HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Honest Question for an LDS
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:54:42 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <264g021I24tY01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, 
agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
> 
> Jason states:
> 
>>Mark makes another outrageous statement:
>>
>>Mark:  "One of the serious claims Mormonism makes about Joseph
>>Smith is that he is as necessary and important in one's receiving
>>eternal life in the kingdom of God as Jesus Christ is."
>>
>>He then provides quotations saying exactly the opposite!
>>
>>Mark:  Doctrines & Covenants, 135:3 states that "Joseph Smith,
>>the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only,
>>for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that
>>ever lived in it."
>>
>>Note what the statement really says is that Jesus is more
>>important than Joseph Smith, not equally important.  That is
>>perfectly plain English.
>>
>>But what of all of Mark's quotations.  Do any of them claim that
>>the life or death of Joseph Smith has any atoning power?  No.
>>Does Joseph Smith some how save us?  No.

I did not write this.
It was either Willard Smith or William Hamblin.
Check your from lines and addresses.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu


> 
> 
> Forget what Mark has to say about this (no offense Mark), but I have a
> specfic question:  If what you say is true, then please explain what
> is meant by this:
> 
>      "If we ask who will stand at the head of the resurrection
>       in this last dispensation, the answer is Joseph Smith..
>       No man or woman in this last dispensation will ever enter
>       into the Celestial Kingdom of God without the consent of
>       Joseph Smith."  Journal of Discourses Vol. 7 p.289
> And this:
> 
>      "If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration,
>       there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside
>       The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints".
>                        Mormon Doctrine p.670
> 
> Like you said above.  This also plain English. And it IS in context.  If
> you don't believe it, please look it up for yourself.  And also, don't
> tell me that the latter one is Bruce's personal opinion, because he
> footnoted it! (Doctrines Of Salvation Vol. 2 pp 1-350)
From: QAA@psuvm.psu.edu (Tim Bieling)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Family values defined
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:47:19 GMT
 <1992Oct02.165856.1123@brtph560.bnr.ca> <69754@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <69754@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
says:
>
>[stuff deleted]
>Can you see why a Christian group would not want a atheist representing
>them???
>
>Is there no moral action that one can say that they don't approve of and
>so reject a person for employment?  If one can, in this "free society",
>pursue one's happiness, then why can't one support only the morals one
>believes are correct?  Oh, is it just that homosexuality is 'right' and
>we are wrong for disapproving of it.  Some would advocate the same for other
>sexual preferences, too, you know.
>[stuff deleted]

Hypothetical situation.  You are an interviewer for company X.  I apply
for the job.  My qualifications and experience exceed those required by
the job.  Are you going to tell me that because I'm gay, I'm *NOT*
qualified?  You constantly seem to think that orientation == behavior (what
ever that behavior is).  Where I work now, I'm sure I interact with a number
of people who don't like gay people (and they know I'm gay).  We have no
problems working with each other because at work we are professionals
doing our jobs.

You mention this freedom to follow your morals - how about you let me
follow mine?  If you really believe what you said above, you should be
all for same-sex civil marriages - ya know a union which is recognized
by the government.  Oh, you don't support same-sex unions?  Funny, you
are interfering with my happiness.

Richard, I find your views as less than Christian.  You refuse to consider
all of the scholarly research which suggests that the passages you bash
people with are mis-interpreted.  (check out Boswell's book, among others)

I really wonder if we shouldn't lock up all these "christians" - they are
corrupting our children, they're taking over our government, and they're
out recuiting new members.  Sound familiar?

-Tim
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus for President
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:18:42 GMT
 <1992Sep30.134238.1@fnalno.fnal.gov> <BvEp46.MHn@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:

>This whole thread leaves some interesting thoughts in my head:
>
>1. Who would be His Running Mate?  
Probably the Holy Spirit...but the cabinet is a bit clearer...

Scty of Treasury : Judas Iscariot
Scty of Defense : Peter
Scty of State : James
Chief Of Propaganda : Paul of Tarsus

you get the idea...

>2. Would he wind up marrying for political gain?  If so, would the First Lady
>be chosen from non-christians to "round out the ticket"?
Nah, he'd be Bachellor Number 2...

>3. I could just hear the Presidential Debates years after He leaves office 
>(two terms, or maybe an impeachment by a new Pontius Pilate?): "Jesus Christ 
>was a friend of mine.  You, sir, are no Jesus Christ."
:-)

>4. I could imagine the attack ads:  "His father killed millions because they
>did not worship him.  Do you really want a chip off the old block for four
>years?  Anton LaVey - Tough on criminals."
LaVey - isn't he the Satanist? ;-)

But hey, we'd finally have a President who could calm storms, walk on
water, heal the sick, clothe the poor, etc.  Not just one who promised to.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: robert@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Rob Karmolinski)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 09:51:54 GMT

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:

>arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>I would indeed say that that meaning of "slave" is fairly useless,unless you
>>want to distinguish degrees or types of slavery.
>>Do you care to distinguish different kinds of faith?

>pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>Sure, why not? OK, you first.

>arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>Huh?  I didn't say that _I_ wanted to distinguish different kinds of faith.
>>I only know of one kind.  Pointing out that your position leads to recognizing
>>two kinds of faith doesn't mean that my position leads likewise.

>You mean you can only see ONE kind of faith? And is that kind of faith
>true or false?

Faith is neither true nor false.  Only statements of fact (propositions)
can be true or false.  Faith is an extrapolation of past experience (or
some other type of belief system not based on experience, senses, or the
real world), so it can come in many different flavors, some rational,
most not.

>		I thought it was pretty obvious that there is at least
>one kind of faith for every person on the planet. Clearly what I refer
>to as faith and what you refer to as faith are two different things,
>that's two types already. You aren't getting dogmatic or anything on me,
>are you? Did I ever tell you about my barking dog?

I'm sorry, but I jumped in late.  Just what *do* *you* think faith is,
anyway?  I'll tell you what I think it is not.  It is not a substitute
for reason.  It is not a substitute for rational thought.  It is not a
substitute for deductive logic.  Although *inductive* logic is based
primarily on faith, regrettably, the converse is not always true.  I
believe this was the distinction you (at least I think it was you)
should have been attempting to make between faith, and blind faith.
Instead, you concentrated on the degree of conviction of one's faith:
blind faith = 100% conviction; faith = <100% conviction.  If it was
*not* you who did this, then it must have been some other idiot, and I
would apologize to you.

--
Rob Karmolinski		(robert@cs.ucla.edu)
"Why do so many religions insist on blurring the lines between belief
and knowledge, between faith and reason, between gospel and truth,
treating such concepts interchangeably?  Do you really want to know?"
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:33:58 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <fTbcg4K@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
wrote:
> In article <ksand-270992131242@wintermute.apple.com> 
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >Metaphor, a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally
> >denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another
> >to suggest a likeness or analogy between them.
> >The online Websters dictionary is a nice thing to have!
> >So to get back to the turtle, instead of talking about a planet
> >hovering in space, we are dealing with a turtle moving across the
> >universe. I don't think this is true; it's false. Thus the metaphor
> >is false, dear Watson. I could substitute the notion of a metaphor
> >with a notion of a false picture. And this was the original wondering,
> >or what.
> 
> A false metaphor? Interesting concept. I thought metaphors were
> transcendent of true/false reductionism. Is that like a false poem? A
> false symbol? I prefer this definition from Webster's II New Riverside:

It's not interesting, it's common sense. What do you call the metaphor
of the big turtle carrying our Earth? Valid, non-valid. I call it false.

> Now, I suppose by your interpretation of metaphor, life does not have an
> evening, so therefore evening of life is a false metaphor. Interesting
> concept, this false metaphor of yours. 

You are trying to show that all metaphors are either true or false,
something
that I never said. Stick to the topic. I still maintain that there 
are metaphors that are either true or false, but I didn't say that each
metaphor could be classified as true or false. Meanwhile you could jump
around on top of the big turtle.

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: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: Thebes (was: I'm God.)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 22:04:09 GMT
Summary: a bit of background omitted in the last ...

In article <1992Oct3.212411.13813@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>, mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com
I wrote:

> continuity with the ancient past.  Arabic speakers -- like Nasser and
> Sadat and Mubarak -- have a more mixed ethnic composition (like the
> Spanish speakers of Mexico.)  In neither case (Coptic or Arabic) is it
> wise to think of them as "native" in the sense of a re-emergent Egypt
> of the Pharaohs.

Even if one wishes to broaden the term "native Egyptian" in this context
it is ONLY since the revolt of the officers against Farouk that Egypt
can be held to have "native rulers" -- Farouk's dynasty (established
in the wake of Napoleon) was Albanian (and for most of its life a mere
puppet of Britain, which was one element in its demise).  Before them
were Turks and Mamelukes of various nationalities (the most famous of
medieval rulers of Egypt was Saladin, in origins a Kurdish Mameluke)
and Arabs.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		   "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
					As the tears scald and start;
mls@usl.com			   You shall love your crooked neighbor
standard disclaimer			With your crooked heart."
From: rosst@pogo.wv.tek.com (Ross Taylor)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Family values defined
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:55:04 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

In article <69731@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>
>Depends on the situation - I can see why one would not want a homosexual
>representing one's company.
>

You sound just like the bigots who said that they could see why one
would not want a black man representing one's company.  

>
>Pardon me for stating my supported views.  Love is has many faces.  It doesn't
>always say do what you want, but it can and should say "I love you too much
>to keep letting you do that."
>

I hear your "love" saying, "I love you too much to let you keep your job,
your home or your health."  This is a face of fear and hate, not anything that
I would call love.
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Metaphors, was (The Adam and Eve Thing)
Date: 3 Oct 92 21:42:48 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <fTqUjfO@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>Do you have any examples of metaphors that are true or false?
>Screw it, here is my proof, are you ready?
>Statement:
...
>A statement that is metaphorical is neither true nor false, it is of
>course metaphorical.

It is trivial that you can prove that metaphors are neither true nor false
by starting with a statement that metaphors are neither true nor false.  This
is hardly news.
--
"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 (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:16:13 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <Bv3uEs.Cyo@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul
Harvey) wrote:
> Well, what do you mean? Do you mean: "From a scientific perspective, myth
> is false, except for that which is proven to be historically accurate or
> proven true, possibly due only to mere coincidence"? But, from a linguistic
> perspective, myth is myth, (I am that I am)?

A myth could be true, or false, or undecided. A myth could actually have 
a lot of adjectives. Things are not that simple, really.

Cheers,
Kent
Example of common sense, part 1:
Reporter: What would happen if science discovered some fact
          that contradicted Buddhist doctrine?
Dalai Lama: The doctrine would have to change.
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: True and False <META>phors was (The Adam and Eve Thing)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:26:24 GMT

In article <BvICt9.F0v@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.165311.17533@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> 
>arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>Huh?  I'm not arguing that they are useful.  I'm arguing that they exist.  I
>>only mentioned "useful" in response to your attempts to connect it with
>>"exist".
>If you SEE them, then they exist. That is the meaning of actualization/
>realization. You are what you eat.

Clarification.  I see them using my definition  of exist, which is 1) different
from yours, and 2) rather more widely used.  My definition contains no
references to actualization/realization.

Perhaps if you were to give me some word I could use instead of "exist", we
could communicate better.  (Of course, you have yet not done this for "true"
or "false"....)
--
"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 (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: lizi@ocf.berkeley.edu (Cosma R. Shalizi)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Free Will / Evil / Cr
Date: 3 Oct 1992 13:37:26 GMT
Organization: Vampire Research Group at Berkeley :)
NNTP-Posting-Host: lightning.berkeley.edu

In article <gate.576NqB1w165w@lakes.trenton.sc.us> kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us (kalki) writes:
>God is omnipotent, and He has made a stone so heavy that He Himself
>cannot lift it. The stone is the Absolute Truth.
>---
> * OLX 2.1 TD * Kalki's Infoline, 803-643-3172, Aiken, SC, USA

   Please, somebody tell me he wasn't serious...
	Cosma Rohilla Shalizi
	In Real Life: lizi@ocf.berkeley.edu
	larval physicist
-- 
"Some savages are persuaded by the 'natural light' that it is their duty to
 eat people, and even Voltaire's savages, who are led by the voice of reason
 to hold that one should only eat Jesuits, are not wholly satisfactory."
-Bertrand Russell on Rousseau in _A History of Western Philosophy_, p. 694
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: QUESTION ULTIMATELY ANSWERED! (Are Mormons Christians?)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 20:01:07 GMT

In article <aceI02Rm23Up01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (TONY ROSE) writes:
>You can't ask the question, "Are the Mormons Christians?" no more than
>one could ask, "Are the Baptist Christians?", or, "Are the Catholics
>Christians?".  For the sake of this point, no one can say that any
>group or organization are Christians.  Whether an individual is a
>Christian or not depends on that individual and God.

According to this reasoning, one cannot say "Muslims aren't Christians" or
"Jews aren't Christians".  It robs the term "Christian" of all meaning.

There are some people who are generally agreed upon as being Christians.  It
seems reasonable to use these people's definition of Christian when deciding
who is a Christian.
--
"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 (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Family Values
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:03:59 GMT

In article <BvGHur.2t4.2@cs.cmu.edu>, garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> [follow-ups to talk.religion.misc] 
> #
> #I think when the inquisition took place the Reformation had already occured,
> #but I may be wrong about this.  In any case the Church was still un-Christian.
> #Long before the inquisition the Church had allowed pagan doctrins into the
> #Church teachings.  
> 
> My little encyclopedia says that the office of Inquisition
> was dissolved in 1820.  I'll leave it up to the more informed
> people in t.r.m. to enlighten "cotera."
> 
> Susan

So? As I said, the Catholic Church was very un-Christian (and still tends to
be).  My point is that the Inquisition was wrong. 
--Ray Cote
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: LDS General Conference.
Date: 2 Oct 92 12:51:14 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

For Your Information...

The semi-annual world general conference of The Church of jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) will be held this weekend
(3,4 OCT).

Four sessions orginating from Salt Lake City will be broadcast at:
10:00am Saturday Mountain Time (2 hours)
 2:00pm Saturday Mountain Time (2 hours)
10:00am Sunday   Mountain Time (2 hours)
 2:00am Sunday   Mountain Time (2 hours)

The sessions are carried by satellite, but I can't remember which
ones.  (Satcom3 ??)

Some cable companies may carry one or more of the above sessions
as a public service.  Some local television and radio stations
may do the same.

Many LDS meeting houses have sattelite receivers for such things.
If you are interested in watching/hearing any of these sessions,
Look in your phone book in the white pages under Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints.

You should be able to get infomation from and bishop or stake
president listed as to what LDS chaples near you will be carrying
the conference sessions.  They might also have information
regarding what cable and local brodcasting stations will be
carring the conference.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Family values defined
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:17:41 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Oct2.120914.21850@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
|In article <69615@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|>In article <1992Oct1.180933.4236@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@euterpe.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:
|>
|>>I imagine this situation.  The year is 1963.  A group of people have
|>>the nerve to picket a restaurant because it won't serve black people,
|>>and recently decided to fire all of its black staff. Richard is
|>>terribly upset at these bad people who have spoiled his nice dinner,
|>>and can't understand why people aren't sympathetic to his trauma.
|>
|>I believe you have confused the analogy.  For the pickets in the
|>60's were Peaceful, Non-violent protest.  
|
|Disturbing all the passengers by not moving to the back of the bus...

Are you familar with the Selma, AL march??????????????????????

|>I just saw them re-enacted
|>on the PBS's LBJ Presidential Series.  There was quite a difference.
|>Dr. King was very vocal on being non-violent and peaceful - the
|>recaps of the civil rights protest I hear today continue to echo that theme.
|
|I don't remember QN calling for violence. Even after the 300 gay bashings

Did they call for non-violence - the civil rights leaders did.

|and recent murders in Oregon QN hasn't physically attacked the OCA's 
|offices.

Is it know that OCA organized these attacks?  (I don't know.)
Again, even in the face of the police attacks, the civil rights
movement, to my knowledge, was non-violent.

|>Find out where Act-Up or Queer Nation is protesting and go and view it.
|
|If I knew of a protest nearby I'd join in.

Maybe you should get on their mailing list.

|>>As a Christian, you ought at least to *try* to have some tiny bit of
|>>fellow feeling for your fellow humans.  I'm not asking you to love your 
|>>neighbor, but to get beyond complete contempt and disregard would be a
|>>start.
|>
|>As I said in the previous post, don't confuse my speaking out against
|>this as a hatred for the individuals.  They are not one and the same,
|>for me.  I love my neighbor.
|
|To bad you remain silent while your friends kill your neighbor.

To bad you know who my friends are. NOT.  I know no one who advocates
physically or verbal violence against homosexuals.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |