waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
I am pleased to announce that a *revised version* of _The Easy-to-Read Book of Mormon_ (former title: _Mormon's Book_) by Lynn Matthews Anderson is now available through anonymous ftp (see information below). In addition to the change in title, the revised ETR BOM has been shortened by several pages (eliminating many extraneous "that's" and "of's"), and many (minor) errors have been corrected. This release includes a simplified Joseph Smith Story, testimonies of the three and eight witnesses, and a "Words-to-Know" glossary.  As with the previous announcement, readers are reminded that this is a not-for-profit endeavor. This is a copyrighted work, but people are welcome to make *verbatim* copies for personal use. People can recuperate the actual costs of printing (paper, copy center charges), but may not charge anything for their time in making copies, or in any way realize a profit from the use of this book. See the permissions notice in the book itself for the precise terms.  Negotiations are currently underway with a Mormon publisher vis-a-vis the printing and distribution of bound books. (Sorry, I'm out of the wire-bound "first editions.") I will make another announcement about the availability of printed copies once everything has been worked out.  FTP information: connect via anonymous ftp to carnot.itc.cmu.edu, then "cd pub" (you won't see anything at all until you do).  "The Easy-to-Read Book of Mormon" is currently available in postscript and RTF (rich text format). (ASCII, LaTeX, and other versions can be made available; contact dba@andrew.cmu.edu for details.) You should be able to print the postscript file on any postscript printer (such as an Apple Laserwriter); let dba know if you have any difficulties. (The postscript in the last release had problems on some printers; this time it should work better.) RTF is a standard document interchange format that can be read in by a number of word processors, including Microsoft Word for both the Macintosh and Windows. If you don't have a postscript printer, you may be able to use the RTF file to print out a copy of the book.  -r--r--r--  1 dba                   1984742 Apr 27 13:12 etrbom.ps -r--r--r--  1 dba                   1209071 Apr 27 13:13 etrbom.rtf  For more information about how this project came about, please refer to my article in the current issue of _Sunstone_, entitled "Delighting in Plainness: Issues Surrounding a Simple Modern English Book of Mormon."  Send all inquiries and comments to:      Lynn Matthews Anderson     5806 Hampton Street     Pittsburgh, PA 15206
In article <C5rr9M.LJ7@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes: >From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) >Subject: [lds] Are the Mormons the True Church? >Date: 20 Apr 93 06:29:00 GMT > >            IS THE MORMON CHURCH CHRIST'S TRUE CHURCH? > [...lots of stuff about intellectual errors deleted...]  This is cute, but I see no statement telling me why your church is the true  church. I do presume that you know or at least believe that yours is true.  Attempting to ream my faith without replacing it with something "better" is  a real good way to loose a person completely from Christ.  This is the greatest reason I see that these attacks are not motivated by  love. They only seek to destroy there is no building or replacing of belief.  This is not something Christ did. He guided and instructed He didn't  seek to destroy the faith He found, He redirected it.   This is what I see when people say they "love" <insert favorite group here>.  And I have to laugh at the irony.
In article <1993Apr15.223844.16453@rambo.atlanta.dg.com> wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:  >    We are talking about origins, not merely science.   Science cannot >    explain origins.  For a person to exclude anything but science from >    the issue of origins is to say that there is no higher truth >    than science.  This is a false premise.  By the way, I enjoy science. >    It is truly a wonder observing God's creation.  Macroevolution is >    a mixture of 15 percent science and 85 percent religion [guaranteed >    within three percent error :) ]  Let us explore this interesting paragraph point by point, sentence by sentence.   1) We are talking about origins, not merely science.  Origins of what?  Are we speaking of the origins of life, the human species, the universe, physical law, biological diversity or what?  2) Science cannot explain origins.  This is a false statement unless it is carefully qualified.  It depends on what origins we are talking about.  3) For a person to exclude anything but science from the issue of origins is to say that there is no higher truth than science.  Again, this is a false statement.  To begin with, the notion of "higher truth" is distinctly dubious.  Many people believe that there are ways to ascertain truth that are not in the repetoire of science; they even believe that there are ways that are more reliable and certain.  Many believe that there are truths that cannot be expressed using the language of science.  Let it be so.  These truths are neither "higher" or  "lower"; they are simply true.  More to the point, restricting one's discussion of origins to science does not reject other sources of knowledge; it simply restricts the scope of discussion.  4) This is a false premise.  If this is intended as asserting that the previous sentence was false then (4) is actually true.  However the context identifies it as another false [or at least theologically unsound] statement.  5) By the way, I enjoy science.  On the evidence Mr. Rawlins lacks sufficient understanding of science to enjoy science in any meaningful sense.  One might just as well say that one enjoys literature written in a language that one cannot read. However one cannot mark this sentence as false -- to follow the analogy, perhaps he likes the pretty shapes of the letters.  6) It is truly a wonder observing God's creation.  Let us not quibble; count this one as true.  7) Macroevolution is a mixture of 15 percent science and 85 percent religion [guaranteed within three percent error :) ]  Still another false statement.  However one can make it come out true with the following contextual modification:  "Macroevolution, as misunderstood by Rawline, is a mixture of 15 percent of what Rawlins erroneously thinks of as science, and 85 percent of what Rawlins erroneously thinks of as religion."  -----  It is distinctly noticeable that Mr. Rawlins fails miserably to touch on truth except when he reports personally on what he feels.  [I do him the justice of assuming that he is not misinforming us as to his personal reactions.]  One can account for this by the hypothesis that he has an idiosyncratic and personal concept of truth.
Hitherto have ye asked nothing 	in my name: 	ask, and ye shall receive, 	that your joy may be full.
I was curious to check out how many San Jose Mercury News mentioned Tyre (1990-92). Here's the outcome from the research (condenced versions, copyright San Jose Mercury news):  ---   Bombings in the two largest cities in southern Lebanon killed 11 people and  wounded 80 others. A car bomb blew up in Tyre, killing 10 people and wounding  75. A man was killed and five others seriously wounded in an explosion in  Nabatiye. ---   An Israeli navy patrol boat attacked and sank a rubber guerrilla boat off  southern Lebanon early today, killing the two men aboard, the army command  said.         It said in a communique that a Dvora patrol boat opened fire on the  motorized rubber dinghy north of Tyre after identifying it as hostile. The army  said no one on the Israeli boat was injured. The affiliation of the slain  guerrillas was not immediately known. ---   Rival factions of the guerrilla group led by terrorist mastermind Abu Nidal  battled Sunday in Tyre, Lebanon, with machine guns and rocket-propelled  grenades, killing at least four people and wounding 15, police said. ---  Lebanon's mainstream Shiite Muslim militia said Thursday that it had  uncovered a network of tunnels in a southern Lebanese village where it said pro- Iranian kidnappers had held Western hostages.         Officials of the militia, Amal, led local journalists through the catacomb- like alleys and showed them two cells with iron doors at the village,  Kawthariyet al Siyad, near Tyre, the ancient port city, about 40 miles south of  Beirut.         The officials said they were certain that U.S. Marine Lt. Col. William R.  Higgins was detained there shortly after he was seized by gunmen on a road  outside Tyre in February 1988. -------------- ...anyway, I counted 20 articles during these 3 years of reporting. I also found out the possible reason why the numbers for the inhabitants of the city is defined between 14000 and 24000. It seems that Tyre is one of the places where people from Libanon flee to during more extensive bombings, so there's a constant flow of refugees entering and leaving Tyre (articles mentioned thousands of people entering and leaving this place).  I counted 0 articles for my home town, Kristinestad, so from now I will consider this place to be a fishing village :-).  Cheers, Kent
In article <1993Apr24.141736.17526@njitgw.njit.edu> dmu5391@hertz.njit.edu (David Utidjian Eng.Sci.) writes: }It is so simple.... I'm surprised that this subject gets }beat to death about once a month. A quick glance in a dictionary }would clear up 99% of the confusion and bandwidth in this }newsgroup.  Reading Stephen Jay Gould's essay "Evolution as Fact and Theory" wouldn't hurt, either.  It appears in _Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes_.  }            Then we could talk about really important things }like, why do men have nipples?  See Gould's "Male Nipples and Clitoral Ripples" in _Bully for Brontosaurus_.  Gee, this is easy.
In article <1993Apr26.163627.11364@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes: #I find myself unable to put these two statements together in a #sensible way: # #>Abortion is done because the mother can not afford the *pregnancy*. # #[...] # #>If we refused to pay for the more expensive choice of birth, *then* #>your statement would make sense.  But that is not the case, so it doesn't. # #Are we paying for the birth or not, Mr. Parker?  If so, why can't the #mother afford the pregnancy?  If not, what is the meaning of the #latter objection?  You can't have it both ways.  Birth != pregnancy.  If they were the same, the topic of abortion would  hardly arise, would it, Mr. Skinner?
In article <C62AIG.L62@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote: > In article <C61Kow.E4z@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes: > >>Jesus was a JEW, not a Christian.   > If a Christian means someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus, it is safe > to say that Jesus was a Christian.  I would label him rather an original Christian, not a Pauline Christian, though. Sad that the original church lost the game.  Cheers, Kent
In article <C5MuIw.AqC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:  >If it were a sin to violate Sunday no one could >ever be forgiven for that for Jesus never kept Sunday holy.  He only >recognized one day of the seven as holy.  Jesus also recognized other holy days, like the Passover.  Acts 15 says  that no more should be layed on the Gentiles than that which is necessary. The sabbath is not in the list, nor do any of the epistles instruct people to keep the 7th day, while Christians were living among people who did not keep the 7th day.  It looks like that would have been a problem.  Instead, we have Scriptures telling us that all days can be esteemed alike (Romans 14:5) and that no man should judge us in regard to what kind of food we eat, Jewish holy days we keep, or _in regard to the sabbath. (Col. 2.)  >The >question is "On what authority do we proclaim that the requirements of the >fourth commandment are no longer relevant to modern Christians?"  I don't think that the Sabbath, or any other command of the law is totally irrelevant to modern Christians, but what about Collosions 2, where it says that we are not to be judged in regard to the keeping of the sabbath?
In article <1993Apr23.144934.10462@asl.dl.nec.com>, duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) wrote:   > In article <C5wI5n.19v@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes:  ["it" is Big Bang] > You sound absolutely convinced! Tell me how long did it last, what color > was it?  Since you asked... from the Big Bang to the formation of atoms is about 10E11 seconds. As for the "color": bright. Very very bright.   >It must be so exciting to know for sure.  I don't. I believe the current theory of cosmology because it is fairly well supported by observational evidence (not as well supported as, say evolution or relativity, but that's another matter). You're the one who proposes unquestioningly accepting religious dogma as fact (apologies if you're not actually a creationist).  >By the way, it seems as > though there is a fine line between "postulating new miracles" and postulating > new theories.  The line is broader than you think. Theories are supported by evidence. Miracles are supported by someone's say-so.  > +----------------------------------------------------------+ > | Joe Duffy                          duffy@asl.dl.nec.com  | > | NEC America, Inc.                                        | > | Advanced Switching Laboratory                            |
In article <1993Apr02.025636.23256@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes: >/Why would it be immoral to hurt someone else?   > /(me) >Because you wouldn't want it to happen to you.  /(hudson) /Why does that make something immoral?    Because you are not being consistent.  Moral systems must be consistent.  A person who thinks they can inflict pain on others, but doesn't want it  inflicted upon themselves, has a double standard.  And double standards are a violation of *any* moral system.      (me) >Morality defines how we interact with other people; the rules that we >use to guide our daily affairs.  Our conduct towards our fellow man.  By >realizing that we don't like pain, we can also realize that other people >don't like it, either.    /(hudson) /Of course we don't like pain.  I don't like brussel sprouts.  Are brussel /sprouts immoral?  Pain isn't immoral, stupid.  Pain itself is just a physiological reaction.    What >>is<< immoral is subjecting unwilling individuals to pain.  Or brussel sprouts, for that matter.       (hudson) >/Is it immoral to produce these same chemical reactions in a test tube? > (me) >It isn't the chemical reaction that is wrong, bozo.  It's making the human >being UNDERGO THE EFFECTS of the chemical reaction.  Sorry; your cute >little analogy didn't survive for very long under scrutiny.  /(hudson) /Why would it be wrong to make humans undergo the effects of the reactions /if humans are composed only of matter?    What humans are composed of isn't the qualifying criteria of whether or not something would be wrong.       /(hudson) /Is it wrong to make matter undergo chemical reactions?  Yes, if it is sentient matter.    /(me) />Nature is not a sentient force; there is no choice involved.  Therefore, />no question of morality.   /(hudson) /I actually heard a geologist entertain the notion that matter had a will. /There is some sentient force out there.    Fine.  I have also heard that the government is encoding the DNA for  a new race of superhumans in ordinary drinking water.    What's your point?    /(hudson) /If humans are made only of matter, then choices are also chemical reactions, /so why is choice an important issue.  And if that is the case, then god is only an idea contained in the minds of people (formed of matter) and on printed pages (also formed of matter) and does not really exist.
In article <1qmhp7$33t@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes... >  >In a previous article, tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) says: >  >>In article <1qb726$j9d@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu< cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes: >>< >><I learned that God loves his children who have never heard of him and has a >><plan for redeeming them too, even those who have died without a knowledge >><of Christ.  I learned that a man cannot frustrate justice by repenting on >><his death bed because repentance is more than a feeling of remorse.  It >><requires faith in Christ proven by following him, by keeping his >><commandments.  Such cannot be accomplished on ones deathbed. >> >>So Jesus must have lied to the thief on the cross. >  >Paradise and salvation are not the same thing.  Salvation is better.  Refer >to John 14:2.  	I don't see the effort to equate salvation with paradise.   	Rather, I see implied the fact that only those who are saved  may enter paradise.
In article <1993Apr20.143754.643@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:  |>BTW, David Koresh was NOT |>Jesus Christ as he claimed.  How can you tell for sure? Three days haven't passed yet.   -- Steve Bittrolff
In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: >So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire >on their house, killing most of the people inside. > >I'm not that annoyed about the adults, they knew supposedly what >they were doing, and it's their own actions. > >What I mostly are angry about is the fact that the people inside, >including mothers, let the children suffer and die during awful >conditions. > >If this is considered religious following to the end, I'm proud >that I don't follow such fanatical and non-compassionate religions. > >You might want to die for whatever purpose, but please spare >the innocent young ones that has nothing to do with this all. > >I have a hard time just now understanding that Christianity >knows about the word compassion. Christians, do you think  >the actions today would produce a good picture of your  >religion? > > >Kent > >--- >sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
In article <1993Apr21.215709.16433@rambo.atlanta.dg.com> wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:  >     Macroevolution has not been observed in action.  Chris Colby's example(s) >     of speciation (with all due respect to Chris) in the plant example >     he gave do not consitute macroevolution.  Put another >     way, there are an incredibly huge number of events necessary to bring >     non-life to homo sapiens.  How many have we DIRECTLY observed?  Special creation has not been observed in action. Bill Rawlin's assertions that man was created in his present form do not count  as creation. Put another way, there are an incredible amount of species of the planet. How many species have we DIRECTLY observed being created by a god or gods?  >            //  Bill Rawlins            <wpr@atlanta.dg.com>        //
In article <sandvik-150493181533@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: |> In article <1993Apr15.200231.10206@ra.royalroads.ca>, |> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote: |> > These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had |> > expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a |> > direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God |> > is real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable. |> > Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to  |> > God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in the |> > age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There is |> > repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just |> > for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile |> > alike. |>  |> Jews won't agree with you, Malcolm. |>  |> Cheers, |> Kent |> --- |> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.  A lot of people won't agree with me.  That's their right and I respect that. However, to the point, Jews are also covered by the saving grace of Jesus Christ.  There are Jews who have become Christians.
In article <24APR199302290235@utarlg.uta.edu>, stephen (b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu) wrote: > In article <1993Apr21.190441.4282@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>,  > f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes...  > >In article <1993Apr21.164554.1@ccsua.ctstateu.edu>,  > >parys@ccsua.ctstateu.edu writes: > >> I told some friends of mine two weeks ago that Koresh was dead.   > >> The FBI and the BATF could not let a man like that live. He was  > >> a testimonial to their stupidity and lies.     > >>  > >	[...deleted...] > >  > >Unfortunately, I think you've got it figured pretty well.  I also ask > >myself the question "Why did they plan for so many months.  Why was > >this so important to them?  What was the government really up to? > >Why did they seal the warrant?  Were they after Koresh or were they  > >after the first and second amendments, among others?  > Allow me to play devils advocate a moment JG:  > 	o  What was called many months of *planning* was probably > 	   the intelligence collecting: paperwork and interviews.  > 	o  It's important to them because it justifies budgets.  > 	o  The warrant was sealed to keep from jeopardizing the  > 	   the government's case.  > 	o  There was probably no one actually exercising oversite. > 	   Instead, a system of bureaucratic rules has been set  > 	   up for such incidents. Like computer programs -- these > 	   have to be debugged periodically. Especially when used > 	   in fringe areas. (cf. the "hostage rescue" program). > 	   Therefore -- NO ONE WAS IN CHARGE. And no one can  > 	   reasonably be held responsible.   Baloney.  Either the programmer or the people who decided to let their actions be governed by the program are clearly at fault.  If you neglect to do maintenance on your car, and the steering goes out, you _are_ responsible for the death of all those kids on the sidewalk your car subsequently drives over "on its own".
In article <merlyn.735422443@digibd> merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes: >Prayer in school is legal; what is illegal is telling children >what to pray, or not to pray.  Many people confuse "you can't >tell kids that they ought to pray now" with "kids aren't allowed >to pray", possibly because so few kids do so without being told.  Or perhaps it's because they think that all governmental bodies should be in the business of suppressing all beliefs other than their own, or else they're some sort of Satanic Humanist Conspiracy.  It's the old "if you're not for us you're against us" bit.
"David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes: >    Not to be too snide about it, but I think this Christianity must >    be a very convenient religion, very maliable and suitable for >    any occassion since it seems one can take it any way one wants >    to go with it and follow whichever bits one pleases and >    reinterpret the bits that don't match with one's desires.  It >    is, in fact, so convenient that, were I capable of believing >    in a god, I might consider going for some brand of Christianity. >    The only difficulty left then, of course, is picking which sect >    to join.  There are just so many. >      >    Dean Kaflowitz >  > Yes, Christianity is convenient.  Following the teachings of Jesus > Christ and the Ten Commandments is convenient.  Trying to love in a > hateful world is convenient.  Turning the other cheek is convenient.  So > convenient that it is burdensome at times. >  > Dave.
In God, 	whose word I praise, 	in God I trust; 	I will not be afraid. 	What can mortal man do to me?
In article <1993Apr23.170101.19708@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:    So Rick, why not read the Bible for yourself?  It is written in plain    english.  Decide for yourself.