HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Are LDS Christian?
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:10:04 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Sep24.050445.59130@cc.usu.edu> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.045629.23948@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
>[...]
>>>>>lds
>> Joseph Smith, Jr: "There is no other God in heaven but that God who has
>> flesh and bones." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 181)
>> 
>>>>>Bible
>> "God is a Spirit [pneuma]..." (John 4:24) "...a spirit [pneuma] hath not
>> flesh and bones..." (Luke 24:39)
>
>"For unto such hath God promised his spirit.  And they that
>worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."
>(JST: John 4:26.)
>
>"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and
>see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."
>(Luke 24:39.)
>
>"And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh
>unto his friend. ..." (Ex. 33:11.)^^^^^^^^
>
>"And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man
>see me, and live.            ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>"And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I
>will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover the with my
>*hand* while I pass by:
>^^^^^
>"And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see *my* *back*
>*parts*: but my *face* shall not be seen." [emphasis mine, JBH]
>(Ex. 33:20,22,23.)^^^^^

This is no argument!  If you are going to do this with the text and take
these passages literally, you MUST do the same thing with Psalm 91:

     "He shall cover thee with His feathersm and under his
      wings shalt thou trust."  Psalm 91:4

You cannot take every passage in the Bible literally like you have done
above to try and prove your point.  If you do, you end up with God being
a Big Man, a Chicken, and Blass Furnace, etc....

God chooses to express himself to us in this manner because it is a manner
in which we can identify with.  We can relate to "an eye that never
closes", and an "ear that always hears" and such forth.  From this we can
see what kind of being is dealing with us in those terms.  These are in no
way or stretch of the imagination dealing with the physical charater of
God.  That is only delt with in ONE passage in the Bible and that is
John 4:24 (see above).  There are however, many other passages that show
that God HAS to be a Spirit and not a physical finite man.  If he were
a physical finite man, he could not "fill the heavens and earth"...
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: True and False <META>phors was (The Adam and Eve Thing)
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:00:44 GMT
	<fTj1ED2@quack.sac.ca.us> <1992Oct1.165311.17533@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Organization: Rebel? Against What?

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.
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered 9
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:25:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep28.164646.59247@cc.usu.edu>, slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes...
>Regarding LDS prophets:
> 
>In article <Bv9ox1.BAt@acsu.buffalo.edu>, 
>psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>[...]
>> Is there any way that we could use a standard to discern if 
>> they are false? How do *we* know that they are false?
> 
>For the LDS, the standrad expressed in D&C 50:19-24 seems to be a
>good one.  The witness of the Holy Sspirit is the best standard
>of all.  What greater proofcan there be than from God?

	Could you amplify this? How does one know, using the 
following, that something is from God?

D&C 50:19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he
receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

D&C 50:20 If it be some other way it is not of God.

D&C 50:21 Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know,
that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it
as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?

D&C 50:22 Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth,
understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.

D&C 50:23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is
darkness.

D&C 50:24 That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, 
and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth 
brighter and brighter until the perfect day.


=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus For President
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 14:20:42 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:

>In article <1992Sep26.021050.21952@emr1.emr.ca> davidson@ccrs.emr.ca (David Davidson) writes:
>>Imagine Jesus entering the current Presidential race..
[Funny lines deleted...left the last for context]
>>Consultant #1. "And will someone please tell me what the fuck a Pharisee
>>                is??"
>>
>>dAVID. 
Hilarious!

>Can we say Blasphemy?
Can you say joke?

>"You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will
> not hold anyone guiltless who misuses His name."
>                                                    Exodus 20:7
>
>God will not be mocked!
Mellow out.

 -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
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:57:12 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <70009@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> Who else is going to write about what Jesus did in those times, execpt
> the ones that were with him.  There was no CCN network nor was there
> any real good way for people to travel around and see what he was doing.
> The disciple did not say EVERYONE believed.  They gave good reports
> and bad reports.  One day practically everyone left Jesus.  

Well, that's not true. Jews kept track of the historical events of those
times, same with the Romans. Isn't it amazing that a man capable of 
miracles was hardly mentioned at all in the historical texts of the
Romans and the Jews. Most likely he was no important historical figure
at all.

> Josephus was a Jews historian, but incase you want to say he was biased
> you may look and see that he only wrote a small amount about Jesus, but
> what he wrote agreed with the Biblical accounts - if he was a Christian,
> I'm sure there would more either in his Antiquites or in some other
> writings of his.

As you know yourself he didn't mention that he did miracles, neither
rose from the dead. He mentioned that this man was killed, and started
a sect, which was not a big thing during those times.
 
> The Bible was written by several different men not by one man.  The
> recorded events from multiple sources should give you some hint that
> these writings have some weight.  That is unless you have assumed 
> before hand that miracles cannot happen.

It also clearly shows that a lot of people was involved in writing
and rewriting the history. Sometimes even these writers were out of 
sync with what they wrote -- a good example are the different ancestory
lines described in the Gospels.

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
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 20:35:20 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

>In article <adams.717517550@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>>Am I really seeing what I think I'm seeing?
>>
>>I dunno...what are you seeing?
>
>Somebody on this newsgroup actually thinking, and willing to change
>their views in the course of debate?

Sure....what's wrong with that?  Oh, it doesn't ever happen here.  Oops!  I
forgot.  So, sorry...;-)

On a more serious note, yep.  That's what you're seeing.

 -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
From: gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Family values defined
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 16:29:17 GMT

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:

>>>The only tyrannical people I've every met was the group 
>>>Queer Nation one Sunday at a Cracker Barrel.

Much more tyrannical, I am sure, than the religious right who are
sowing hatred and reaping murder in Oregon.  I suspect all you need in
order to find a more tyrannical person is a mirror.  

>>Speaking of tyrannical, what about the Cracker Barrel executives who ordered
>>people fired because of their sexual orientation?  Or did you even bother
>>to find out what the protest was protesting?

>Yes, I knew before I went in and was well aware of it, when I entered.

Did you go anyway, in order to show your support for the policy of firing
gay and lesbian people?  In that case, you have deliberately made an
enemy, and can hardly be expected to be treated as a friend.  The alternative
is that you didn't think the matter was important to you, in which case,
why should the people you regard as beneath your concern care about *you*?
Your position here is very peculiar.  If you are joining Pat Buchanan's
religious war, it ill becomes you to whine about the bullets headed in
your direction.

>I believe you have confused the analogy.  For the pickets in the
>60's were Peaceful, Non-violent protest.

You haven't described any violence in the QN protest.  Your point here
seems to be that people who for the most part are not Christians are
not turning the other cheek, and doing good to them who seek to do them
evil. You are confused here--if you profess Christianity, that is
supposed to be *your* job.  Instead, you appear to be attempting to do
harm to others, and then complaining about your mistreatment at the
hands of those you wish to harm. This is bad manners for a soldier in
any war, including a religious one.

>I do not deny an emotional problems resulting from the firings.

When the rent comes due and you don't have the money, that isn't "an
emotional problem".  

>As I said in the previous post, don't confuse my speaking out against
>this as a hatred for the individuals.

If I understand you correctly, you want gay and lesbian people to be
fired from their jobs.  While this may be an improvement over other
posters, who have suggested jail, it is also not an example of love in
action. This is so obvious that it is hard to see how you could deny it
and still claim to be an honest person.  Can you explain this?

In other words, Go, and sin no more.  If you do the devil's work, don't
whinge when the devil wants his due.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner)
Subject: Re: A Response to a LDS Reader!
Organization:  University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center
Date: 27 SEP 92 01:20:24    

In article <1992Sep27.041727.10913@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes...
>From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
>> In article <1992Sep24.054557.25906@newsgate.sps.mot.com>,
>> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:

>> > _Joseph F. Smith, The Way to Perfection_, 1931
>> >
>> > _Joseph F. Smith_, Deseret News, Church Section, July 14, 1962
>>
>> First of all, are you sure this is the same person making both
>> statements?
> 
>Yes, I am.
> 
>> There is a Joseph Fielding Smith that died in the 1930s or 40s I
>> can't remember which.  This one is commonly referred to as
>> "Joseph F. Smith".

The 6th President of the LDS Church was known as Joseph F. Smith.  He died in 
1918. The 10th President of the LDS Church was known as Joseph Fielding Smith,
he died around 1970-1972 (sorry don't have a reference book handy).  If the 
dates on the above quotations are correct then both would have be from 
Joseph Fielding Smith. Both statements pre-date his term as LDS President.

JFS II also published a book entitled _Man: His Origin and Destiny_ circa
1954 which contains many teachings which are not considered official doctrine
of the LDS Church.  He was a prolific writer and of a very conservative bent.

Mark's use of the Joseph F. Smith moniker for the man commonly known as
Joseph Fielding Smith would be confusing to most LDS.

Dana Bunner
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians? (Was: WANTED: Former LDS, ...)
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:50:58 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <1992Oct2.203636.29896@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
>> From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
>> I'm afraid you missed the point.  Unlike you and the Pharisees,
>> Jesus didn't care doodly squat about what the theological nature
>> of the God the Samaritans worshiped was.
>
>        Apparently, Gorden, you do not understand the implications of
>worshipping a conterfiet Samaritan god; or the parallel to worshipping
>a counterfeit Mormon god.  Do you beleive Mormons are right in claiming
>to be the only church where salvation is possible -- while at the same
>time leading people to a false god and false Jesus?
>
No, I suppose I don't.  Like Jesus, I think how a person acts
is more important that what his theology is.  I would
have thought Jesus made that clear to you by the Good Samaritan story.
And, I neither believe that the Mormons are right in claiming to be the
only church where salvation is possible (nor do I believe they
claim that) nor that they are leading people to a false God and
false Jesus.  As I said to someone else, I think that none
of us fully comprehends God or Jesus, and thus we all are worshipers
of our own concept of Him, and all worship false Gods.  

>        The Bible warns us of 'another Jesus':
>
>  2Co  11:4 For if indeed he that comes preaches another Jesus,
>  whom we have not preached, or ye get a different Spirit, which ye
>  have not got, or a different glad tidings, which ye have not
>  received, ye might well bear with [it].
>
>        And goes on to tell us who would present it:
>
>  2Co  11:13 For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers,
>  transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.
>
Well, I'm not sure what the historical context of that was.
Paul was trying to warn the Corinthians about some impostor
apostles I would suspect.  The idea that he is talking about
the Mormons is ludicrous.


[Reams of theological nit picking deleted]

In arguing with me, it does no good to find references
from extremely conservative Mormon leaders, some of whom
undoubtedly are as rigid and legalistic as yourself.
Don't expect me to argue Bruce McConkie's side.  There
are others here who will do that, I'm sure.



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:29:07 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <4OCT199222063241@acad3.alaska.edu> ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.214828.8103@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes...
>>From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
>>> lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:
>>...
>>> >   Jesus Christ: According to Mormonism Jesus Christ was one of the spirit so
>>> >   of the God Elohim. Jesus was was Jehovah, the God of the old testament. Go
>>> >   the Father visited Mary and had marital relations with her so that Jesus
>>> >   could be born with a human body.
>>>
>>> No, there is no explicit Mormon teaching that teaches this.
>>> The only thing that Mormons teach is that God, the Father is the
>>> father of Jesus Chirst, not the Holy Ghost.
>>>
>>> There is no LDS doctrine that explains in unambiguous terms what
>>> the *method* of conception was.
>> 
>>        No... but 'widely held official speculation.' The father of
>>the Mormon Jesus is an exalted being of flesh and bones who begat
>>Jesus' physical body in the same physical way our fathers begat ours.
>>The Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie stated:
>
>*     *     *     <material deleted>     *     *      *      *      *
>
>In my opinion, discussions about God's sex life or lack thereof are
>disrespectful to Him.  If He had wanted us to know all about it, I'm sure he
>could have included a lot of information about it in the scriptures.  He
>certainly left a lot of other information out, presumably because he didn't
>consider it important for us to know at the present time.
>
>And what is your fascination with this subject?  You seem to be a great deal
>more interested in it than any Mormon I have known.  Are you sure your interest
>isn't prurient?  And what if Mormons did believe that Christ was conceived as
>the result of natural reproductive processes?  Does that make them any less
>Christian?  Just who do you think set up the process of procreation, anyway?  I
>don't believe it was a man.  If it was, somebody should give him a medal.
>
>Your problem is you know the words in the Bible, but you have forgotten the
>meaning of the words.  Maybe it is the Christians that aren't Christians?
>
>In any case, why can't you just disagree with us without foaming at the mouth? 
>Of course we're wrong by your estimation.  So what?  If you agreed with us you
>would be a Mormon yourself.
>
>Don't you think you could get closer to Christ by practicing your own faith
>than by tearing down ours?  We Mormons believe it makes God sad to see his
>children fighting about Jesus.  


When you can't face the facts and discuss them, you result to character
assination.  Why is this?  Could it be that Truth has been revealed?
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:29:33 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <69209@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> It is hard to see why you (Kent) seem to take the words Jesus said as
> something by which to live or at least something with which to pressure 
> others.  Yet, you discount the other words as being wrong.  The same
> person wrote or assembled it all and for the sake of the argument, if the 
> same person didn't - why use one part and not the other, for you don't
> know what is what?  Remember after Jesus rose from the dead he explained 
> to his disciples how all the scriputre (Law, Prophets, and Psalms) 
> pertained to himself.

Sigh, I guess we both don't like the fact if someone takes our opinions,
and rewrites them. Right? Same with Jesus, he didn't say that the
temple is his body, or what. That was done later by John.

> The fact that the disciple didn't understand some of what Jesus taught
> is throughout the gospels - a later enlightenment gave them the understanding.
> Jesus opened the disciples eyes.  He taught them.  You don't really see
> the disciples teaching from the OT until after the Holy Spirit came, which
> Jesus told them would lead them into all truth.  The eyes were opened.

Ha! That's the problem, you call it englightenment, I call it rewrite
of history. My eyes were also opened after I worked 2-3 years as a
journalist,
and saw the power of the word. One has to be quite naive to believe that
the holy spirit provided the information. If this was the case we would
still have the holy spirit working. And there are no registered and
scientifically verified cases of this. If you mention Morris Cerullo,
then I must say that I didn't like his style of kicking a person on the
ground so he would start babbling in tongues (seen on TV).

> |Another point, if this was a true story, we would not have traditional Jews
> |in Israel today, instead Messianic Jews.

Why don't we have the majority of Jews that believe in Jesus? He did
miracles in Israel for them?

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: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: WANTED: Former LDS, now Born Again Christian for Thesis Project
Date: 1 Oct 92 02:44:33 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <16673@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <Sep.23.04.10.56.1992.3815@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>
>In any event, the Church makes a great effort now not to
>criticise other religions.

I was at Temple Square two weeks ago, and there is a statue of Joseph
Smith there, and on that statue are the words:

     "I was answered that I must join none of them for they were all
      wrong. The Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds
      were an abomination in his sight, that those professors were
      all corrupt...."

This is still in the Pearl Of Great Price and the Church still believes
it.  To tell me that I am "outright wrong", I am an abomination in the
eyes of God, and so are my creeds, is to tell me that you think there is
no hope for me unless I become a Mormon.  This is criticizing other
religions.  I know there have been lots of discussions on this and some
one will write in and say, "we have discussed this.......", but that
doesn't change the fact that this is the beleifs of the LDS church.
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered 9
Date: 27 Sep 92 01:37:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep26.154452.59209@cc.usu.edu>, slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes...

[...]

>Can you prove, then, that Brigham Young was, in fact, moved upon by
>the Holy Ghost when he made those statements?

	I asked this question earlier in the year, and didn't receive 
a reply. I would like to ask it again: What is the definition of a 
`false prophet' in the LDS?


=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc