HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered 2
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:07:18 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Sep27.042756.11832@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, 
ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
>From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
>>psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>>> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes...
>>[...]
>>>>> This is in print in every copy of the book MORMON DOCTRINE,
>>>>> and he was an Apostle of the church.
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe he was an apostle when he wrote it.
>>>> He became one some time after the book was published.
>>> [...]
>>> McConkie was sustained a member of the First Council of the
>>> Seventy October 6, 1946 at 31 years of age.
>>>
>>> After he wrote _Mormon Doctrine_, he was ordained an apostle
>>> on October 12, 1972.
>>
>>Thank you for providing the dates.  I was unsure of them.
>>
>>> For those who wish to distance themselves from _Mormon
>>> Doctrine_, the question arises: If the book was full of holes,
>>> why was McConkie awarded as an Apostle *after* he wrote it?
>>
> ..
>>2. _Mormon Docrtine_ was first published in 1958 and revised in
>>1966 and 1978 (1979?).  This seems to indicate that there was no
>>connection with the publishing of the book and and McConkie's
>>status in the church as a General Authority.  To be made an
>>apostle 14 years *after* one produces a work, and 6 years after
>>one revises the same work seems to be a rather bizzarre time
>>frame for any course of action.
>>
>>(Yes, Johnson, we think that the work you have done for the
>>company today is so valuable that we're going to make you a full
>>partner ... 14 years from now.)
> 
> Jason, isn't it true there are a limited number of Apostle'ships?
> I didn't think they could hand them out, like a field commission,
> which seems to be what you are implying.

Yes there are.

Since you are so up on Mormonisn, how many persons where made
Apostles after 1958 but before Bruce R. McConkie?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: david_s@hsr.no (David Andreas Sjoeen)
Subject: Re: How many Christian Gods are there?
Reply-To: david-s@ifi.hsr.no
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:42:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.032443.21405@wixer.cactus.org>, lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax) writes:
> In article <1992Sep22.112912.6595@hsr.no> david-s@ifi.hsr.no writes:

> >>But there are some things that God has judged in His Word... The Bible
> >>does not teach tolerance of evil. Read Eph. 6,10-20. Someone said:
> >>'Hate sin, but love the sinner.' This is true Christian tolerance.
> 
> 
> Huh?  You are assuming homosexuality is a sin.  That seems like quite 
> a leap based on incorrectly translated Greek and questionable 
> interpretations of a couple things Paul said.  And if you cannot
> even tolerate me, how can you love me?  Just curious.

I can tolerate you, but not the things you do, that's the difference.

:)avid

-- 
 __________________ ___________________________________________________
| David A. Sjoen   |"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they |
| Gulaksveien 4    | follow me; and I give them life eternal; and they |
| N-4017 STAVANGER | shall never perish, and no one shall seize them   |
| Norway           | out of my hand." John 10:27-29                    |
`------------------'---------------------------------------------------'
    E-MAIL: david-s@ifi.hsr.no  (Rogaland University Centre, Norway)
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:07:46 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <69360@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
}I have no problem with correcting translation errors, here is 
}an obvious case where it needed to be done.  The KJV is not 
}perfect.  However, this error is not detrimental to the Bible as a whole.

Naturally, it is only wrong in those places that it can be checked.
Everyplace else it is 100% accurate.

Think, Richard.  If you can't believe what you CAN check, what should that
show for the veracity of the rest of the material from the SAME reference
that you can't?
From: robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered 9
Date: 27 Sep 92 04:12:09 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego


>	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?

I don't know if there is a definition in the LDS?  What is that
suppose to mean?  Perhaps if your question made more sense, more
people would answer it!

I am LDS and I will give you my definition of a 'false prophet'

False prophet:

Anyone who says they are a prophet but in God's eyes they are not a
Prophet.


Robert
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Why can't most leave other's FAITH alone
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:51:11 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

> >QUIT TRYING TO SHOVE IT DOWN UNWANTING THROATS !!!

Yeah, I still maintain that a real objective religion does not need
institutions and doctrines; it should be obvious to anyone.

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.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:17416 alt.atheism:18203
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:58:36 GMT
	<BvCu0J.959@inews.Intel.COM> <1992Sep29.220152.20573@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Organization: noitazinagrO

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>>Since I have not figured out any way to balance my checkbook without defining
>>>2 as 1+1, I do so first.

>In article <BvCu0J.959@inews.Intel.COM> 
pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>But, this defining 1 + 1 = 2. Is that not a sense of faith? You define it
>>true from your perspective and then put it to good use and since it works
>>well for you  ... Isn't this really putting faith in it being true and gaining
>>rewards for your faith?

In article <1992Sep29.220152.20573@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> 
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>Well, it's certainly not "putting faith in it being true", since it's not true.
>I don't understand what "true from your perspective" means.  I only use the
>word "true" or "false" for things which are phrased in such a manner as to
>apply to all perspectives.

True from all perspectives is called absolute truth. Do you have any examples
of absolute truth? Like the speed of light in a vacume? Clearly 1+1=2 is
not an absolute truth, because in mod2, it is false. In mod2, 1+1=0.

>As for "is that faith", isn't everything faith, by this definition?  It's not
>obvious how your definition is useful.

OK, here is how I use the word faith:
I have faith that my car will start tonight, even though I know from experience
that this is not always the case. But I think it's fixed this time and will 
start. I have faith, I'm not calling the tow truck, yet!

>I define 1+1=2 to balance my checkbook, because I don't know how to balance my
>checkbook in any other way.

Hey, that's a good one. So, that's not faith, that's practicality. Well, you
can't diss me for trying, can you?

>It looks to me that you are not using the word "known" in the same way twice
>in a row.

Context sensitive?

>>OK, but being a body of knowledge, it can be judged to be valid or invalid,
>>right?

>I don't know what you mean by "valid" and "invalid".  (I know what I mean by
>those words, but you appear to not be using them the same way.)

OK, what do you mean?

>I do not experience every uncertainty as emotionally disturbing, only some of
>them.  The possibility that the laws of physics will change so as to break my
>alarm clock is not one of those.

There's degrees, right? I mean, come one, if your alarm clock failed you'd be
late to work and then you'd get behind on t.r.m and then you'd be disturbed,
dontcha think?

>What you say is that you would be disturbed _when_ physics changes.  This is
>not the same as saying that the _possibility_ that it might change will
>disturb you _now_.  It would probably bother me, too--after it happens, not
>before.

Well, of course, if it happened, that would be very disturbing. But isn't the
possibility slightly disturbing? Granted, it is unlikely and hardly something
to lose sleep over, assuming the alarm clock works.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: david_s@hsr.no (David Andreas Sjoeen)
Subject: Re: How many Christian Gods are there?
Reply-To: david-s@ifi.hsr.no
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 10:34:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.030744.27628@wixer.cactus.org>, lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax) writes:
> In article <1992Sep28.134212.29854@hsr.no> david-s@ifi.hsr.no writes:

> >I can tolerate you, but not the things you do, that's the difference.

> Again, you avoid the question - but you do point out your hypocrisy.
> How is love evil?  And how is hatred Christian?  You say you "tolerate"
> me, but not the things I do - but I _am_ the things I do.  More importantly,
> I am who I love.  If I do not love, I am nothing.

Here you say that you can't love anyone who does something you hate. I
agree that this is difficult, and that I'm not always able to do that.
I am a sinner just as much as anyone else, but Christ died for my sins,
and lives 'for me'. God doesn't see me any longer, but Christ. And
Christ 'loves the sinner and hates sin' perfectly. I was aware that my
statement could appear to be hypocritical just after I had written it.
I am sorry for this. But I don't agree that 'you are the things you do'
in the way that it is impossible to love a person if you don't love
everything the person does.

>People who claimed to interpret the word of God supported slavery, the
>Inquisitions & the Crusades.  They even gave _Hitler_ ammo.

The Bible teaches to study God's Word yourself to see if it is the way
you are being told. Christians should not accept any 'interpretation'
other than the one the Holy Spirit shows them. Everything should
be checked against the Bible, prayerfully, asking the Holy Spirit to
show what is the truth. I don't think a person can believe the Bible
unless it is proven to him by the Holy Spirit.

> Your hatred of me has nothing to do with Christianity.  Maybe someday
> you'll realize that.

I don't hate you. If I did, I would have to apologize to you and pray to
God to teach me how to love you. I consider homosexual practise to be a
sin according to the Word of God, and therefore I hate it. That does not
mean that I hate you.

Last, but not least: Love is a gift from God. We can't as sinners love
properly and purely unless we are born again.

:)avid

-- 
 __________________ ___________________________________________________
| David A. Sjoen   |"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they |
| Gulaksveien 4    | follow me; and I give them life eternal; and they |
| N-4017 STAVANGER | shall never perish, and no one shall seize them   |
| Norway           | out of my hand." John 10:27-29                    |
`------------------'---------------------------------------------------'
    E-MAIL: david-s@ifi.hsr.no  (Rogaland University Centre, Norway)
From: MANEJWZA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Islam
Date: 2 Oct 92 20:39:29 GMT
Organization: Vanderbilt University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21

: In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
 
   
> It is presumptious to assume that deity is dependent of messengers or
> soldiers out of poverty of expression.
> 
> AM'N gave us eyes, and ears. And all five senses by which, if we use them
> with prudence we can know AM'N without any written opinion of any imperfect
> man.
> 

Allah (God) is not dependent on messengers or soldiers out of poverty of
expression.  We as creation, need Allah.  We need his messangers so that
we may know how to worship. If there was descrepancy in manners of
worship, then as ignorant as humans are (all of us), we would just
as well turn to Chorus singing on SUnday nights as our only worship and
not drop our commerce and entertainment to take out time to bow and
supplicate before Allah in a significant number of times a day.  We need
law to survive and justice.  Muhammad was not the only Prophet, but he
is the last that is sent to the people ofthe World between The Quran
revelation, and the day we must stand before Him. Before Muhammad, there
was Jesus, and then before him Moses, and the line thus.  To every
people was a prophet sent before Muhammad.  

	"Do you think that We would place Our Wrath on a nation before
sending a messenger?"

				-Translation of Quran

			
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:06:41 GMT

In article <fTmBW#a@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>I would indeed say that that meaning of "slave" is fairly useless, unless you
>>want to distinguish degrees or types of slavery.
>>Do you care to distinguish different kinds of faith?
>Sure, why not? OK, you first.

Huh?  I didn't say that _I_ wanted to distinguish different kinds of faith.
I only know of one kind.  Pointing out that your position leads to recognizing
two kinds of faith doesn't mean that my position leads likewise.
--
"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: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Honest Question For Any LDS
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:48:35 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <51bc025P24NJ01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, 
agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
> Could an LDS please explain a question that I have had concerning the
> Scriptures you accept?  My question is this:
> 
> In the Doctrine and Coventents, Section 135 Verse 3, I read that the
> Book Of Mormon "contains the fullness of the everlasting gospel".  This is
> also stated in Section 27:5 and a few other places throughout the D&C.

LDS usually understand this to mean the core doctrines, namely:
Faith in God,
Repentance,
Baptism for the remision of sins,
Receiving the Holy Ghost,
Enduring to the end.

All of these are somehow related to the Atonement in one way or
another.

Everything else is an appendage to the above or an extension of
it.

[...]
> If this is so, then why doesn't the book that contains the fullness of
> the everlasting gospel tell me that I have to have Celestial Marriage in
> the Temple, and that I have to Baptize for the dead, and all these other
> things?  

Well, propably because Mormons believe that if you believed what
the Book of Mormon teaches about God, the rest would be revelaed
to yo, line upon line, precept upon precept.

But the core of it is all there.

There are doctrinal expositions on the Fall, the Creation, and
mostly the Atonement.  (See 2 Nephi 2, 9, Mosiah, Alma.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered 2
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 04:23:30 GMT

>From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
>In article <Bv5xuD.7AA@acsu.buffalo.edu>,
>psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes...
>[...]
>>>> This is in print in every copy of the book MORMON DOCTRINE,
>>>> and he was an Apostle of the church.
>>>
>>> I don't believe he was an apostle when he wrote it.
>>> He became one some time after the book was published.
>> [...]
>> McConkie was sustained a member of the First Council of the
>> Seventy October 6, 1946 at 31 years of age.
>>
>> After he wrote _Mormon Doctrine_, he was ordained an apostle
>> on October 12, 1972.
>
>Thank you for providing the dates.  I was unsure of them.
>
>> For those who wish to distance themselves from _Mormon
>> Doctrine_, the question arises: If the book was full of holes,
>> why was McConkie awarded as an Apostle *after* he wrote it?
>
..
>2. _Mormon Docrtine_ was first published in 1958 and revised in
>1966 and 1978 (1979?).  This seems to indicate that there was no
>connection with the publishing of the book and and McConkie's
>status in the church as a General Authority.  To be made an
>apostle 14 years *after* one produces a work, and 6 years after
>one revises the same work seems to be a rather bizzarre time
>frame for any course of action.
>
>(Yes, Johnson, we think that the work you have done for the
>company today is so valuable that we're going to make you a full
>partner ... 14 years from now.)

Jason, isn't it true there are a limited number of Apostle'ships?
I did'nt think they could hand them out, like a field commission,
which seems to be what you are implying.

Mark
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Subject: Re: In Defense of a Little Virginity
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 20:16:31 GMT

In <4447@tivoli.UUCP> dfavor@logan.tivoli.com (David Favor) writes:

>>>   What if they don't *want* to be married?  

>>	Then they don't love each other.

>I keep following this thread considering the simplicity of your life Bruce.
>there are times when I wish my life were simple like this. I remember the
>good old days, when I was younger and 'knew' things... it seems that as each
>day goes by I 'know' less and less. it must be great to live in a simple
>world that can be reduced to 'if-then-else-endif' logic. :-)
>   if (two-people-are-in-love) then
>       there is no reason not to marry
>   else if (two-people-not-married ||
>            two-people-don't-*want*-to-be-married) then
>       said two people don't love each other
>   endif
>I have several questions Bruce...
>   1) have I understood you, in other words, is the above 'if' statement
>      a correct reductions of your thinking? if not, ignore my other questions.

	That depends on your definition of marriage. I prefer to define it
as lifetime commitment, not necessarily a specific legal or religous status.

>   2) are you absolutely sure about this?

	Positively

			Bruce
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Sep25.233730.29345@unixg.ubc.ca> <fS9Uenb@quack.sac.ca.us>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:55:25 GMT

In article <fS9Uenb@quack.sac.ca.us> 
pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.233730.29345@unixg.ubc.ca> 
>morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
>>In article <Bv5JCt.LwE@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>, 
>pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>|>It could knock the axis of rotation such that one pole pointed towards the
>>|>sun and the other away. Thus, no more sunrise and sunset, just light and 
>>|>dark.

>>Sorry, this would give days and nights that were 6 months in length, but
>>the sun would still rise and set.

>Also a very bad scenereo. Would mean death of life as we know it.

>>Sunrise and sunset could only be avoided under the following conditions:
>>   -- 0-degree tilt of the earth's axis to the ecliptic, AND

>That's what I meant.

>>   -- Earth's rotation period is increased by a factor of 365.25

>In the words of tricky Dick, "I'm afraid it's much worse than that". The
>main rotation of the axis that points to the sun can be at any rate.
>There must be a second, very slow rotation of once every 365.25 present
>days such that the primary axis of rotation always points toward the
>sun.

>>I apologize for injecting science into a discussion of atheism.

>I apologize for injecting three dimensional visualization into this
>discussion of science. ::::B^}

Oops, did I say that? Looks like my science is getting a bit rusty. OK,
now I get what you are saying. The earth's axis would have to be
parallel to the orbital axis and the rotation would have to equal the
orbital period, ie synchronous. My idea of the axis pointing towards the
sun and slowly rotating so that the sun never rose on earth would be a
violation of angular momentum.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:37:15 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <69011@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> The miracle you mention here actually is evidence of a miracle, isn't it??

Don't make too quick conclusions. It is evidence that Jesus had to show
miracles to convince even his *disciples*. And today's Christians wonder
why the laymen don't accept the Gospel as it is...
 
> Kent, supposing that Jesus died on the cross and was buried and was raised
> (I say 'supposing' as a method of arugment, for know he did), what would
> you have Him to do to verify this???  If Jesus was who he claimed, what
> would you (Kent) have Him do?  Would he have to keep doing it?  Remember,
> Jesus did do miracles, but he didn't do them per se at the beckoning call
> of the people.

Simple, evidence. I don't believe in the ancient Finnish Gods either of
the same reason. If there's lightning, and Ukko-Pekka is roaming around
in the skys, is that evidence you would accept? Note, it's documented
in Kalevala!

>    Mat 12:39   He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a
>       miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the
>       prophet Jonah.
...and yet he had to do miracles for his disciples and the people of
Israel...
Note also that maybe he didn't do them, it's only documented in the
Gospels,
not in any of the historically objective documents.

> The sign Jesus offered, when asked another time:
> 
>    John 2:18   Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you
>       show us to prove your authority to do all this?"
>    John 2:19   Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it
>       again in three days."
>    John 2:20   The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this
>       temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?"
>    John 2:21   But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
> 
> NOTE: The sign was performed - Jesus body (temple) was killed and raised,
>       but people still didn't believe.

Here's a good example of the messy interpretations I don't like. Jesus
spoke about the temple, the temple, the temple. And what do Christians
transpose it to, including John? Yes, the body of Jesus. You know, if I was
Jesus, I would have said this, just to make things clear:

Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us
to prove your authority to do all this?"
Jesus answered them, "Kill me, and I will raise from the dead in three
days!".
The Jews replied, "Nobody rises from the dead, and you are going to do it?"

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

Cheers,
Kent
Example of common sense, part 1:
Reporter: What would happen if science discovered some fact
          that contradicted Buddhist doctrine?
Dalai Lama: The doctrine would have to change.
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.