HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Would like to talk with LDS members...
Date: 11 Oct 92 23:46:54 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:

>Willard Smith also maintains a FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)
>list that is posted to soc.religion.christian every four months or
>so.  I think that this list is archived at some site and is
>therefore available by anonymous FTP.

I don't post the FAQ's anymore.  There are now 1 MB of documents.
This seems a bit much to post on a regular basis.  I do try to make
sure people know they are there.  They're available for anonymous FTP
on info.rutgers.edu, in /pub/soc.religion.christian.

info.rutgers.edu is the Rutgers Campus-Wide Information System.
Aside from lots of information about the Rutgers campus, it also
has some reference information of possible interest to this
group, including online Bible (KJV), Mormon canon, and Koran.
To get to them, follow the menu path library/reference/religion.
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons . . . are Henotheists
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:03:43 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

Mormons are not polytheists.
Mormons are henotheists.
There is a difference, and it's a significant one.
Consult your dictionary to see what it is.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:53:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct7.164938.27930@macc.wisc.edu>, bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner) writes...

[...]

>take offense at this.  LDS sensitivities are aroused when multiple 
>Christian groups begin denying them the title, however the LDS need to realize
>these groups deny each other the title too.  The LDS should learn to shrug
>these charges off and realize they are far from alone in the dreary world of
>being non-EC Christians.

Dana,

	This is called equivocation. The issue is not whether 
unitarians are christian, or whether being a member of a presbyterian 
church makes one a christian. The issue is whether being a member of 
the LDS makes one a christian.

	By changing the subject at hand, one is ignoring the issue.

	I'm sure that we could cover presbyterians later.

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

	
	
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Idaho
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:51:36 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Oct14.194939.27265@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> Certainly this is not a necessary appearance.  Consider a similar
> scenario: If someone who never brushes his teeth has numerous dental
> cavities, and someone who brushes often also has numerous cavities, it
> would appear that brushing makes no difference in the reduction of
> cavities.

Exactly, change the word brushing to 'Jesus worshipping', and the word
cavities to food, and we have the exact same scenario. In other
words what are you really trying to show, man?

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: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: YO! MC drieux jus drew, I mean posted, what's this B*SH-it
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:24:09 GMT
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

In <fTZOt1c@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:

>In article <1992Oct14.143344.19043@wetware.com> 
>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>Modern Day Problems:
>>In any case, don't give up, just type slower :-).
>>Chimo
>>Bob.

>Yo, I get the BoB part, but what's a Chimo? Is that street lingo for chimera
>or Qui-mo as in Qui-mo sabe? How's 'bout a little 411 for a change, know
>what I'm sayin'?

pardon me for butting in, drieux, but since that came from an
e-mail I sent you, I'll explain.

Chimo is the Innuit equivalent of, well the Jewish toast comes
to mind as the closest, and suddenly I've forgotten how to
spell it. The Innuit? That means "the people", the original 
inhabitants and owners of arctic Canada.

REB (bob)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: When was the last time you sinned?
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:20:43 GMT

As an atheist, I'm fascinated (and quite often frightened) by
Christianity's preoccupation with the "innate imperfection of mankind"
-- namely, sinning.  But thinking about it recently, I wondered if
Christians really do sin as often as they say they do?

Think about it.  I doubt many devout Christians have ever committed
murder, and few have coveted their neighbor's belongings or worshipped
"false gods", so if you judge sin solely in terms of how many of the
Ten Commandments were broken, I think many Christians can't help but
have a pretty clean slate.

And even if you judge 'sin' by how many times a person has thought
"bad thoughts" -- namely, putting himself before his god -- I doubt
many Christians rack up much sin here, either, if they really believe
in what they say they believe.

So I ask any Christian out there: how do you sin?  I've never done
Confession; what sorts of things do you confess there?  If you know
that a certain action is a sin before you do it, then why do you do
it?  If you only realize after you do it that it was a sin, then how
are you responsible for it?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
        "Sex is DEATH!"      Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
         -- Barbara Bush                                         -- Rousseau
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Idaho (criticism that "evidence" for "Jesus" comes from believers)
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:14:41 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Oct12.180113.3311@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> >There is one CRUCIAL difference. A disbeliever in "Idaho exists" can
> >independently verify that the statement is true (by going there) - he
> >does not HAVE to rely on the testimony of the believers.
> 
> In the spirit of the parody, I have question the ability of a
> disbeliever to travel to "Idaho" and independently verify that it
> exists.  How will he know that he has entered "Idaho" without relying
> on the testimony of believers?

If we use this kind of mental argumentation, we might even wonder if
United States exist, because we rely on the testimony of Americans
and people that have either visited the place, or live here. In other
words this becomes just an absurd reasoning model.

Actually, this could be mapped to the logic of science, if we have 
enough people that create justifications that a certain theory is valid,
it is valid until there's enough momentum to move to an even better
theory (or in most cases a refinement of an existing one).

However, in the case of religion we have a situation where we don't 
even have clear objective evidence, thus the theory is missing, only
a lot of various hypotheses. If the followers of religion insists that
there's a theory, fine, however they can't justify it. In the case of
Idaho we have enough *independent* background material to justify that the
place 
actually exists, and any attempts to show that Idaho doesn't exist
are defined as jokes, not serious argumentation.

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: Mormons, a different Jesus
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:54:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.180537.768@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>
>Mormom Archeology:
>
>     Horse & Chariots:   Book of Mormon, Alma 18:9-12, 20:6
>                                    III Nephi 3:22, 21:14
>
> 
>Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol 1.
>
>
>   "Land transportation in native Mesoamerica was
>confined to foot travel and to litters borne by
>humans (fig 13); there were no draft animals.  That
>the principle of the wheel was known is indicated by
>the presence of wheeled toys of clay, but there is 
>no archeological evidence that it was ever put to
>practical use . . . ."

   So your argument is that there were no roads or structures that
   indicated any sort of organized travel in South America?

>
>
>Mormon Archeology--from the National Geographic Society
>
>   by Marilyn Cole Finley, Research Correspondant for
>   the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY, letter April 16, 1982
>   to Mr. Rick Branch of Marlow, OK:
>
>   "I referred your inquiry to Dr. George Stuart, the staff
>archaeologist of the National Geographic Society.  He informed
>me that neither the Society nor any other institution of equal
>prestige has ever used the Book of Mormon in locating
>archaeological sites.  Although many Mormon sources claim
>that the Book of Mormon has been substantiated by archeological
>findings, this claim has not been verified scientifically."
>
>     
   Where are these "mormon" sources that claim that the Book of Mormon
   has been used to locate archaeological sites? Does this have
   anything to do with your previous attempts at contributing to
   the ongoing discussion?




-- 
         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: Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:24:25 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Oct16.015903.20869@newsgate.sps.mot.com>,
 ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
>> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
[...]
> Historically the LDS have taught that the Father, being a personage
> of flesh and bones as tangible as our own, performed the action himself,
> in the same way we beget children.  Nothing figurative.  

This is a rather ultra-conservative, and rather contraversial
thing even among Mormons.  I don't believe this, and most Mormons
I know wouldn't espouse the principles rendered above.

> The LDS
> reject the idea that the Holy Spirit could miraculously cause
> conception, and thus a real man was needed, and that man was
> the LDS Father God

You and others seem to reject the idea that God, the Father could
miraculously cause the conception without the need for sexual
intercource.

[...]
> The other rather inherent problem with this is, the LDS God is
> supposedly the literal father of Mary in pre-existance.  This
> results in a rather incestous relationship.

And if one takes Genesis literally, the sons and daughters of
Adam and Eve also had to be rather incestuous in order to
perpetuate the species.  What's your point?

[...]
> I would like to point out that it was not so long
> ago you adamantly denied this as being nothing more than speculation
> by a few people.  I am curious why you are now pursuing it in the
> sense of trying to make me disprove something you once pooh-pooh'ed
> as being nonsense.?

I still think that it is the speculation of a few.  But then
again, that is only my opinion.

I was  trying to pose hypothetical questions, that were not
necessarily tied to Mormonism.

You gave me a "miracle" response, to I claim the same for my
beliefs -- it was a miracle, but I believe that it was wrought by
God the Father (in some mannner besides sexual intercourse) and
not by the Holy Ghost.  This is the only place I detect a
difference of opinion between you and me regarding this specific
topic.

To me is seems that you are some how unable to understand, or
maybe just unwilling to accept that I believe that God, the Father
wrought the miracle that you claim the Holy Ghost did.

Maybe my belief are heretical (by other standards).

Maybe my beliefs don't repersent the beliefs of most Mormons.

Maybe my beliefs seem like bizarre (by other standards)
interpretations of scripture.

Maybe I am selective about what I consider as authoritative
statements by my church leaders.

Then again, maybe most Mormons are like me.  The only way to
find out is to ask them yourself.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: A.J.Robinson@lut.ac.uk (Alan Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Pagans
Date: 13 Oct 92 11:49:31 GMT
Organization: Loughborough University, UK.


Can someone tell me what Paganism is ?

Alan.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: EV Christians are not JW or Mormons
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:59:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.174340.15126@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
>From: robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr)
>> I guess if we accept the notion that there is only "one" god and his
>> name is Elohim or Jehovah and he cannot devide himself or confer his
>> Honor, name or Glory to another, then we are faced with more than a
>> few scriptural absurdities.
>
>His name is Jehovah, and Elohim is a title.  I am uncertain what
>you mean about a lack of 'deviding or confering'.  This may be
>possible, but it is not the LDS position -- unless you mean 'devide'
>in the sense of Jehovah being birthed by an exalted man in the
>pre-existance.  This is what the Mormons teach.
>

  Let's get it straight Jehovah is also a title. The word derivies from
  the non-prononced set of consonants that represent the title given
  to Moses by the Lord on Mount Sinia and is derived (so I'm told)

  from the question that Moses asked "And who shall I say sent me.
  And the Lord answered him and said " I Am that I am sends you".

  That's part of the reason that the Jewish leaders frothed a bit at the
  mouth, when Jesus declared unto them "That before Moses was, I am", 
  accourding to Non-Lds sources I found, Jesus was in essese declaring
  that He was the individual that spoke to Moses and gave the Law.


  Just as side note:  McConkie and other LDS "leaders" don't or haven't
  written _any_ books that establish LDS doctrine, What (IMHO) their
  intention is to persuade Lds and Non_Lds of various points. 
  Sometimes it is just as instructive to watch the discussion after
  a given book is published and so who really objects..
  [ email me if you want examples.... ]

  Mormon Doctrine (sic) was intended to persuade people what they should
  believe and by the third edition McConkie got tired of defending his work

  One of the primary reasons that people write books, is hoping that
  people will buy the books
-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       |
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Rich men and Heaven
Date: 8 Oct 92 01:48:25 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <2755@uswnvg.uswnvg.com>, mmcgreg@uswnvg.com (Mark McGregor)
wrote:
> 
> There has been some discussion as to whether the "man of noble birth"
> refers to Jesus, the future return of Jesus, etc.
> 
> Some thoughts on parables:
> 
> 1.  Brief definition of parable:  a story which points beyond itself to some
>     spiritual and/or practical truth or example.
> 
> 2.  In many parables there are "God images" -- i.e. symbols which the
>     Jewish people of the day would associate with God.  Examples of these
>     images are:  the king, the father, the vineyard owner, the shepherd, 
>     etc.  In this case, it is not unreasonable, or in my opinion stretching
>     the context, to see Jesus/God as the king in the parable.

I agree that one could *stretch* and assume that the noble man is Jesus.
Still, aren't we dealing with pure speculation and not real facts? I could
even stretch and define the noble man to be the devil, or Abraham,
or the Jewish people, Adam or something else. Parables are nice, they never
provide any decent evidence. I think this is the reason preachers
are keen to use them, don't lock them down concerning the final truth.

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: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians? (Was: WANTED Former LDS,...)
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:25:10 GMT

From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
>Gee, I must be wrong, I'm sorry.  You argue (or have argued JW doctrine)
>from the viewpoint of a believer. I'm real sorry if someone got insulted...

Thats funny, the JW's say that I have argued LDS Doctrine.  The LDS
beleive Jesus is Jehovah, and the Father is some exalted man who
gave birth to Jehovah in heaven.  The JW's believe Jehovah is the
father and Jesus is an exalted angel.

I beleive, as the Bible teaches, There is one God -- Jehovah, who
has manifested himself to us in 3 personally distinct manners.
Read John 8:24-59, where Jesus claims to be Jehovah, and refers
to his Father as being Jehovah (v.54).

Mark
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: non-dead (was: Re: I'm God.
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:56:21 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <70319@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
}Again, Jesus rose from the grave and never died again.  Name another
}that never died again, even it you claim they rose from the dead - many
}rose from the dead at the hand of Jesus and at his resurrection, but
}Jesus stands above them all - he ascended into heaven - he is alive and
}with the Father today.

Really?

Off hand, I'd say that Dracula rose from the grave again and again.  And
perhaps you didn't notice it, but noone you are talking to has recently
died.  They are alive today.  And quite a few are with THEIR fathers.  So?
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:45:52 GMT

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, Mark, Mark, you gotta keep your critisisms straight

  Either your are arguing that Bethlehem is near Jerusalem in one
  post or you are arguing that some Mormon's speculation about
  the method of Christ's conception isn't kosher.

  Keep your arguement is one thread or the other.  Which one are
  you going for now, or can't you make up your mind.

  This thread is about why Mormons worship another Christ (ie
  the one born at the same time but in a different place) Sheesh... ;-)

  Refering to the other thread that you haven't yet followed up on,
  have you yet figured out why it is important that Mary has a special
  child without the normal assistance. Would you like to explain
  why you seem to foam at the mouth on the subject of virgin birth implies
  free from Sin. You haven't yet show _this_ to be a biblical doctrine.

  Your more than welcome to explain this heresy without using any
  Augistinian or Post-Augistine Literature.




-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       |
From: tbutterf@ut-emx.uucp (Jeff Butterfield)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians, they are misguided Masons
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:30:00 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

Most Mormons really have little clue as to the origins of their religion.  If
they'd take a closer look I think most would be amazed at how shamelessly J.S.
and the gang pirated from the Masons.  It is well known and accepted that
J.S. was a Master Mason...in fact most of the men in Navuoo were as well.  There
were more masons in the Mormon religion at the Navuoo era than in the rest of
the state of Illinois combined.  What do Mormons have to show for their
past Masonic heritage:

	Most of the Signs, Tokens and Symbols in the Temple Endowment

	The graphics that adorn the Salt Lake, St. George and Logan temples

	The little figures that are sewn in their underwear

	The practice of calling each other "Brother SO and So"

	The term "the Bretheren" for their leaders

	
	The use of a "play" or mini-drama in the temple endowmment

	The nifty penalties that used to be in the temple endowment, but
	that were removed in the 1990 revision [Note: could some of you who
	argue that Mormon dogma never changes please explain the big changes
	in the temple endowment??]

	The Beehive as the official Utah State logo [a sign of a Master Mason]

Of course we could go on and on as to whether or not Masons are Christian, but
that would be a different posting for another day.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:30:04 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <70562@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) 
writes:
> Have you forgot to mention the threats the opposition have made
> to those who support the bill?  I've read and heard a little more
> since the last postings.

I have heard that there have been hundreds of anti-gays attacks in Oregon
recently, including a fire-bombing of a basement apartment which killed 2, as
well as attacks on the MCC and Catholic Church (the latter having recently
coming out against the measure.)

Which threats are you talking about?
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.