From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject:  Anthony Rose
Keywords: The distortinons of a frenzied mind
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:59:38 GMT

   I may need to apoligize here, Tony's problem may not be entirly due to
   the overworkings of simply a frenzied mind. It may also be due to his
   inability to understand the technology with which we are dealing.

   <Afterall, :-) Amdahl only makes IBM mainframe clones right :-) >

   Puts me in mind, of a Garrison Kelnor (sp) monolog, you remember the
   "Institute of Lower Technology, ya know, doors and doorstops..

  if anybody _else_ want to try and explain the nature of usenet discussions
  and threads to Tony, be my guest. It's been fairly obvious that he
  won't respond and/or read what I post.

  Most of the newsreaders that read News (rn,mxrn,nn,trn) track the messages
  with identifiers. The article to which you responded has
  the idenfier 1992Dec15.141435.5962@infonode.ingr.com

  Some of the newsreaders group the response not on title, but on which
  article the author was responding to, when the response was writtten.

  Just for demo purposes this was 1dgF02AN2fte01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com

  See how easy that was!

In article <1dgF02AN2fte01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.141435.5962@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>
>>   Let's examine
>>   Tony's beliefs of what Mormons Believe.
>>
>>   After all, he claims that he's read it all, and understands it all
>>   from a LDS point of view.
>
>I never have claimed that.  You know Kermit, here we go again.  You
>accusing me of things that are just absolutely false.  I noticed that you
>deleted out all of the portion of this letter where I challenged you on
>you last accusation that was false.  Remember, the one where you
>accused me of using references without quoting the author.  You said that
>I did it with such detail, why I even copied the errors.  I challenged
>you to post my words and the referrences that I supposedly copied.

The article in which you "challenged" me has the identifer
            1992Dec14.134023.3332@infonode.ingr.com 

And the Article to which I responded had this identifier

	     <1992Dec15.141435.5962@infonode.ingr.com>

 Gee I didn't cut a thing, did I. I guess this lack of understanding
 of how threads works or how newsreaders work, would proably also account
 for _why_ you think that the subject of _all_ your discusion change
 so much.

 Now as to Content:

 You have on several occasion, lectured the net-LDS on what their Doctrine
 means or should mean to them. You have told Willard and Frank several times
 exactly why they have been misquoting LDS doctrine. (They weren't) 
 You have been very forceful is explaining that you have understood the
 doctrine even if they did not, and then accused them of intentioally
 deception.

 in article caid02aN2cc501@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com
 dated 30 Nov 92 09:06:52 GMT

 You told Frank

 "I also believe that you have stated your beliefs well.  However, I do
 believe that you may not be totally aware of all the implementations of
 the LDS doctrine on the pluarlity of Gods."
			is _that_ out of context?  nope!

 You have on other occasions claimed to have read all these LDS referenence
 and to have understood what was meant. I don't think that anyone
 has yet taken you seriously (except you'r blood brother Antti Silvoean)


  in article  c4Zh02dO2b8n01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com
  date 19 Nov 92 02:31:45 GMT

  you tell Frank
  "Are you sure that you are a Mormon?  Because the LDS church doesn't
  teach that Jesus is God the Father.  They teach that they are separate
  Gods.  Are you denying this fact?  If you want to discuss theology, we
  must know from what position you are coming from.  If you are a Mormon,
  then unless you deny this doctrine...."

>But you cut it all out and didn't face my challenge.  Why?  Why do you
>make accusations about me that are not true?  Especially when you can't
>back them up?  Why do you ignore my challenges for you to back them up?


	I have offered to "discuss" your challenge with you.    in email.

   The rest of the Group has already sat through your garbage once, we
   don't need to punish them again. I'm having second thoughts about
   dealing with you at all, since you can't seem to discuss anything
   of substance without resorting to inuendo, cursings, misrepresentaions
   and other forms of "common curtesy", NOT.

   As for backing it up, with your posts repeated again...   ah

The _only_ value that your posts have had is to make sure, that
your latter post are consistent.

>>>When I talk about being saved, I am talking about spending eternity in
>>>the presence of God.  You do not believe that all but a few will do that.
>>>Your universal salvation is the same as resurrection and only gets
>>>Mormons in good standing to the position of spending eternity with God.
>>
>>   Really!   So the resurrection is _NOT_ the same as being saved? Just
>>   a few weeks ago _you_ claimed that _this_ is what is meant by Eternal
>>   Life.  Are you claiming that there is more to Eternal Life than
>>   the Resurrection of the Just and Living with God?
>
>Again, I have never said resurrection equals "being saved".  I defined
>what I meant my being save above.  Didn't you read it or are you too
>busy attacking ME instead of the issues.  Look just above these words,
>you even copied it!  According to the Bible there is a physical
>ressurection for everyone. The just will be ressurected to Everlasting
>Life, and the just to condemnation. I have never said contrary to that.
>Why do you accuse me of saying things I have never dreamed of?

 You have stated that the only part of Eternal Life is professing a
 belief in Christ, and then you will be resurrected and abide in
 the presence of God.  is this not true?

 Would you care to expound on what more there is to Eternal Life than
 Everlasting Life, the Resurrection of the Just and Living with God.

 Do those who are resurrected as the UNjust, not have Everlasting life?
 certainly to "condemnation" (what ever that means?)

 By your simple daffynations, everyone in the telestial, terrestial
 kingdoms will be _saved_, and some of them wont't even be LDS and most
 will be single (ie not married)

>>   Gordon's right again "you just don't speak my language". It dosnt't
>>   matter how many times, people say it and you won't comprehend.
>
>Maybe if you would read my posts instead of scanning them for where you
>can attack me, things would be clearer.

  How clearer can it be? I've read your posts and most of the 
  barnyard material in you post becomes even more apparent after two 
  or three readings!
>
>>   Seeing and see not. Hearing and hearing not. When you accept Christ,
>>   he will both open your ears and your eyes. He can still preform miracles
>>   He can cure both your blindness and your deafness.
>
>Tell me Kermit, when I "accept Christ" according to your standards, will
>I then posts sexually nasty jokes on alt.jokes like you do?  Does every

 your mean Rec.humor ? is there an alt.jokes on your machine, there isn't
 on mine. I'm subsribed to rec.humor.funny but not rec.humor and
 the only "joke" I've posted recently is about my neighbor who still won't
 sleep in the NORTH bedroom.
>
>>>Everyone else gets one of the other two "kingdoms", but God is only in
>>>the Heaven where Mormons who have been married in the temple will spend
>>>eternity.  Therefore, when I speak of "saved" I am taking about what you
>>>would consider "celestial kingdom".  And isn't it true that non-Mormons
>>>are the only ones that will get there?  Therefore, you can't say that
>>>you believe everyone is saved in the sense that most will spend eternity
>>>in the presence of God. Only married Mormons will do that.
>>
>>	in your frenzied mind, God is only in the Exalted Part of the
>>	Celestial Kingdom?  Gee, I haven't heard that distortion for
>>	quite some time.
>>
>>	I had always heard that Jesus was God, and that He was in one of
>>	the other Kingdoms where the honest in heart, the honorable people
>>	of the earth lived. How long have be you Tony been involved
>>	with Mormons, and you still don't know even the basics?
>>
>>	As for "Only married Mormons will do that"  that is another of
>>	your deliberate distortions. This point has been discussed to
>>	death in this forum. Since you seem incapable, of understanding
>>	what has been presented before, why repeat anything for you.
>
>Are you saying that anyone other than Mormons who have been married in
>the Temple will go to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom?  If
>that is your claim, could you post where the church teaches that?

 No I (and others have posted many times) that God dwells with those in
 the telestial, and terestial kingdoms as well. [ but you knew that
 didn't you?]
>
>>>If you reach out to the wrong Jesus, the real one will have no mercy on
>>>you.
>>
>>	That's where Tony, your wrong again, the real Jesus, will have
>>	mercy on you. Just because you have worshiped at the altar of
>>	greed and idolarty, Jesus stands at the door and when/if you
>>	answer, he will come in.
>
>Right, he stands at the door and knocks.  But if you pass out of this
>life without opening it, THEN he has no mercy.  That was my point!


 So all those who have died without ever hearing of Christ Jesus and
 his Gosple of hope and faith are doomed for every. No don't think so.

 While it may be true, that those who reject the message in this life,
 proably would not accept the message later, there are some who are
 seeking the truth even in this life, but have been blinded by the
 craftiness of men. I think Jesus has a big enough heart to forgive
 even this people.
>
>And he does warn about worshipping at the alters of other Gods.
>
>The first commandment said, "THOU SHAL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME"


  I think that you worship at the alter of your own ego



-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc