HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Even more Mormonism!!!!!!!!
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:08:12 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.170710.1@hamp.hampshire.edu>, vbaker@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:
> 
> I assume that you are refering to a statement of mine.  I have been taught,
> as a Mormon, that a dark skin is a curse of God, that in the ressurection 
> all people will be fair-skinned, and that Jesus was honey-blonde; I have
> met only two or three black Mormons in my life.  I think the perception 
> that Mormonism is white-supremist is justified, at least from my experiences.

Thanks for posting honest answers, something very difficult to obtain
from Mormon posters! Yes, a true assertion.

I was doing the net some time ago about the issue of racism, and how
it can be found in the Book of Mormon. Our net.mormons said I didn't
know what I was talking about. Although it appears clearly in their
book and teachings that black skin is a curse, and white skin is a
blessing, it was patently denied, and I was made to look like a mean
ogre-type dickhead. Jay says he feels bad that people trample him in
the dirt(paraphrased), and rend his heart for making false statements
about his religion, yet he has no problem joining in the chorus of
half-truths and lies to make someone who challenges their religion
look bad by denying truth. Truth being that Mormonism promotes racism.

Poor Mormons, always being picked on. Must be that Satan thing that
controls everyone outside their precious farternity.

Take Care,

barry olson--
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wcsa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith)
Subject: Re: Mormon FAQ (part 1 of 2)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Indian Hill West - Naperville, IL
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 00:57:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.224825.12691@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu> johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:

| Here I want to be sure of exactly what you are saying. For Eastern 
| Orthodox, a person is  born again  by the action of the Holy Spirit,
| not by the Son per se. The term  begotten  is used in relation to 
| the source of Godhood. The Father is the single source of Godhood in
| the Trinity. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father. The Holy
| Spirit proceeds from the Father (NOT from the Father and the Son) and
| is sent into the world by the Son. It seems that you are saying that
| a  born again  person is a spiritual child of Jesus, i.e that s/he has
| been spiritually begotten of Jesus. Is this a correct interpretation?  

I believe that your interpretation is quite correct. Mormonism teaches that
we follow the same process as the Son, but whereas the Son received grace
and light from the Father, quite possibly through the medium of the Holy
Ghost, We receive grace and light from the Son, also quite possibly through
the medium of the Holy Ghost. I wish that I had a copy of the D&C at hand
(so I am just guessing), but I think off hand that D&C 93 spells this out
clearly. Other LDS on the net want to correct me?
-- 

              Willard C. Smith
 Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnewsc!iwtdx!wcsa
  Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtdx.att.com
From: ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why is free will so necessary?
Date: 11 Apr 92 01:30:27 GMT
Organization: University of NC at Charlotte

In article <9204032324.AA12881@CSUFresno.EDU>, davidch@ZIMMER.CSUFRESNO.EDU (David Choweller) writes:
> Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
> Subject: Re: Why is free will so necessary?
> Summary: 
> Expires: 
> References: <44176@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <rh0deINN2vf@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>
> Sender: 
> Followup-To: 
> Distribution: usa
> Organization: California State University, Fresno
> Keywords: 
> 
> In article <rh0deINN2vf@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> parsons@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Scott Parish) writes:
> SP>GBC_Computer_Lab@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU writes:
> SP>DC someone writes:
> SP>>dc>	But why is Free Will so 
> SP>>dc> important?  Why is it so important that it justifies all the Evil,
> SP>>dc> natural and moral, in the world?
> SP>
> SP>Some anonymous person follows with:
> SP>>  To appreciate Light, the *potential* for Darkness must exist.
> SP>>Likewise for Hot and Cold, Strength and Weakness, and other such
> SP>>concepts.  This is the concept of Free Will.  In order for a person to
> SP>>do good, the potential for doing bad must exist.  You could not even
> SP>>speak of "Good" and "Evil" if this potential did not exist!


I suppose that there may be several reasons why a good God allows bad things
to happen.  Yet, there is one that I find very easy to relate to, and
I find it Scripturally sound.

The Scripture talks about gold, and it says that in order for gold to
be purified (get the impurities out, become shiny and new ) that the
gold must be burned.  When it's burned, all those impurities burn out,
but the gold stays, and it becomes beautiful.

Likewise, the Scripture says that God will put us through the fire to
refine us, just like gold.  This precious metal is a good analogy,
because it's probably the most precious of metals, and to God, we
are even more precious than gold.

God is making us into something.  Instead of  "This is how
so-in-so will be." and then in .0001 seconds - blip - here's so-in-so,
God is using a processing method on us. This is how he makes us into
the people that we should be.  He's still working on us, still perfecting
us.  In order to be perfected, we must "go through the fire" - we must
endure hardships and we must experience the effects of evil.  This is
how we become the perfected people God wants.  If you think about all
the good things that have come out of hardship - renewed neighborliness
in times of trouble, "everyone pulling together", "necessity is the mother
of invention", etc., you see that all those troubles are being used in
a plan of overall good, even though we may not see how at the time.

In Christ,

Elizabeth
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 13:15:19 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.103745.6245@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	Nonsense. For instance people in my congo are in fact envious when I
>	am so well educated...

In the article "Keep Awake in the 'Time of the End' ", the JW HQ says:
"Individually, we should make a self-examination of our present situation...
What, though, if our self-examination reveals that we are striving to set
up a nice, cozy, comfortable, relaxed way of life?  What if we discover
that our spiritual eyes have become heavy with drowsiness and sleep?
Are we in a dreamlike state, chasing after some worldly fantasy?
(Watchtower, May 1, 1992, p.22)

>	You're always repeating that destruction of non-JWs like you would 
>	think you would impress someone with it. We can't judge people, who will
>	die, who will survive. 

Your leaders seem to think they can...

In the same article, the JW writer reaffirms the Watchtower's position that
you must recognize them as "God's organization' and serve them as such.
Under the heading "Stick Close to God's Organization and Its Work":
"We want to escape all these things that will come upon the world.
We want to stand before the Son of man, having his approval.  To this
end there is a third thing we can do:  {in italics:] stick unbreakably 
to Jehovah's theocratic organization.  We need to associate unreservedly
with that organization and share in its activities.  In this way we will
unmistakably identify ourselves as Christians who are on hte watch.
Closely connected is a 4th thing...We must be among those who are warning
people of the coming end of this system of things.

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 10 Apr 92 11:39:12 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>In article <1992Apr8.130845.1203@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>>>>>	Indeed I have thought. We don't teach children to lie, steal, rape,
>>>>>>	loot and terrorize like many others do.
>>>>>OK Andreas, *which* religions *do* teach children to lie, steal, rape,
>>>>>loot, and terrorize?
>>>>	Simply the religions there lying, stealing etc. is allowed. 
>>>Name them.
>>	Go to prison and ask what is their religion. 

>You mean you don't _know_?

	Yes, I know fairly well, but if I say, you wouldn't believe, so it's 
	better that you go and see with your own eyes. 

>Come on, name them.  (Or are you trying to tell me that if I went through a
>list of people in prison and marked down their religions, that every single
>one of those religions is one which teaches children to lie, steal, rape, etc.?)

	I am. Jesus says that a bad tree can't have good fruits. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Relevant to all. (I Am Not Judging Homosexuals!!)
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:12:12 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Apr10.014956.20038@ncsu.edu> cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes:
>That the Bible is relevant to all is from the Bible- not from me.
>
>People will sometimes refuse to belive simply because it forces them
>to give up an activity. This does not, however, apply to all persons.

  I'm one who feels that the Bible is relevant to all. But in the very
same breath, I also feel that the Koran is relevant to all as is the
Dhammapada, the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, ect, ect...

  But than again, I feel the the ONLY Holy Scripture writen directly
by the hand of my Beloved God can only be found within nature itself.


	Ecstatic Love is an ocean, and the Milky Way
	is a flake of foam floating on it.
					Rumi

	David Hatcher
From: mark@yvax.byu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: No more temple discussion
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:12:05 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1992Apr15.063527.18174@u.washington.edu>, dali@milton.u.washington.edu (David A. Lee) writes:
> But after exerting all that time (2 months to compile the letter that
> ended up 19 pages long) and effort, I decided to just pray that she
> would accept Christ for what He is, and what He wants her to be.  And
> decided that we (man), are not the ones who judge who is a "true
> Christian" and who is not.  Only Jesus can do that, and he will when that
> time comes.  And believe me folks, it could come any time.  
> 
	This is very good advice IMHO.  As a Mormon I believe that there are
many good people in many different religions who are truly trying to follow
Christ.  I believe that God is just: let Christ be the judge, He knows the
intentions of one's heart, we do not.
 
> So I guess what I am saying here, is that I want to stop the hate
> that is being displayed between Christians and Mormons, and instead
> just try to show more respect for the fact that yes, we both think 
> the other is mislead.  I don't think that we here on earth will ever
> be able, either Mormon or Christian, to say "Ha! Told you so!"  Because
> we are human, and not gifted with all knowledge.  I believe that we should
> allow each other to express their views without rudeness, and in Jay's 
> case, he has done very well to be cordial in his posts.  
> 
> I think we would all benefit from trying to learn more about what the
> Mormon believes, and what the Christian believes.  And I also mean
> Catholic and Jew.  We shouldn't have so much fear about listening to
> each other.  We can only do our best to serve God the best way we can.
> 
	
	I agree 100%.

-Mark
From: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Bible
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:19:32 GMT
Reply-To: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In response to rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) who wrote:
> The book of Ecclesiastes gives many accounts of how life can be meaningless.
> The writer tells of how meaning less toiling away at life is, but he contrasts
> it to being content in one's work, which is a gift from God.   The writer
> concludes his bood by stating that study and making books is very endless
> and wearies the body, but the whole duty of man is to fear God and keep his
> commandments.

Kent Sandvik (ksand@apple.com) wrote:
>Well, I never had any more meaningful life than today, a kid who does not 
>have any ills, a nice wife, a meaningful job, no personal worries. And
>no religion. Isn't this funny? I guess it's hard for a religious person
>to justify that there are people who live a meaningful life, and there's
>no religion involved in their lives.

>Could you explain why I have a great time just now, and no religious
>needs?

>Cheers, happy, and joy!
>Kent

Cheers, happy, and joy! ??????
I hope you are being fecetious.
Even the Son of God is not happy and joyful at all times.  I do not
picture much glee in His facial expressions on the cross.  But I also
think He was happy at that moment, kind of like how happy one might
have been when the Civil War was coming to a close.  ...or maybe like
how happy a woman is going through the pain of labor.
You have no personal worries hein?  What drug are you on?

Meaningful?  Has it always been meaningful?
Please tell us how you got a life that's so meaningful?
I cannot explain why you have a great time just now,
this is why I ask.

Terence

Life is but a dream within a dream.  --Edgar Allen Poe

Your dreams cannot come true unless you wake up.  --anonymous
From: mark@yvax.byu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: MORMONISM
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:58:16 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1992Apr9.230525.3420@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
> I guess what scares me more than anything about Mormonism is that there need
> to be any secrets at all...
> 
> John M.

	There really are no secrets.  The first time I went to the temple I was
kind of expecting to "learn the big secret mystery" that is so often talked
about due to the fact that Mormons don't go into detail about the temple
ceremony.  But when I walked out of there I was *really* surprised - what with
all the hype about secrets and so forth *I* sure didn't think I was let in on
something everyone else didn't know.  The movie basically recounts scriptures -
things that I had already studied and knew (as could anyone else).  The other
major part of the ceremony are the covenants - which are also no secret - Jay
pretty much listed them a few posts back, and if anyone would like I'd be glad
to repost them :)  Some parts (details) of the ceremony are only talked about 
within the temple because they are sacred.  Much of it wouldn't make sense to
most people unless they had an understanding of Mormon doctrine.  But if anyone
is *really* interested, e-mail me, and I'll be glad to try to explain what goes
on inside of our temples.

-Mark

P.S. BTW, I won't be able to reply to anyone e-mailing me until Modnay.
From: comptec91065@camins.camosun.bc.ca
Subject: Mathematical Miracle in Quran?
Organization: Camosun College
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 06:37:58 GMT

Surprise! Some fellow has announced that he found a mathematical pattern in 
the Quran which appears to be superhumanly complex. He found it with a 
computer, in case you are wondering how.

As often happens in these cases, the ultra orthodox had the guy assasinated
about two years ago.

I have not been able to double check the man's data because I don't read 
Arabic and the numbers are just too big. On the surface of it, it appears 
to me that if only 80% of what he says is correct, there is a phenomena
that has slept for 1400 years that makes "crop circles" and "U.F.O."
sightings seem like nothing.

The image that comes to mind is as if a message has been inscribed on a 
twenty ton boulder which has been strangely suspended over New York.
The message purports to be from the Creator of the universe to everyone
who can understand it. This is incredible, to be sure, but how did the 
boulder get to be suspended over New York? 

Get the idea?


If anyone would like to actually read about the pattern in the 
Quran, it can be found in the appendices of Rashad Khalifa's translation 
of the Quran called QURAN THE FINAL TESTAMENT, available from Islamic 
Productions, 739 E 6th St., Tucson, AZ 85719 USA. for $19.00 (U.S) 
plus shipping, etc.

I would like to hear if this claim has been refuted on the grounds that 
he actually miscounted anything. 

I wonder what the Christians would do if they could find something even 
remotely close to this in their book. But then, again the "author" of the 
Quran says in the Quran that God is the author of the Quran, and none of the
many authors of the bible say that do they?





Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:7183 soc.culture.jewish:8070
From: gross@befvax.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:18:03 GMT
Reply-To: gross@befvax.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago, Dept of Molecular Genetics

In article <1992Apr15.155915.12153@gboro.glassboro.edu>, kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dust In The Wind) writes:
>
>Leon Gross writes about Jack Carroll:
>
>> The person is defaming present day Jews, not those of the past.  He is
>> asking them to disassociate themselves to things that they have almost no
>> relationship to in the first place.
>
>Fine.  So why not just say this?  Why not just say that you're insulted,
>instead of calling him names and making thinly-veiled comparisons to the
>Nazis?  

I didn't compare him to the Nazis.   Please check your posts on this.
It's not just a questions that I personally am insulted. He's insulting
a class of people who are Jewish.  And when someone does this, it
is appropriate to say what it is they are doing, and what it indicates
about them.

>Is it supposed to show why you think Mr Carroll is
>wrong about Jewish attitudes about gay people?
My Carroll isn't making an argument.  He's throwing insults.  If
he were to present his case in a different matter, I could consider
whether he was right or wrong.  

>Saying he's a Jew-hater won't do anything to change his mind or refute his
>claims.  
It might make him think twice about saying such things about Jews again.

>Given his past record on the net, and the rhetorical nature of the
>passage, saying he's a Jew-hater doesn't even make much sense.  
The fact that someone uses rhetoric does not excuse someone from being
called anti-Semitic.  In fact, we can tell the difference between
serious discussion and insults by what kind of rhetoric people use.

>If you think
>he's so horribly wrong, why aren't you presenting evidence which contradicts
>him?
Because some charges are not worthy of answering.
I don't have to present evidence which shows that Jewish doctors are not 
giving AIDS to black people, or that Jews don't use blood to make matza
because the charge itself is so ridiculous.
A response that "this is just nonsense" is appropriate.

>
>Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu

Leon Gross
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
Xref: sparky a.bsu.religion:4 talk.religion.misc:6296 rec.arts.comics:12232
From: alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler)
Newsgroups: a.bsu.religion,talk.religion.misc,rec.arts.comics
Subject: Re: SANDMAN: LUCIFER'S NAME
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:38:27 GMT
Organization: =>ESKIMO NORTH (206) 367-3837 SEATTLE, WA.<=

>>In article <REUS.92Mar23165135@klein.euromath.dk>, reus@klein.euromath.dk (Jens Peter Reus Christensen) writes:
>>
>>|>Last night I was reading issue 22 of _The Sandman_, and I came across a part
>>|>where Morpheus said that Lucifer was also called Samael when he was still an
>>|>angel.  I have never heard the name Samael before and was wondering if this
>>|>referance can be found in the bible.  Anyone who knows, either post the 
>>|>answer

     The term Samael means "Blind God" and can be found in the Gnostic
versions of Genesis (which are most likely to be the origional version)
I would recommend reading the "Nag Hammadi Library" for references. 
Anyway, the story goes that the ranting jealous angry being lording over
the garden of Eden was not the true origional creator and spirit of love
but a defective created being.  When he made the statement "I am a
jealous God, there are no other Gods beside me" a voice came from above,
"you are mistaken, Samael".
      It is mostly likely the contradictions between the origional
version of Genesis and the one that is accepted today is why Israel has
not released the Dead Sea Scrolls for translation.

-- 
****************************************************************************
* Dave                          *               The Alpinist               *
* alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com *            DARE to be stoopid!           *
****************************************************************************
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Line and Verse PLEASE
Date: 8 Apr 92 12:37:08 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

<MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <adams.702587692@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) says:
>>MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>>>It is possible to claim that a christian can't kill in any way from this...
>>>perhaps they shouldn't even eat anything they killed themselves...

>>Wrong.  You can't just yank this line out of a poor translation, and remove
>>all of the context.  Look at God's Law in Leviticus.  Tell me that man
>>isn't allowed to kill.  In fact, man is ordered to kill.

>Quit whining! It's a commandment; it speaks for itself. There isn't much
>context involved. I know the bible orders people to be killed left and
>right all over the place, but I am not trying to prove it's logical.
>Also, the other idea which you like might be better--god ordering man to
>kill is awfully merciful...

But it is contextual.  If you want to defend the line as "kill" you have to
explain all of the text that contains orders from God to kill, including
the Levitical Laws.

Since you admit that the Bible gives such commands, then defending "kill"
becomes tougher.

As for the wisecrack, I'm not in a position to know the mind of God.  I
won't try to sit in judgement of Him.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: davidh@cascade.ens.tek.com (David Hatcher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I Am Not Judging Homosexuals!!
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:07:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <adams.702828163@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>Christ is warning against trying to shut others out of the kingdom.  That
>is not for man to do, but only for God.
>
>>If God condemns me, then I am lost.  If *you* condemn me, then YOU are.
>This subject comes up a number of times in the Gospel, with Jesus
>continually warning about judging others.


   Matthew 6:14-15 is what comes to my mind.



        The saints are what they are, not because their sancity makes
        them admirable to others, but because of the gift of sainthood
        makes it possible for them to admire everybody else.
                                        Thomas Merton


	David Hatcher