 28, 1992.  Does anyone know which sect
> is claiming this?  I'm curious.

I have the same poster still saved, and I will send this group a 
kind letter 10/29.

Kent
It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that
virginity could be a virtue.  -- Voltaire
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 23:00:59 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Oct9.112534.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
wrote:
> 
> In article <ksand-270992130726@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> > Let me give you a simple logical hole, Jesus was born by a *virgin*,
> > yet it was important to list out his ancestory line from his *father*
> > (twice, and they are even different :-) ).
> > 
> > Is this a logical problem, or slight misunderstanding?

> There is a slight misunderstanding.  Mary's lineage was given to show that Jesus
> was biologically a descendant of David.  Joseph's lineage was given to show
> that Joseph (Jesus' legal father) was a descendant of David.  Are these two
> lineages the one's that are suppossedly different?  The reason is, that they are
> different, i.e. Mary and Joseph were not sister and brother. This is typical of
> the Biblical contradictions that are always spewed out.  In the final analysis
> we find that no contradictions exist.

You state it's a misunderstanding, I state it's wishful thinking. The
ultimate
definition is the one based in the Bible, and if the evidence is diffuse
and
does not clearly state the intention, then the books are badly written, and

we can't use them as evidence material. Which I tried to point out in the
first
place. Note, such evidence would never hold in a civil court. Imagine
people
using such speculative thinking when they defined their religious
beliefs...

Anyway, I'm not to judge other people's religious beliefs. I just want to
state why I don't believe in the current form of Christianity.

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: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 13:45:54 GMT

	<< And in a silly mood  >>

In article <522N02oj26zi01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>In article <Bw4tDz.2uu@mail.boi.hp.com> jhays@boi.hp.com (John_D. Hays) writes:

>>Mark,

>>Would you get off your sexual hangups...

>>LDS, do not now, nor have they in the past taught that God the Father
>>and Mary had physical sex.
>
>You never read Doctrine of Salvation Vol.1 Pg. 18-19 have you?  You
>ought to, you might find out how silly you sound saying this.  These are
>the words of the Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith.  Are you saying that he
>was wrong?  Is what you think on this subject better than his?  Maybe
>you ought to be Prophet then.

	Right _Doctrine of Salvation_ and _Answers to Gosple Questions_
	are on the list of approved doctrine defining documents <<giggle,
	giggle>>

	Perhaps all them mormons should get together and form by
	consences, -What the Prophet Should Teach-, and maybe we
	should follow the example of some of the local EV "psudo-
	christian" church and fire the poor sob (the preacher)
	when his preaching doesn't make the parisoners fill comfortable.


>Then do you agree with the account that the Bible speaks of, that he was
>conceived by the Holy Spirit?  If so, maybe you should discuss why you
>don't "buy" what the LDS church teaches with you bishop.

 LDS doctrine : Jesus conceived by the Holy Spirit.

 LDS speculation:  I heard three theories on how it was done.
      Only one of which has been brought up here in this forum.


 You _do_ understand the difference between doctrine and speculation?

 No you don't.       Ah that explains all this drivel.....



>
>>It is a carnal mind which twists Holy events to a base description.
>

  I think he was thinking of Tony "SpinMeister" Rose.

  ("Carnal and Devilish, Carnal and Devilish, Carnal and Devilish"....)





-- 
         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: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: QUESTION
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Oct9.220317.8558@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> 
	<1b71ohINNonm@cascade.ens.tek.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 19:17:55 GMT

In article <1b71ohINNonm@cascade.ens.tek.com> 
davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.220317.8558@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> 
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>In article <92283.160218IK20050@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> 
<IK20050@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:
>>>What I want to know is, if Mormonism is a false religion, and
>>>Joseph Smith was a false prophet, then:
>>>1) Why is Mormonism one of the fastest growing religions in the world?
>>Because growth rates don't depend on truth.
>  Just as any "One True Wayism" need not depend on truth.

Perhaps all "One True Wayism" is in fact false and thus depends on distorting
the truth for its existance? Certainly, there is no limit to the amount
of money to be earned from selling "One True Wayism" to those who seek
it. What is the way of an authentic individual?
From: feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Joseph a true latter-day prophet
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:27:00 GMT
Reply-To: sean@digaudio.byu.edu
Distribution: na

In article <1992Oct14.105520.9398@cbnews.cb.att.com>  writes:

>I happen to believe that Joseph Smith did not see the devil as an angel
>of light, but what he saw was a manifestation of the love of God (if you
>have ears to hear :-). This kind of knowledge is not based on what I can
>extrapolate from the historical record, but from a personal spiritual
>experience from God. How do you know that my experience is true? You  
don't.
>And you probably won't (at the rate you're going) until you can go to  
Radio
>Shack and buy a Holy Ghost Detector. :-)


It's catalog number TA10661.  Works Great.  :)

--

Sean Luke
Brigham Young University                   MILK:  It Comes From Cows
sean@digaudio.byu.edu  
NeXTmail and nifty Mac stuff welcome
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Summary: lds doctrinal errors
Date: 17 Oct 92 00:15:28 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <4bPJ02jU26f=01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
> In article <1992Oct15.021530.16775@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
> >In article <1992Oct14.105234.59695@cc.usu.edu>, slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
> >> In article <1992Oct14.132825.10889@macc.wisc.edu>,
> >>  bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner) writes:
> >> > press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes...
> >> > 
> >> >>Ok, I'll keep that handy. When another comes along saying their(lds)
> >> >>scriptures are inerrant, I'll point out that Jason says No.
> >> > 
> >> > Tell them Joseph Smith said no too while you're at it.  Perhaps
> >> 
> >> On the contrary, thank you Dana, for the corroborating support.
> >> 
> >I'm still not clear on this('cause I haven't gotten a clear answer).
> >All LDS scripture contains errors(I hope I don't mean typos).
> >Doctrinal errors? What kind of errors?
> 
> Many different types of errors.  Doctrinal, grammar, made up words,
> history.  There are over 8400 changes in all of LDS Scripture!
> 
> If you are interested, I can post some.

Don't trouble yourself Tony, I just read your article in response to
the "uniformity" of lds scripture an lds poster submitted. 

BoM vs PoGP and D&C, the one on the left cancels out the two on the
right, Unless, one uses creative interpretation to harmonize.

barry--
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: 14 OCT 92 08:27:25    

In article <1992Oct14.001542.8325@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>, press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes...

>Ok, I'll keep that handy. When another comes along saying their(lds)
>scriptures are inerrant, I'll point out that Jason says No.

Tell them Joseph Smith said no too while you're at it.  Perhaps this will
carry a bit more weight than Jason's name (sorry, Jason).  

Dana
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Problems FTPing to info.rutgers.edu
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:42:22 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <Oct.11.19.46.53.1992.19283@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
 hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
> 
>>Willard Smith also maintains a FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)
>>list that is posted to soc.religion.christian every four months or
>>so.  I think that this list is archived at some site and is
>>therefore available by anonymous FTP.
> 
> I don't post the FAQ's anymore.  There are now 1 MB of documents.
> This seems a bit much to post on a regular basis.  I do try to make
> sure people know they are there.  They're available for anonymous FTP
> on info.rutgers.edu, in /pub/soc.religion.christian.

I just tried this and kept getting an I/O error when I tried to
change to this directory.

I tried:

cd /pub/soc.religion.christian     # from the main directory

cd pub                             # which worked.  Then I tried
cd soc.religion.christian          # and got a I/O error again

cd ../automount/socrc/socrc        # and got an I/O error

cd /automount/socrc/socrc          # and got an I/O error

cd automount                       # from the main directory
cd socrc                           # and got and I/O error

Is the problem with my FTP program, at your site (info.rutgers.edu), 
or am I doing something else wrong?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:07:52 GMT
Subject: Oops
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc

Oops! My apologies for posting my previous "Please Help" survey to this
group. It was an honest mistake and won't happen again.

Kingsley
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (Wayne VanWeerthuizen)
Subject: Need Info Previously Posted On Possible New Testament Dead Sea Scrolls
Organization: Washington State University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 10:26:40 GMT

Some time ago, I saved an article wherein it was claimed that one of the
Qumran (DSS) manuscripts was a fragment of 2 Timothy.  (I think.)  Also
if I remember right, they said it was 7Q4 (or was it 7Q5?).  

I cannot find the article in any of my archives, but I really want to double
check the references.  Please Email me if you have the earlier article,
or if you can point me to any scholarly publications regarding the matter.

I'm wondering if 1) I just haven't been able to find the published data
                    on this even though it exists,
                 2) If I'm just not remembering enough of it right,
                 3) Or if it was just something someone here made up. :)
                      (I hope not, but have seen it done before.) i

Thanks.
P.S.  I'm not sure if I read it on talk.religion.misc, or in alt.messianic

-- 
Wayne VanWeerthuizen | wvanweer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu | Christian, X-trinitarian
205 Scott Hall       | (509) 335-1835 (voice)      | Physics ugrad, 21yrs old
Pullman, WA  99163   |    <<< Thank You Cards For Sale, $10.00 each >>>
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: QUESTION
Date: 10 Oct 92 16:52:33 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Oct9.220317.8558@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <92283.160218IK20050@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> <IK20050@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:
>>What I want to know is, if Mormonism is a false religion, and
>>Joseph Smith was a false prophet, then:
>>1) Why is Mormonism one of the fastest growing religions in the world?
>
>Because growth rates don't depend on truth.

  Just as any "One True Wayism" need not depend on truth.



	Love is the life force breathed
	into the Heart/Mind flower center
	of harmonious human relationships.
			Al Huang

	David Hatcher