HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
Date: 16 Oct 92 07:02:37 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <Bw4tDz.2uu@mail.boi.hp.com> jhays@boi.hp.com (John_D. Hays) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.190632.21593@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
>>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
>><standard disclaimer>
>
>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.

>LDS teach that God the Father is the literal Father of Jesus Christ,
>the only begotten Son of the Father.  This does not imply physical
>contact --- LDS have no scripture or doctrine describing the process
>of Jesus' procreation.  I am sure you can come up with a bunch of

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.

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

Which carnel mind are you speaking of?  Brigham's, Joseph's, McKonkie's,
etc......?

>
>John
>-- 
>John D. Hays [KD7UW]           |Email: [UUCP]          ...!hplabs!hpdmd48!jhays
>Firmware Engineer              |       [INTERNET]              jhays@boi.hp.com
>Boise Printer Division         |       [GEnie]                             HAYS
>Boise, Idaho                   |       [Compu$erve]                   72725,424
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard)
Subject: Re: Suggestions about 1Cor. 14:22-25?
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc  
Summary: an obscure text, seemingly contradictory  
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 20:46:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.050427.955@newsroom.utas.edu.au> winter@sol.surv.utas.edu.au (Derek Winter) writes:
>Hello All,
>					I recently read this passage (and surrounding parts), and am intrigued by
>these few verses. I would appreciate the views of other people who can offer
>an opinion , as they appear to be rather contradictory. Any contributions will
>be welcomed, whether by email, or postings to this 'group.
>					Thanks for your help,
>																					Derek.

Derek, first of all, it helps to read those verses in the context of
the whole of chapter 14, and to also realize why Paul was writing this
letter to the church at Corinth in the first place.  There were many
controversial practices in the Church, and Paul was attempting to get
them back in line.  In particular, everyone wanted to speak in
tongues, as if this were the mark of the 'holy' person.  Paul was
writing to put this into perspective.  He does not put down speaking
in tongues, but does say that it is not the ONLY gift of the spirit.
And you have picked out an inconsistance.  The footnote in the New
Jerusalem Bible re vv 23-24 says "An obscure text: the vv 23-24 seem
to be in contradiction to v. 22."  Unless you are an inerrentist, this
is no problem, as the thrust of Ch 14 is clear.  And I certainly have
written something in a letter that is contrary to what I meant to say,
should we not give Paul the benefit of the doubt also?

Shalom,                               Len Howard
                                      tas@pegasus.com
From: csmith@pluto.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Historical/traditional answer to geneology of Christ
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:28:21 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science

In article <1992Oct12.220053.29484@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.150842.5351@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) 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 explanation, however, does not explain the difference in the
numbers of the generations, which is significant.

It also does not explain the apparent convergence of the geneologies
from Solomon to the exile in Babylon, where two of the names in
both lineages are the same, then diverges again.

I really don't see why it is so important to prove that both geneologies
are correct, when both were intended to prove that Jesus decended from
David.
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                (This sig intentionally left blank)                 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Mormons . . . are Henotheists
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:57:05 GMT
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.


Henotheists are people "who believe in one god without denying
the existence of others."

			      Webster

Except that Mormonism takes henotheism one step further and
believes that Mormons themselves will become Gods, according
to Brigham Young. (Journal of Discourses)

Again, LDSers, please read the last part of Isaiah 43:10:

     "Before me no god was formed, nor will
      there be one after me."

And Isaiah 44:8:

     "You are my witnesses.  Is there any God
     besides me?

     No, there is no other Rock; I know
     not one."

And Isaiah 44:6:

     "I am the first and I am the last;
      apart from me there is no God."



Polytheists, henotheists . . .  I don't care with what one 
wishes to prefix "theism" in order to describe Mormonism. 

My God tells me that there is no other.
LDSer's doesn't. 

LDSers, just please, please make sure you are not fashioning
an idol.  Please make sure you are following the right Jesus.




Sincerely,


Brian Ceccarelli
brian@gamma1.lpl.arizona.edu
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:45:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.204808.1071@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:

 [573 lines deleted]

 Geeze, Mark wins by volume..

 Does any one have the time (or the interest) to go through and digest
 the commentary so we can see what Mark is saying.

 Please do us a favor, and make two posting and make one with
 Keywords Long and the other digest

 Is anybody reading those long posts, I'm not..


-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       |
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Method of Christ's conception
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:42:40 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Oct14.190632.21593@newsgate.sps.mot.com>,
 ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
[...]
> 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.  

"... [Mary] was found with child of the Holy Ghost." (Matt.1:18.)
[NIV, renders it "through the Holy Ghost"]

"Then Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know
not a man?"  [NIV, renders it "since I am a virgin?"]

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall
come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow
thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee
shall be called the Son of God."  (Luke 1:34-35.)

These are the only bible passages (that I can find) that
deal specifically with the conception of Jesus Christ.

What are the possibilities that can be inferred from these two
passages regarding the conception of Christ?

How does a female become pregnant "of/through the Holy Ghost"?

How does the Holy Ghost comming upon a female (no pun intended)
and the power of the Highest overshadowing the same female make
that female pregnant?

What do "come upon thee" and "overshadow thee" have to do with
conception and becoming pregnant in these passages?

What "means" could God have used to bring about the conception of
Christ, that would be explained by the passages above?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Jesus's bloodline mystery and two different Jesus's was (I'm God.)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:23:46 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy,alt.atheism

In article <fTRfDx6@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
wrote:
> >If we want to further speculate we are dealing with identical twins, and one
> >of them died, and the other appeared afterwards and the disciples believed
> >that he rose from the dead! Wow, this starts to get really interesting.
> >However, I would like to point out that the Gospels concerning the
> >genealogies are a mystery; either a problem adjusting two different
> >writer's background information (the most likely problem), or then
> >there's something fundamental that the writers didn't inform the
> >readers (less likely). As long as we don't know the hidden meaning
> >why we have two genealogies, the Occams razor tells us to rationalize
> >and select the most obvious case, in other words the Gospel writers screwed
> >up.
> 
> Those were my words exactly. Of course there are those who still insist
> that the Bible is 100% true, yet we know that this can not be the case.
> Clearly there is only one possibility, the Bible is a myth.

Hello again, should we take this one as a good example where the myth
is false, or not? Or are the two different genealogies, just, a myth???

Cheers,
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.
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Rich men and Heaven
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:03:30 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <ksand-151092191208@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|In article <71390@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
|Pitts) wrote:
|> 
|> In article <ksand-141092195330@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> |> |culture. Meanwhile Paul gathered more forces and took control from
|> |> |the disciples themselves (!).
|> |> 
|> |> Give some references for this, please.
|> |
|> |Read Acts.
|> 
|> I have - enlighten me - give me a chapter and hopefully a verse,
|> so I can see to what you are referring.
|
|Gladly, the following entry is let us say the story of Acts described
|in four pages, I wrote it one night when I tried to figure out what 
|Acts really described in forms of historical events. I know, it's biased
|concerning my views of what happened, and it was an attempt to somehow
|get to the real story behind the original church of Jerusalem and 
|Paul, a really intriguing story, indeed. Warning, this is a long entry.

NO - KENT, YOU ARE DOING YOURSELF WRONG - you have summarized the
books of Acts and yet you claim I am wrong by quoting - I guess
you can summarize, but I can't quote or summarize.  I'll respond to
the post shortly.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians?
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 04:04:24 GMT

From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
[...]
>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.
>
>Since when does one's penis protrude from one's navel or in
>normal males?
>
>What other Egyptian drawings exist that are similar to this
>corroborate the above interpretation (that of an erect penis) ?

I am surprised you are taking this route, although it is the only
possible route for you.  You ask an interesting question about
what other Egyptian drawings exist showing the god Min with
a penal errection, as it is depicted in Mormon scripture.  The
fact is, others do exist and were reproduced by 'Dr' Webb in his
defense of Mormonism, 'Joseph Smith as a Translator'.  Unfortunaly
Dr. Webb altered the drawings, removing Min's gentalia.  This is
typical of LDS publications.  Apparently 'Dr. Webb' was not a
Doctor, but his real name was Homans.   In the Pearl of Great Price
Conference, held in 1960, Dr. Sperry admitted Webb was never an LDS
and had no Ph.D., as the LDS had presented it.

Even though 'Dr. Webb' censored the obcsene material from his book,
he admitted in _Improvement Era_, vol. 16, p.447, that the scene
is phalluc.

So, to answer your question, the drawing of the Mormon god contains
a penis, not an arm... and there are other copies of the same
scene.


>Also, recent research has turned up many references to "Abraham"
>in many ancient Egyptian documents from the same period.  I'll
>have to find the article for you.

I have heard of one, but it is far from ancient -- compared to
the one Abraham was supposed to have authored himself.  I think
the one you refer to is from a post Christ era, and contains not
only the name Abram, but Christ, and Jacob, and Isaac.

Mark
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith)
Subject: Re: QUESTION
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 11:25:56 GMT
Summary: har, har, har
Keywords: Typical Anti-Mormon Misuse of Social Statistics

In article <abZS02GF25lb01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:

>Utah has the hightest, suicude rate, the highest teen pregnacy rate, a
>very high drug rate, a very high murder rate.  Mormons are normal people
>just like everyone else.  They are sinful just like everyone else as
>well.  If we look at the numbers, we need to look at them all!

I am not exactly sure where Mr Rose got his particular social statistics
(though he doesn't actually show us any numbers), but they are not unlike
the claims that hve been presented repeatedly by individuals such as Richard
Baer and Ed Decker. Unfortunately, their claims have been examined rather
closely and individuals such as Lee Pope ("Anti-Mormon Misuse of Social
Statistics and the State of Utah," available through Mormon Miscellaneous)
have shown that their claims are rather groundless.

For example, Mr Rose claims that Utah has the highest suicide rate. Not
true. Utah's 1989 suicide rate was 12.4 per 100,000 population while the
national rate was 12.6 (National Center for Health Statistics, Aug 30,
1990). Utah's rate of suicide, including teenage rates, has consistently
been lower than the other western states (Utah Department of Health
Suicide Mortality Rates, 1960 - 1988 12/18/90).

Mr Rose claims that Utah has the highest teen pregnacy rate. Not true.
Available information show that the rate for out-of-wedlock-births in the
state of Utah was 126.6 per 1,000 live births, or about one-half of the
national average of 257.1. This figure becomes more significant when
compared to the number of induced abortions in Utah for the same year of
121.1 per 100,000, about one-third of the national average of 352.0
(Utah's Vital Statistics Summary, January 1991).

Mr Rose claims that Utah has a very high drug rate. In reality every state
has a problem with drugs, however Utah compare favorably on a national
level. Substance use among Utah students remains significantly lower than
the U.S. averages, for example 64% or Utah seniors have tried alcohol,
compared to 92% of seniors nationwide; Utah seniors use tobacco, marijuana,
cocaine, and inhalants far less frequently than the average U.S. high
school senior. The Utah State Division of Substance Abuse, 1991, breaks down
Substance Abuse in Utah by county, and Utah county (which is approx 90%
LDS) is significantly lower in Substance Abuse than Salt Lake county
(which is approx 50% LDS).

As for the murder rate. Perhaps Mr Rose will be so kind as to provide the
actual statistics with comparisons to the national averages and some sources
to follow up on.
-- 

              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
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: winter@sol.surv.utas.edu.au (Derek Winter)
Subject: Suggestions about 1Cor. 14:22-25?
Organization: CenSIS at University of Tasmania
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:04:27 GMT

Hello All,

					I recently read this passage (and surrounding parts), and am intrigued by
these few verses. I would appreciate the views of other people who can offer
an opinion , as they appear to be rather contradictory. Any contributions will
be welcomed, whether by email, or postings to this 'group.

					Thanks for your help,

																Regards,

																					Derek.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:01:21 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <HcwPsB6w165w@topcat>, topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com
(Tom Albrecht) wrote:
 
> I hate to tell you this, Kelley, but nowhere does the Constitution prohibit
> the Bible from being the basis of our civil laws.  In fact, most of the laws
> on the books of the various states at the time of the writing of the
> Constitution were taken directly from the Bible ... and none of them were
> declared unconstitutional as a result of the adoption of the 1st Amendment.

Funny, I'm not even an american, but I do know that the Constitution
is especially direct concerning *the separation of state and church*.
If you base any laws on a religion, you are against the US constitution.
It's really simple. And I guess hard to swallow for Christians.

Cheers,
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W)
Subject: Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41.UAC
Keywords: LDS, Mormon, Joseph Smith
Organization: University of Alaska - Fairbanks
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 04:49:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.202607.16726@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes...
> 
> 
>     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.  

Picky, picky, picky
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:06:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.174340.15126@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
>        As for me, I will stick to:
>
>  'I am Jehovah, and there is none else, there is no God [Elohim] beside
>   me.' Isa. 45:5.
>  'before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.'
>   Isa 43:10.
>

 Now you'all notice this, these two verses don't come from s KJ version,
 or RvS, or even a Jerusalem Bible

 but this is the exact phrasing from a JW old testament.

 There may be other version that also match these verses but _I_ don't
 have them. If I rember correctly this doesn't even match the phrasing
 from either my Donay or Dutch Lutheran Bible.



-- 
         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: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 16 Oct 92 04:45:54 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

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
>> > this will carry a bit more weight than Jason's name (sorry,
>> > Jason).  
>> 
>> 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?
>
>barry--

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.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:18581 talk.abortion:43196 alt.politics.homosexuality:6482