HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: MORMONISM ??????
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:54:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1992Apr8.205413.6793
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>My girlfriend is a Mormon, and I'm interested in
>finding out more about the beliefs and all, that are related
>to Mormonism.  However, she's in New Mexico at the moment, and
>I live in Alaska, so it's a bit difficult to find out things,
>except through letters.  That's a bit slow.  Anyway, she sent
>me her book of Mormon and I've started reading it.
>My question is this....is there anything else out there that I 
>can look into to find out these things?

There is a couple (can't remember names) who used to be Temple workers (a
special church in the Mormon faith) who publish a booklet and tapes on what
goes on inside the Temple.  Most Mormons don't even know this stuff.  It is
clear though that Mormonism and Christianity are two _totally_ separate
animals.  If you should decide to become a Mormon (which I do not recommend)
and you are deemed worthy to go through the Temple ceremonies you will
undoubtedly watch a film that has the Protestant playing as Satan's helper in
deceiving the masses.  Most of the ceremonial garb (including required
underwear) is directly stolen from masonry and several ancient babylonian
religions.  The goal of a Mormon is to become a god and rule his celestial
family (and his own "earth") - thus emphasis on earthly family for practice.
Also, the language which the book of Mormon was translated from does not and
never did exist to the best of our knowledge.  Also Joseph Smith was a shady
character much of his life.  Mormons focus on good works and do not believe
in salvation through Christ Jesus.  (You can tell I am coming from a
Christian perspective.)  Galations 1:6 is a good verse as they claim the
angel Moroni communicated a lot of stuff.

From talking with "everyday" Mormons they seem to think that Mormonism is
based on Christianity and "the more the better".  Wrong answer.


John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: birdman@nwu.edu (Christopher Kush)
Subject: Kill! Kill! Kill!
Keywords: angry young man
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:47:12 GMT

Oops, forgot one important bit:

	"You will not kill!"

	"I might"

	"You might, too"

thankslaterbirdman

PS - Ever get the feeling that if you mowed down a shopping mall with an AK-47,  
the only unsavory effect would be tasteless media coverage?

                   drugsdeathlovehatesexbeautyfearpainloss
		         Life as a Suburban Whiteboy
Organization: HAM - Hackers Against MUDs
X-Subliminal-Message: IBM/370 assembler is your friend.
Date: Friday, 17 Apr 1992 13:38:48 EDT
From: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Unfounded Biblical Faith
 <14APR199216440585@rigel.tamu.edu> <1992Apr16.194631.13334@pegasus.com>

In article <1992Apr16.194631.13334@pegasus.com>, tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard)
says:
>
>Matthew 2:15   and remained there until the death of Herod. This
>was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the
>prophet, "Out of Egypt I have called my son."
>
>Hosea 11:1   When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of
>Egypt I called my son.
>
>     I don't think it takes too much imagination to see that
>Matthew was referring directly of an earlier prophecy.
>
>     What is your problem with it?

The problem is that in Hosea, the "son" is Israel, as anyone can see.
There was no mention of a person; Matthew claimed there was. So, the
so-called "prophecy" is actually not a prophecy at all.

>
>Shalom,                    Len Howard
>

Martin Schulte
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: JWs Child Custody booklet, and why a judge might have felt it promoted "untrue" testimony under oath
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 12:31:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.043143.2933@menudo.uh.edu> kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown) writes:

>The context of this isn't quite clear.  "As a result" of what?
>That's the only quote I was able to find that lacked clear context.  The
>rest seemed clear.

The quote had been taken from the article "The Latter-Day-Saints in
Today's World", p. 24 of the 12/22/82 "Awake" magazine, under the
sub-headings "All is Not Well in Zion", and "Theology Behind It".
Rather than just provide the quote, here's the entire part of the
article, including:
"All is Not Well in Zion", and the beginning part of "Theology Behind It".
              
-=*=-

"All Is Not Well in Zion"
    Impressive growth, material prosperity, loving families, moral purity,
social status and respectability may all add up to an attractive and
idealized picture of Mormonism.  But "bishops and other church officials
who spend much of their time in counseling are acutely aware that 'all
is not well in Zion' " wrote Mormon church historian Leonard Arrington.
    In Utah, for example, where the Mormon Church claims 70 percent 
membership, government records show that the divorce rate is higher than
the national average, and 7 out of 10 teenage mothers conceived their
first baby out of wedlock.  All the religious and social programs of the
church have bought little, if any, real advantage to its members.  On the
contrary, the demands in time, effort and finances that such programs place
upon its members only add to their frustration, disappointment and
depression.  As a result, the suicide rate of both adults and teenagers
in Utah is also above the national average, and consumption of tranquilizers
and pep pills, amoung other drugs, by Mormons far exceeds that by the
population at large.
    Another cause for concern among chuch leaders is the rising tide of
inactive members in recent years.  According to Arrington. "20 to 30 percent
of those int he middle-of-the-road American wards to not attend 
[church services] at all" and in congregations away from the center, "the
disaffected nonattenders may constitute as much as 50 percent".  These
are, nonetheless, included in the count of millions by the church.

Theology Behind It
    It may seem strange that the areas in which Mormonism holds the
strongest appeal - family, youth, strong church programs and the like - 
should be where it is experiencing the most pressing problems.  In
reality this paradox is the product of Mormonism's unique and bizarre
concept of the nature of God and man.

-=*=-

I hope that provides the full context in which the quote was taken.

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
From: mark@yvax.byu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: CHRISTIANITY vs CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS
Date: 14 Apr 92 10:21:15 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1992Apr13.224846.23272@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
> Lets get one thing straight right now:
> 
> The Mormon Jesus is _not_ God.  They are two separate entities.
> While one might need to believe in Jesus to get into heaven,
> one also needs to _do_ many things, like knowing the endowment
> incantation to get into heaven, having a "sacred name", being
> buried in one's holy underwear, etc, etc, etc.  It is _clearly_
> a "saved by works" religion.
>
	
	The Book of Mormon teaches that man is saved by grace and that Jesus is
God.
	It seems to me that you think you know what the LDS church teaches, and 
I believe that your intentions are sincere, but what you have written is NOT
official church doctrine.  Believe what you want to believe - but take it from
a Mormon - what you say I believe and what I REALLY believe are two totally
different things.

-Mark
 
> John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Even more Mormonism!!!!!!!!
Date: 12 Apr 92 14:32:24 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>WHAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO,
>Just a second, I need to catch my breath!!!!!!!!!
>When I first posted asking questions on Mormonism, I was not
>prepared for the amount of anger I  was about to stir up!!!!!

Well, don't say I didn't warn you :-).
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: csmith@onetouch.COM (Craig Smith)
Subject: MOONIES
Organization: MCS/OneTouch, Inc.
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 21:04:02 GMT

Hah! I got your attention!

I am a Unificationist, and I was wondering if anyone out there had
any comments, questions, etc.

I'll take anything, including flames--Unificationists get them all
the time and we are used to them.

Any takers?

-- 
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Craig Smith                                         csmith@onetouch.COM ::
:: Columbus, OH                                  ...!uunet!onetouch!csmith ::
::::::::::::::: "Life is a fulltime occupation."--Gene Kalman :::::::::::::::
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject:  Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:00:54 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.145952.26475@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>
>>Go ahead, tell me, even if I _don't_ believe.  I just want to find out what
>>_you_ believe about it.
>
>	Religion that is not Biblical is false. Isaiah 43:10 says "You are my
>	witnesses is the utterance of Jehovah". If you are not a Jehovah's
>	witness, your religion is not biblical. 
>
>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

 This really does take the cake. The JW's have a perverted rendition of
 something that started as scripture. To claim the only a Jehovah Witness's
 religion could possibly be biblical when their own scriptures are not
 accptable as scripture. JW deny the Holy Ghost, they deny the sacrifice
 and resurection of Jesus Christ.
  In what way could the Jehovah's Witness Bible study be considerd a
 Christian Religion?

 I wouldn't want anyone to misunderstand I have met balenced members of
 the WTBS and they are not anything like Andreas. However he reneforces
 the sterotype that the world has of JW's. 



-- 
Kermit Tensmeyer                                  | Intergraph Corporation
SomeWhere in the South (it's a Civilized place)   | "It's only MY opinion"
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Prayer and Religious Activities in the Public Schools
Keywords: prayer, schools
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 05:57:24 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.100547.5400@pegasus.com> tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard) writes:

>Sounds good to me, Carl.  Buddhist philosophy has much going for it
>and I would much rather have my kids exposed to a Buddhist than an
>atheist, or a secular humanist.

Say Len.  Would you mind telling us what you think you know about
secular humanism?  I can tell that you've carefully studied Buddhism
and humanism, because you feel qualified to pass judgement on them.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: True Christianity vs. The Myth of Mormonism
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:23:45 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.003443.28165@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>
>The very fact that we know these errors exist is not reason to believe that
>there are errors which have gone undetected.  Trust God a little, man.
>I am confident that He will make known any errors that pop up.  

	Now he understands the original message that the mormons started
	with. God has made known the errors in the Bible.

	Oh you thought he would use some other method. What method do you
	think God would use to notify the common man that errors had crept
	to the transmitted medium of God's Word. I would be real interested
	to know what you think would be an acceptible way for God to tell
	us of mistranslated sections of the scriptures.

	Is there an assumption that since, no errata has be posted, that
	God thinks that there has been a perfect transmittal of the Gosple
	message. Is there something wrong with this assumption.

>							        You must
>admit that the Bible is unique among all books both as far as circulation and
>individual translations are concerned.  The goal of the Catholic church was,
>and is, to keep what was written accurate.  I am aware of the control tactics
>of the early Catholic church, which is why the Bible was kept out of the
>hands of the commoner.  This does not mean that they changed the Bible, and
>in fact there is every evidence that they maintained the Bible to the best of
>their ability.

	Would like to comment on why different versions of the New Testament
	books were included and why other books were excluded from the organised
	canon?  At what point in history did the book that we have in the
	New Testament become Canon and how did the theology and doctrine of
	=The Church= change after this acceptance. Do you have a pet theory?


>
>>So the idea that 'popularity' protected the meaning of the Bible is
>>ludicrous.  It wasn't popularly available.  Heck, most people couldn't
>>have read it, if it had been available.
>

And yes I believe that you would fit into Cary Quad very easily.
-- 
Kermit Tensmeyer                                  | Intergraph Corporation
SomeWhere in the South (it's a Civilized place)   | "It's only MY opinion"
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 02:31:52 GMT

In article <22812@zephyr.ens.tek.com> davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes:
>>>upon "belief."  Certain things are facts, and these things take place whether
>>>or not one believes in them.  If one doesn't believe in the tennents of
>>>Christianity, then THEY AREN'T TRUE.
>>Excuse me?
>>Many of the tenets of Christianity are such that they are also true or false
>>irrelevant of one's belief.  If Jesus really was resurrected, that's a fact,
>>and it is true whether or not you _believe_ he was resurrected.
>   There's two ways that I see that one could look at it as being true. One
>is from the perspective of "belief". And the other is from the perspective
>of internally experiencing with Christ His resurrection. 
>   The second option, as I see it, is much more spiritual and personal
>in nature.

The second may be more spiritual in nature, but the first is more factual.  If
Jesus really _was_ resurrected, and if he really _does_ want you to have
"belief" as Christians describe, it doesn't _matter_ that you decide to
"internally experience" since that isn't going to get you into heaven, any more
than "experiencing" a fire as nonburning is going to leave you unburned.

By the way, here's an interesting idea: Imagine some powerful being, not Jesus,
looking around to see what mischief he can cause.  He sees someone sitting,
trying to "experience" God.  Now, this person is not experiencing God.
However, our powerful being is pretty smart.  In fact, smart enough that he
can figure out exactly what parts of the brain to stimulate to make his subject
_think_ he's experiencing God.  He then takes his spiritual needle and pokes
the poor guy in the "God experiencing" areas of the brain.

Now, how could you tell this from a _real_ experience of God?
--
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Bible
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:07:15 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <54388@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
writes:
> In article <22820@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >
> >Could you explain why I have a great time just now, and no religious
> >needs?
> 
> Could it be that your have made yourself to be your own god?
> 
> "Although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks
> to him - for God's qualities have been clearly seen in nature and so men
> are without excuse.  Although they claimed to be wise, they exchanged the 
> glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man.  They
> exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created
> things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised" Rom 1:18-25.

Sorry, but that's one of the most silly ideas I've seen, here I tell
people that I don't have any need for *religion*, and that includes
personal Gods or any other statues of worshipping, including worshipping
me.

Note again who wrote the text about this, Paul, the Chief architect
behind Christianity.

Cheers,
Kent
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 06:18:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.034711.4176@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>>Why must love incur sex?  Truly the "highest" love we can have one for
>>another is that which Christ has for us - "...even as I have loved you".
>>This was _never_ even remotely sexual in nature.
>
>This is the same perverse thinking that you've displayed all along.
>Love need not incur sex.  But that's not the same as claiming that
>all love should not incur sex.  Not all people are called to a celibate
>life.  Most gay Christians would reject the imposition that they must be
>so, though many still hold to traditional attitudes of chastity (monogamy,
>lifetime committment,, etc.), at leats many who are somewhat orthodox
>in their beliefs.

You're right, some love does incur sex - namely that which God meant it for
between husband and wife.  Yes this puts gay people at somewhat of a
disadvantage, but then again I do not think God makes people gay...
And even if he does I have tried to show that it is possible to live
completely within God's plan and be gay, and that God even promises a happier 
life both now and for eternity for those who do.  Basically it stems from the
belief that God's love is far better than that of any human (as far as
devoting your life to that entity goes.)  Which makes sense does it not?
(Not to mention the fact that He tells us this...)

>>I don't think some people have taken the 1 Cor. 6 homosexuality quote far
>>enough -- so I will:   (NAS)
>>
>>     9  Or do you not know that the un-      \
>>   righteous shall not inherit the king-      |
>>   dom of God?  Do not be deceived; nei-      |
>>   ther fornicators, nor idolaters, nor       |
>>   adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homo-      |-This gets quoted often enough.
>>   sexuals,                                   |
>>     10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor    |
>>   drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers,    |
>>   shall inherit the kingdom of God.         /
>
>Read Michael Siemon's summary of these words.  There is no word
>"effeminate" in the Greek.  There is no word "homosexual" in the Greek.
>"Homosexual" is a 19th c. medical descriptive.  These words have
>a circumscribed meaning used in biblical times; ones, unfortunately
>which we do no longer fully understand, though that has not prevented
>translators to step in make a great leap to close the gap.

I know about this verse, which is often posted, and why it is considered
wishy-washy.  Thats why I merely stated "This gets posted often enough".  The
point was the stuff afterwards.  Did you even read it?  Care to comment on
verses 11-?

John M.
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons for Believing in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:08:40 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <MIB.92Apr15094608@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>Perhaps I should say: There is no reason to think Hebrews was written
>by Paul, and there are many reasons to think it was not.

There is Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History."

It shows a
>developed priesthood theology which is utterly absent in the rest of
>the Pauline corpus.  It uses a very different Greek from Paul, much
>closer to the high literary style of Luke.  

Maybe that has to deal with the fact that the letter was written to Jews,
who had historically lived under the Aaronic priesthood, and who perhaps
were keeping the law.  Eusebius writes of an account that it was written
by Paul in the lanaguge of the Hebrews (Heb? Aram?) and translated by
Luke into Greek, and that it does not begin with Paul's name because of
his reputation among the Jews.

Link Hudson.

>
>--
>Michael Innis Bushnell    | The Lord God helps me;
>Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu |   therefore I have not been disgraced;
>Phone (H) +1 617 625 4518 | therefore I have set my face like flint,
>Phone (W) +1 617 253 8568 |   and I know that I shall not be put to shame;
>			  | he who vindicates me is near.
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Am I a Christian?
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:56:11 GMT
	<1992Apr6.045347.27364@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<MIB.92Apr7114047@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA

In article <MIB.92Apr7114047@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:

   In article <1992Apr6.045347.27364@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis) writes:

      >And wasn't it
      >*Paul* (him again) that introduced the idea of a separate covenant
      >for the gentiles, it was needed in order to move the religion into
      >new cultures?

      He may have introduced the idea that gentiles needed a separate
      covenant, but he certainly didn't invent the idea that gentiles
      weren't included in the original one; that's a long part of
      Judaism. What Paul changed was the concept that gentiles didn't
      need one at all; the Jewish one was never applicable to
      gentiles.

   Quite correct.  

When I reread this, I decided I should elaborate more, than just
"Quite correct."  A better way to phrase it would be that the first
Christians (Jewish ones included) declared that *the* covenant which
would save humanity came through Jesus.  When some (Paul, for example)
began evangelizing Gentiles, the question then arose, Was that
covenant only open to Jews?  Some said yes, and required Gentile
converts to undergo the Jewish conversion ritual, and some (Paul, for
example) said no, and lambasted against such a requirement.
Ultimately the agreement was reached that entry into the Jewish
covenant was not necessary for reception of the Christian covenant.

In other words, it seems that the first (Jewish) Christians regarded
Christianity as a subset of Judaism, along side the Pharisaical
movement and the Essenes, with an unusual twist, the universal claims
that were made on behalf of Christ.  That created the need to
evangelize Gentiles, and that precipitated the crisis, and ultimately
the split, so that by the third century, Judaism and Christianity were
separate religions with some common origins.  


--
Michael Innis Bushnell	  | This is a virulent meme.  Whether or not you place
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu | this into your signature file is irrelevant.  You
Phone: (617) 625-4518	  | have already participated in its further trans-
			  | mission, and will doubtless continue to do so.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc