HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:21:24 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

Regarding Eric Rescorla's disclosure that he is not a Mormon,

In article <b0k002Ot25jB01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, 
agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
[...]
>>>No, that is FAR from what I am saying.  But Mormons LOVE to twist what I
>>>am saying to make it sound like what you are saying I am saying.
>>I'm not a mormon, sir.
>>I am merely trying to get you to clarify your words. So, how is what
>>you said different from what I said. Or, if you prefer, how is the
>>statement that "Anyone who does not believe in the right Christology
>>is damned." incorrect. One must presume that you believe in the right
>>Christology.
>>
>>>  I think
>>>the issue is dead.
>>I don't. I think you're being evasive.
> 
> I didn't mean to imply that you were a mormon, and didn't think that you
> necessarily were.  I stated that mormons ofter attack me with the same
> argument that you have.  I honestly apologize for offending you.  I can
> understand your postion.  I didn't mean for it to sound as if I though
> you were an mormon, because I didn't know.
> 
> I am not being evasive eric, but I have explained this the best I know
> how, and when it is repeated by you, it is not the same as I said.
> This is not an attack on you or your understanding, but it tells me that I
> am doing a poor job to get it across to you.
> 
> I aplogize that my points are unclear to you.  Maybe if you would
> re-phase you question, I could try to answer it from that angle.  I don't
> wish to avoid the issue, I just don't understand your misunderstanding.

Tony,

I've heard it said that in the Army (?) they have a saying
something to the effect of: "If something *can* be misunderstood,
it *has* been misunderstood".

Before you accuse me or anyone else of twisting your words and
putting words in your mouth, remember that most effective
communicators *try* to "re-state" your ideas in their own words
usually in the form of a question so that they can *clarify* your
real intended message.

Look for these clues for such things:
"Are you saying that ...?"
"So what you mean is ..."
"In other words, you're saying that ..."

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The smell of flowers (Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined))
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:29:18 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1bmsirINNd56@cascade.ens.tek.com> davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes:
>>It looks to me that you're trying to work backwards from what you want God to
>>do, to figure out the right way to run a garden, instead of really looking
>>at a garden and then working forwards from this to figure out things about
>>God, like you claim.
>  Actually, I feel that you could not be more wrong. 

When I actually looked in rec.gardens, I found references to burning diseased
plants.  Tell me, if God is like a gardener, does he recommend destroying
"diseased" religions?

I found references to forcing bulbs.  Should we force people to become
members of the "correct" religion?

I found a reference to planting seedlings, and pulling out the ones that don't
come up right.  Should we look around for many religions that start from the
same source, and then destroy the ones that don't look good?

If you _are_ working forward from what gardening is like to what God is like,
you should accept all of these things.
--
"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: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Tony Rose answers challenge
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:06:14 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1687F782D.HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com writes:
>In article <b3MT02kE25BF01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
>agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
> 
>>
>>In article <1687D9F7C.HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com writes:
>>>Recently Tony said he was trying to understand the Mormon
>>>religion and to discover the truth.
>>>
>>>I answered him with a challenge to meet on common grounds
>>>and I'd explain the LDS doctrines to him.  This seemed
>>>reasonable to me.
>>>
>>>Time has now passed, and no response!
>>>
>>
>>Roger:
>>
>>I didn't avoid your offer.  I simply missed it ...
> 
>Reason accepted
> 
>>Anyway, if you wish to withdraw your personal attack on me, ...
> 
>Accused in public, withdrawn in public
> 
>>If indeed you make this offer, and I missed it or forgot to resond to
>>your letter, I honestly apologize, however, I don't think this is the
> 
>Accepted
> 
> 
>A poor Wayfaring Stranger [some say, a Strange One] in a strange land,
> 
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Disclaimer: Not my employer's opinion; probably                     |
> |             not your's either; and                                  |
> |             only mine, when authorized!                             |
> |                                                                     |
> |                                   Try: Roger_Holfeltz@stortek.com   |
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
> 

I appreciate your honesty.  I don't mind discussing or even disagreeing
with someone who is honest. Thank you.  Where does this leave the offer?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rlb@plex-1.ann-arbor.mi.us (Robin Billings)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: The restless mind
Date: 10 Oct 92 05:48:49 GMT
Organization: Plex-1, Michigan's Public Access Usenet Gateway  (Ann Arbor).


   The brain is restless, an astonishingly sensitive instrument.  It's
always receiving impressions, interpreting them, storing them away; it is
never still, waking or sleeping.  Its concern is survival and security,
the inherited animal responses; on the basis of these, its cunning devices are
built, within and without; its gods, its virtues, its moralities are its
defenses; its ambitions, desires, compulsions and conformities are the
urges of survival and security.  Being highly sensitive, the brain with
its machinery of thought, begins the cultivation of time, the yesterdays,
the today and the many tomorrows; this gives it an opportunity of 
postponement and fulfillment; the postponement, the ideal and the fulfillment
are the continuity of itself.  But in this there is always sorrow; from this
there is the flight into belief, dogma, action and into multiple forms of
entertainment, including the religious rituals.  But there is always death
and its fear; thought then seeks comfort and escape in rational and 
irrational beliefs, hopes, conclusions.  Words and theories become amazingly
important, living on these and building its whole structure of existence
on these feelings which words and conclusions arouse.  The brain and its
thought function at a very superficial level, however deeply thought may
have hoped it has journeyed.  For thought, however experienced, however
clever and erudite, is superficial.  The brain and its activities are a
fragment of the whole totality of life; the fragment has become increasingly
important to itself and its relationship to other fragments.  This
fragmentation and the contradiction it breeds is its very existence; it
cannot understand the whole and when it attempts to formulate the totality
of life, it can only think in terms of opposites and reactions which only
breed conflict, confusion, and misery.
 
  Thought can never understand or formulate the whole of life.  Only when
the brain and its thought are completely still, not asleep or drugged by
discipline, compulsion, or hypnotized, then only is there the awareness
of the whole.  The brain which is so astonishingly sensitive can be still,
still in its sensitivity, widely and deeply attentive but entirely quiet.
When time and its measure cease then only is there the whole, the unknowable.
 
-J. Krishnamurti
Krishnamurti's Notebook
Harper & Row, 1976, 139-140
From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Responding to the Nick and Jon challenge (Re: challenge to DSY...Was
Date: 17 Oct 92 03:29:31 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>Cincinnati is also built on 7 hills...

Until you ask somebody to point to them.  Then it becomes apparent
that the real number is more like 70.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM (Frank Farkas)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Joseph a true latter-day prophet
Date: 12 Oct 92 13:53:52 GMT
Reply-To: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: qual



> I have no great desire to spend time discussing Joseph Smith.  I realize 
>that you may have the idea that those who oppose your teaching derive 
>great enjoyment and pleasure out of "tearing down" the Mormon faith, 
>primarily in "attacking" Joseph Smith. Some may, but I most certainly do 
>not.  Some may, but I most certainly do 
>not. I would much rather spend my time talking positively about the gospel 
>of Jesus Christ, and the magnificent God who has revealed Himself in the 
>Word, or about the tremendous grace of God that brings salvation to men.
>But sometimes we have to discuss that which is not pleasant for the best
>good to come about. That is the situation I find myself in now.

I must take what you say with a grain of salt. I always question those who
claim that they rather do something else, but they don't. They may honestly
believe what they say, but trully they do what they really want to do.

		Frank
as one who trully enjoys what he does.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: MIND-CONTROL By ORTHODOX Religions
Date: 11 Oct 92 22:21:58 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Oct6.172212.1569@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
wrote:
>                        MIND-CONTROL by ORTHODOX Religions
>           
>                For the first twenty years of my life I was a Missouri 
>           Synod Lutheran.  For six years during grade school, I had to 
>           attend church and Sunday school nearly every week.  Every 
>           Saturday I was forced to WASTE a lot of time memorizing Bible 
>           verses and quotations from Martin Luther, for recitation 
>           during Sunday school.  Most of these memorizations were about 
>           Lutheran DOCTRINE, rather than Christian living.  This is 
>           MIND-CONTROL. 

>                For two years during 7th and 8th grades, I had to spend 
>           Saturday mornings attending "Confirmation Class".  During 
>           each of those two years we had to go through a long list of 
>           memorizations (MIND-CONTROL) for the class. 

Sounds familiar. I have had the same background. To start with I would
not state that the Lutheran church is orthodox, it has quite many
liberal views and it's a very young Christian sect compared with some
of the others.

Anyway, for me all this brainwashing was an eye opener, because I didn't 
believe and I still don't believe today that a valid religion needs
a lot of training and doctrine understanding in forms of teaching
in schools. I think a far more liberal religion would have just postponed
this understanding, so even if I also suffered from all this
indoctrination,
it helped me form my own world view that was not based on it.

One last word, if anyone still wants to bash me for lack of understanding
Christianity, let me once again state that I've been through the school
of Lutheran church since the age of 4, all the way till the confirmation.
I do know most of the inner issues concerning Christianity thanks to the 
Lutheran church training that is very profound.

Regards,
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: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Those Darn Burning Bosoms
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:52:58 GMT

  Cool
-- 
         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: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Bring On the Cases....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 06:33:26 GMT

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

] In article <1992Oct14.141304.18904@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] |ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
] |
] |] > 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.
] |
] |Please Do feel Free to Clarify this point at any time Richard.
] 
] I don't think a homosexual should be representing a group that 
] sees homosexuality as wrong (e.g., boy scouts) - a group that 
] teaches ethics to youth.


so you want to leave them in the hands of Hetro's?????

The place where the child molestors are to be found?


Hum.....

want to swap stories about the recent rash of problems
that the Roman Catholic Church has been having?

and when you get to moral 'absolutes' will you
clarify if you are for or against the bible,
and then also about the biblical stand on slavery.....


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

ME? engage in Hyperbole?
I have rarely been more than a first Order Function!!!!
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:16:23 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct15.132525.59735@cc.usu.edu>, slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
> In article <1992Oct15.020856.16534@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>,
>  press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
> > slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
> 
[I'm putting this back in its proper order Jason]

<Begin proper order of exchange that somehow was altered>

> [...]
> Barry> Do the magical undergarments really protect one from the devil?
> 
> Jason> Why don't you ask him yourself?
> 
> Barry> He said No. He just asks you to wear them 'cause they look funny.

> Jason> Go ahead an mock me then.  I don't care, because I know the Lord
> Jason> looks upon the heart and not the outward appearance.

> Barry> Jason, this was a slap meant to imply I follow the 
> Barry> devil (or do you have some other explanation), but 
> Barry> I didn't cry about it.
> Barry> Jason, my response was designed against your slap?
> 
<End reconstruction of disordered sequence>

Jason> I'm sorry Barry, but I'm finding it particularly difficult to
Jason> turn the other cheek or to come up with a charitable response to
Jason> your apparent flipancy in degrading my sacred beliefs.
> 
> [...]
> Barry> I'm asking if they protect you from the devil. Why keep
> Barry> ducking into the bushes. Just answer please.
> 
Jason> Answer hypothetically then.  Suppose I say "yes".  What will your
Jason> response be?

My response would be, "Where does this come from. Where is there
any support(no pun)for this devil repellant"?
> 
Jason> Suppose I say "no".  What will your response be?

My response would be, "why do you or any other temple lds wear them"?

> 
Jason> I keep avoiding the question because I feel like I'm being set
Jason> up and I don't sense any real sincerity behind your query.  That
Jason> is, I feel that *any* response I give will be used against me.

Jason, when has that Ever been a deterrant in responding to questions
on the net? This happens to everyone. You have done it to me plenty
of times.
> 
> [...]
> Barry> Well, are they mentioned in scripture?
> 
> Jason> *I* believe they are.  But it's *my* interpretation of the
> Jason> Biblical passages.  Your interpretaion differs, no doubt. 
> Jason> So posting the passages or references is moot.
>  
> Barry> Ok, what passages did Joseph Smith give? 
> 
Jason> Why did you ask for *my* opinion if you really wanted Joseph
Jason> Smith's?

Jason, I was being charitable. You said posting the passages was
a moot point(after giving your reasons). So, in the charitable spirit,
I asked you what passages Joseph gave.

barry--
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:22:20 GMT


The Aposlte Paul warned that others would present a different Jesus:

   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].  (2Co 11:4)

He relates acceptance of the different Jesus with deception -- not
just any deception -- but the deception of Eve in the garden:

   But I fear lest by any means, as the serpent deceived Eve by his
   craft, [so] your thoughts should be corrupted from simplicity as to
   the Christ. (2Co 11:3)

And, how did Eve become deceived?

   And the serpent said to the woman, Ye will not certainly die; but God
   knows that in the day ye eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and ye
   will be as God, knowing good and evil. (Ge 3:4-5)

And what is the luring promise of Mormonism?  that we may become Gods,
Just as God became God.

   "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be."
(Apostle Talmage, Articles of Faith p.430)

   "[God the Father] went on from one degree of knowledge to another
   until he obtained the knowledge that made him God. So, also it will
   be with us,..."
(Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 9:371)

   "few men will become what God is.  And yet, all men may become what
   he is if they will pay the price."
(Apostle Melvin J. Ballard, Three Degrees of Glory, p.9)

   "mortality is the testing or proving ground for exaltation to find
   out who among the children of God are worthy to become Gods
   themselves, ..."
(Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:69)

Mark
<standard disclaimer>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians? (Was: WANTED: Former LDS, ...)
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:29:52 GMT

From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
- ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.CO
-        According to a revelation given by Joseph Smith, those who will
-not submit to Celestial Marriage are "appointed angels in heaven, which
-angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of
-a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory... these
-angels... remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their
-saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not Gods, but
-are angels of God forever and ever." (Doctrine and Covenants 132:16-17)

>These also have "Eternal Life" and in the Celestial Kingdom...

   Fair enough, eternal life as a servant, serving others who
went to the temple and put on the funny white gown and let someone
reach their hands inside and touch them.  Sounds like "Truth Restored"
to me.

> 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,
bloody (Masonic) oaths, goofing around with some guy behind
a veil, etc...  Hard to beleive rejecting all this puts a
person in a postion of eternal damnation.

Mark
<standard disclaimer>
From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:17:52 GMT
Organization: Applied Presuppositionalism, Ltd.

ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:

> In the United States, it is unimportant what god says when concidering action
> of government  (see the first ammendment).

This is atheist propaganda, not American jurisprudence.

> Funny...our founding fathers WROTE the constitution.  Now, if the founding 
> fathers felt the bible was important to governmental policy, why did they
> bother placing the religion clause in the first ammendment?

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.

But then again they don't teach that fact in school anymore, now do they?

> In all the above, I see no justification for government stepping into the
> realm of religion.  You have not made the point that either the bible or
> the founding fathers intended the biblical law to be concidered in our form
> of government.

Read the documents for yourself.  Or is this a case of, "I've made up my
mind so don't confuse me with the facts."

> If you are interested, I have a list of quotations from the founding fathers
> concerning religion in general, complete with sourses.  i'd be happy to post
> them if you would like.

I'd rather you posted the legal statutes from the commonwealth of
Massachusetts, for example.  Or any other set of state laws on the books
in 1787. You might also want to share the underlying basis for those laws.
The ratification process for many of the state constitutions are available.

--
Tom Albrecht
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 20:59:28 GMT

In article <76Fk02T925CY01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.143411.12488@news.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <24LM02pw25ca01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>I don't see how you're saying anything different from what I said.
>>You write
>>(If you are wrong on the area of why God is(theology) or who Jesus
>>is (Christology) then you are wrong enough to lose your soul for
>>eternity.)
>>
>>Is your position really that anyone who does not agree with your
>>Christology is damned? This seems to be what you are saying, sir.
>>-Ekr
>
>No, that is FAR from what I am saying.  But Mormons LOVE to twist what I
>am saying to make it sound like what you are saying I am saying.
I'm not a mormon, sir.
I am merely trying to get you to clarify your words. So, how is what
you said different from what I said. Or, if you prefer, how is the
statement that "Anyone who does not believe in the right Christology
is damned." incorrect. One must presume that you believe in the right
Christology.

>  I think
>the issue is dead.
I don't. I think you're being evasive.

>  The audience can see my point and what you are trying
>to do with it.
I AM the audience, Sir. I am not a mormon. I have no personal stake in
this argument, I merely wish to see you clarify your point?
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:18343 alt.politics.homosexuality:6447 alt.sex:33007 soc.singles:27799