franka@hercules.UUCP (Frank Adrian) (01/09/85)
Well, it's late, but it's here!!! The one you've been waiting for!!! TA DA!!! The stupendous, astounding, amazing results of the Most Hated Cult Survey!!! And the envelope, please... And the Most Hated Cult of 1984 was... The Rev. Jerry Falwell and his swinging group, the Moral Majority!!! OK, OK, now for the results. Some of the categories overlap, but the major obnoxious groups according to you net people are Christians... Falwell/Moral Majority 8 Fundamentalist Christians 4 Jews for Jesus 2 Moonies 2 Campus Crusade for Christ 1 Mormons 1 ------------------------- - Total Miscelaneous Xians 18 The next in line seem to be the political wing... Republicans/Reganites 4 IRA 1 Tax Collectors 1 Populists 1 Pro-life Lobbyists 1 Lyndon LaRouchians 1 NCPAC 1 --------------------- - Total Political Entities 10 Next seem to be a group of more standard cults... Bhagwan 2 Scienntology 1 EST 1 ____________ _ Std. Cults 4 And finally, the ever popular miscelaneous... Poll Takers 3 Economists 1 Neo-Luddites 1 Telephone Salespeople 1 Footbal Fans 1 Well that about wraps it up for the most hated cult of 1984. And by the way it looks on the net as of now, it looks as if Mr. F and the Christian Right are well on thier way to another year as the most hated cult. See you all again at the end of '85... "Same as it ever was..." Frank Adrian
rwl@uvacs.UUCP (Ray Lubinsky) (01/11/85)
> > Falwell/Moral Majority 8 > Fundamentalist Christians 4 > Jews for Jesus 2 > Moonies 2 > Campus Crusade for Christ 1 > Mormons 1 > ------------------------- - > Total Miscelaneous Xians 18 > Um, I beg to differ, but neither the Moonies and Mormons are "Christians". Now, I'm not saying that the others are particularly _good_ examples of Christians, but the others just down fit it that category. Try: "Miscelaneous Loony-toons", perhaps. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ray Lubinsky University of Virginia, Dept. of Computer Science uucp: decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!rwl "Always looking for a better way, I am!"
mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) (01/11/85)
> > Um, I beg to differ, but neither the Moonies and Mormons are "Christians". > Now, I'm not saying that the others are particularly _good_ examples of > Christians, but the others just down fit it that category. Any church that calls itself the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" can be presumed to consider itself Christian. And therefore it is Christian. The opinions of other churches are notoriously biased. (Would you consider the Lutherans to be Christians or Heretics? A lot of people died over this question.) Interestingly, a letter to the Raleigh News and Observer, in response to an article about LDS missionaries in the area, cited the doctrinal differences between Mormons and Baptists and concluded that the Mormon church is a cult. Apparently a cult is any religion that disagrees with the Baptists (which, of course, includes other Baptists). > > Try: "Miscelaneous Loony-toons", perhaps. That is true, too. -- _Doctor_ Jon Mauney, mcnc!ncsu!mauney \__Mu__/ North Carolina State University
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (01/11/85)
<>
RE Whether Mormons are Christians...
I have a friend who refers to the Latter-Day Saints church as "the
Scientology of the 19th Century" which is an interesting point of view.
There is some evidence that Joseph Smith got the book of Mormon from a
novelist of the era, or that he wrote it in imitation of that novelist's
style. (Said novelist, an obscure writer whose name escapes me, wrote
and published what we would today call a "fantasy" novel with several
superficial similarities to the Book of Mormon and many stylistic
similarities, such as using imitation King James English and starting
every other paragraph with "And it came to pass..."
If memory serves, the Pearl of Great Price has often been publised with
a frontispiece of Egyptian writing identified by Smith as "reformed
Egyptian" (the language of the Book of Mormon). This turns out to be a
fragment of the Book of the Dead (or a related work), and not what Smith
claimed. (Although he may not have identified it through the Urim and
Thumim, so perhaps the mistake was understandable. But if he was truly
a prophet...)
The Mormon religion has some curious doctrines. Again, if I am not
mistaken, it is possible for a good person to aspire to godhood. Even
the God to whom we pray was once a mortal man, they contend. Women,
unfortunately, cannot become gods or goddesses themselves, but must
connect up to a successful male priest and ultimately, I presume, become
"goddettes."
Well, sorry to ramble on and no offense intended to LDS readers. I
respect the LDS church, even though I disagree with many of its
doctrines.
--
D Gary Grady
Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706
(919) 684-3695
USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgarysm@cadre.UUCP (01/12/85)
In article <367@hercules.UUCP> franka@hercules.UUCP writes: > > OK, OK, now for the results. Some of the categories overlap, but the >major obnoxious groups according to you net people are Christians... > > Falwell/Moral Majority 8 > Fundamentalist Christians 4 > Jews for Jesus 2 > Moonies 2 > Campus Crusade for Christ 1 > Mormons 1 > ------------------------- - > Total Miscelaneous Xians 18 That's the great thing about this country: any unqualified idiot like the one above is allowed to make moronic statements like this without risk of having himself committed. It absurd to suggest that the opinion of these 18 people is 1) of any statistical value, whatsoever 2) an indictment against "Christians" (well over 99% of ALL Christians are NOT members of the above groups). But, of course, the entire study is suggestive of kind of mentality which derives some sort of pleasure in deriding groups of which he probably has little or no understanding. I'm sure that the author would not be stupid enough to draw any scientific conclusions from a survey such as this but I would caution him; this kind of thinking, historically, spreads like a disease until it effects, in the individual, a mistrust and even a hatred for persons who happen to have affiliations, religious or otherwise with which he/she has had little or no experience. It is one thing to express a personal opinion, and I'm willing to read all of them. But bigotry such as this, couched in safety of a "survey" is really disheartening. Sean McLinden
cjn@calmasd.UUCP (Cheryl Nemeth) (01/12/85)
The IRA's a cult? Cheryl Nemeth All opinions are my own...
geb@cadre.UUCP (01/12/85)
> > Um, I beg to differ, but neither the Moonies and Mormons are "Christians". >Now, I'm not saying that the others are particularly _good_ examples of >Christians, but the others just down fit it that category. Well, that depends on your definitions. I think the Moonies believe in Christ, in fact, I think they believe that Moon IS the reincarnation of Christ or something similar. (Moonies (if any) on the net, please correct me if I'm wrong.) Mormons certainly believe in Christ, the true name of the church is Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in fact. I would agree that neither one is protestant or catholic.
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (01/15/85)
> Um, I beg to differ, but neither the Moonies and Mormons are "Christians". > Now, I'm not saying that the others are particularly _good_ examples of > Christians, but the others just down fit it that category. > Ray Lubinsky Since both the Moonies and the Mormons claim to be Christian, how is one to know that they are not (without spending a long time in the study of two (or is it three) regressive religions, which study would not interest me). Richard Brower
ag5@pucc-k (Henry Mensch) (01/15/85)
<<>> >>Well, that depends on your definitions. I think the Moonies believe >>in Christ, in fact, I think they believe that Moon IS the reincarnation >>of Christ or something similar. (Moonies (if any) on the net, please correct >>me if I'm wrong.) Mormons certainly believe in Christ, the true >>name of the church is Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, >>in fact. I would agree that neither one is protestant or catholic. The fact that they are neither protestant nor catholic (roman catholic) will probably save them! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Henry C. Mensch | User Confuser | Purdue University User Services {ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax|purdue|uiucdcs|cbosgd|harpo}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ". . . he wasn't festive but was probably ambidextrous"
geb@cadre.UUCP (01/16/85)
In article <484@ecsvax.UUCP> dgary@ecsvax.UUCP writes: ><> >RE Whether Mormons are Christians... > > >The Mormon religion has some curious doctrines. Again, if I am not >mistaken, it is possible for a good person to aspire to godhood. Even >the God to whom we pray was once a mortal man, they contend. Women, >unfortunately, cannot become gods or goddesses themselves, but must >connect up to a successful male priest and ultimately, I presume, become >"goddettes." > You are wrong about the women, they can become gods. The Mormons even have a female diety who is the wife of the male God.
rwl@uvacs.UUCP (Ray Lubinsky) (01/18/85)
> > Um, I beg to differ, but neither the Moonies and Mormons are "Christians". > > Now, I'm not saying that the others are particularly _good_ examples of > > Christians, but the others just down fit it that category. > > Ray Lubinsky > > Since both the Moonies and the Mormons claim to be Christian, how is one > to know that they are not (without spending a long time in the study of > two (or is it three) regressive religions, which study would not interest me). > > Richard Brower Okay, maybe I have jumped the gun here, but on the other hand, is there any any Christian sect that would open their arms to members of either of these groups as fellow Christians? I'd say a Catholic and a Baptist will agree on many more doctrinal points than either one would with a Mormon or (certainly!) a Unification Church member. Granted, I don't have any statistics. But then I felt like this was a question of terminology, not a value judgment. I have no intention of getting into any arguments over dogma; my persuasion is more agnostic than anything else. Hopefully, if anyone _still_ wants to discuss this, it will be moved solely to net.religion. Please remove it from all other groups. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ray Lubinsky University of Virginia, Dept. of Computer Science uucp: decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!rwl
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (01/19/85)
> In article <484@ecsvax.UUCP> dgary@ecsvax.UUCP writes: > ><> > >RE Whether Mormons are Christians... > > > > > >The Mormon religion has some curious doctrines. Again, if I am not > >mistaken, it is possible for a good person to aspire to godhood. Even > >the God to whom we pray was once a mortal man, they contend. Women, > >unfortunately, cannot become gods or goddesses themselves, but must > >connect up to a successful male priest and ultimately, I presume, become > >"goddettes." > > > You are wrong about the women, they can become gods. > The Mormons even have a female diety who is the wife of the male God. One of the reasons people refer to Mormans as a cult is because they believe that they will become god.
geb@cadre.UUCP (01/22/85)
In article <7547@brl-tgr.ARPA> ron@brl-tgr.UUCP writes: >One of the reasons people refer to Mormans (sic) >as a cult is because they believe that they will become god. Cult: a system of religious belief and ritual -Webster So what religion isn't a cult? If you really meant occult, I don't see how it applies.
dre@ptsfa.UUCP (Doug East) (01/22/85)
> Okay, maybe I have jumped the gun here, but on the other hand, is there any > any Christian sect that would open their arms to members of either of these > groups as fellow Christians? I'd say a Catholic and a Baptist will agree on > many more doctrinal points than either one would with a Mormon or (certainly!) > a Unification Church member. Could these "older" religions perhaps have a vested interest in maintaining that they are the only "true" Christian religion? What defines a Christian religion: A belief in Jesus Christ, some religious sect's dogma, or some other criteria? For many who do not know, the LDS (Mormon) Religion uses the King James Version of the Bible, such as many other Christian sects, along with its other standard works (Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Convenants, etc.). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The opinions/statements/comments/etc. expressed above are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer or my bank. Doug East (Pacific*Bell -- San Francisco) {ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!dre
stout@uiucdcsb.UUCP (01/23/85)
I don't know what the original survey was about, so I can't comment about it. I did want to respond to a couple of dgary's points: The novel referred to is almost certainly Solomon Spaulding's "Manuscript Found," a story about a group of Romans who wind up in America and get involved in local conflicts. I have a copy, and its stylistic similarities are even weaker than its plot similarities. Most non-Mormons who have really looked at it, whether anti- or neutral, don't put much credence in it as a source for the Book of Mormon, but look to other sources, or possibly a combination of things. The surviving papyri from the Egyptian collection contain the Book of Breathings. They don't match Joseph Smith's description of the papyri he said was the source of the book of Abraham, so it is plausible that those papyri are lost, whether or not one believes in his gift of translation. Joseph Smith never associated the language of the Book of Mormon--reformed Egyptian--with these papers. As was pointed out by someone else, Mormons believe godhood equally accessible by men and women--in fact, they believe such exaltation is only available to those who have been married for eternity in the temple, though the marriage alone is no guarantee for exaltation. Those wanting a good outsider's view of Mormonism should get a book by Jan Shipps due to appear any time now from the U of Illinois press, with a title like "Mormonism--A New Religious Tradition." I have heard her lecture on topics that will be covered in the book. She is neither pro- nor anti- Mormon in her aproach, and her insights have the rare property that they make sense both to believers and nonbelievers. W Bryan Stout University of Illionois ihnp4!uiucdcs!stout (roughly)
larryg@teklds.UUCP (Larry Gardner) (01/24/85)
I really think this should be moved to net.religion or something but here goes anyway, since you are discussing it here. I think the term cult in general terminology today means: 1. Any religion that teaches that man can become God. 2. Any religion that teaches that Jesus was not God. These two beliefs are opposed to christianity which is what uses the term cult. karen alias larryg
net.flame@shark.UUCP (01/25/85)
From: shark!shark!hutch (Stephen Hutchison) In article <168@cadre.ARPA> geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >In article <484@ecsvax.UUCP> dgary@ecsvax.UUCP writes: >><> >>RE Whether Mormons are Christians... >> >> >>The Mormon religion has some curious doctrines. Again, if I am not >>mistaken, it is possible for a good person to aspire to godhood. Even >>the God to whom we pray was once a mortal man, they contend. Women, >>unfortunately, cannot become gods or goddesses themselves, but must >>connect up to a successful male priest and ultimately, I presume, become >>"goddettes." >> >You are wrong about the women, they can become gods. >The Mormons even have a female diety who is the wife of the male God. Indeed? Have the rules changed (again) or isn't it still necessary for a woman to be married before she can be given deistic status (presumably by her deified husband)? Oh, I see, Gordon misunderstood dgary's article! Incidentally, do Blacks have real souls this week, or do they still have second-class souls which will never become "gods"? I know, this is nasty, but I AM posting to net.flame and net.religion, not to the thousands of newsgroups where the original articles were sent! Hutch
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (01/25/85)
> From: larryg@teklds.UUCP (Larry Gardner) > Subject: Re: MHCS results > Message-ID: <260@teklds.UUCP> > Date: Thu, 24-Jan-85 15:40:42 EST > I think the term cult in general terminology today means: > 1. Any religion that teaches that man can become God. > 2. Any religion that teaches that Jesus was not God. > These two beliefs are opposed to christianity which is what uses the > term cult. > karen alias larryg Gee -- on point #2, Christians think Judaism is a cult? How interesting... No, I'm not accusing all Christians of believing that; I'm not even sure if you do. But you should be more careful of your definitions....
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (01/25/85)
karen alias larryg writes: > I think the term cult in general terminology today means: > 1. Any religion that teaches that man can become God. > 2. Any religion that teaches that Jesus was not God. > These two beliefs are opposed to christianity which is what uses the > term cult. The term 'cult', according to Webster, means the same as 'religion'. 'Cult', however, has bad connotations, and is used to describe a religion which the speaker dislikes. It's not suprising that the above christian thinks that it means 'not a christian religion', since that is the type of religion which christians dislike. BTW, how did karen get the middle name 'alias'? -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "I couldn't do THAT. They'd kick me right out of Cowards Anonymous." -- Dangermouse's faithful assistant, Penfold.
gkm@hou2b.UUCP (G.MCNEES) (01/26/85)
The surviving papyri from the Egyptian collection contain the Book of Breathings. They don't match Joseph Smith's description of the papyri he said was the source of the book of Abraham, so it is plausible that those papyri are lost, whether or not one believes in his gift of translation. Joseph Smith never associated the language of the Book of Mormon--reformed Egyptian--with these papers. ihnp4!uiucdcs!stout (roughly) The above statement is incorrect. Three plates are reproduced along with the Book of Abraham which Joe Smith gives the translation of. These cuts or plates are almost exactly the same as those found in the Book of Breathings. He, however, has another interpretation having to do with Abraham being sacrificed upon an alter. Sincerly, Gary McNees
ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) (01/26/85)
> I think the term cult in general terminology today means: > > 1. Any religion that teaches that man can become God. > 2. Any religion that teaches that Jesus was not God. > > These two beliefs are opposed to christianity which is what uses the > term cult. > > karen alias larryg Oh, *REALLY*. By this definition, Judaism is a cult; so is Islam; so is Buddhism; Shintoism; any early religion which existed before the (questionable) arrival of Christ; not to mention Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and all the other -isms of our world. Your narrowmindedness is APPALLING. Other religions besides Christianity use the term "cult"; witness for example the Kali, Agni or Vishnu cults of Hinduism, which has been around a lot longer than the New Testament. I have been reading without flaming you for a long time, but this deserves some mention. I guess that makes my ancestors (Shintoists, Buddhists, and Irish Pagans) cult members, not to mention most of my mother's side of the family...they'd be amused to hear it though. Wow. I think we've managed here to define "cult" as {All Religion}\{Xianity}. This is *IMPRESSIVE*. I wonder where that leaves Goddess and Me... If I go on much longer I'll shortcircuit my terminal. I think an appropriate closing remark would be: FUCK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!!! Cackling at my cauldron, ellen
geb@cadre.UUCP (01/26/85)
In article <260@teklds.UUCP> larryg@teklds.UUCP (Larry Gardner) writes: > >I really think this should be moved to net.religion or something but >here goes anyway, since you are discussing it here. > >I think the term cult in general terminology today means: > >1. Any religion that teaches that man can become God. >2. Any religion that teaches that Jesus was not God. > >These two beliefs are opposed to christianity which is what uses the >term cult. > This is ridiculous! Maybe this is the Fundamentalist Christian definition of cult, but perhaps Webster's is more authoratative as to "general terminology": "a system of religious beliefs or ritual". This includes "Christianity", of course. If some people would like to adopt a provincial view and call themselves the "true believers" and everyone who disagrees with them a "cult" then perhaps making the term a perjorative and applying it to those of differing belief will make them feel better when rational argument and discourse fail them. One would hope that as people become more educated and mature, name-calling would become less necessary.
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (01/27/85)
[This is cross-posted from net.flame, where it doesn't belong...] >I really think this should be moved to net.religion or something but >here goes anyway, since you are discussing it here. OK, I'm moving it to net.religion. >I think the term cult in general terminology today means: >1. Any religion that teaches that man can become God. >2. Any religion that teaches that Jesus was not God. I see. Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Shinto, Baha'i, Buddhism, Paganism, Agnosticism, Atheism, Animism, and other varied and sundry religious faiths are "cults" because they're not Christianity. Right... WRONG! None of the above (*including* Christianity) has any greater claim to validity than any other. *Each* of the above is based on (in my experience) undemonstrable initial principles. Christians calling other religions "cults" because the others are non-Christian are only showing their Christian(oid)ocentric bigotry. >These two beliefs are opposed to christianity which is what uses the >term cult. > >karen alias larryg Christianity is not a person. It is not capable of language. Its adherents, who are persons, are the entities who use terms, including "cult". BUT, since when did using a term give one a monopoly on defining it?! I am not a Christian. I do, however, use the term "cult". Ergo your claim about who uses it is observed to be false. My roommate's dictionary defines a cult to be "a system of religious worship or ritual", or "a group of followers". By this definition, Christianity is a cult. In addition, I understand one of the primary connotations of "cult" is that the religion is somehow threatening and/ or dangerous to its followers. In that light, Christianity is most definitely a cult. To summarize karen alias larryg: "Hello, Kettle? This is Pot. Thou art black." BTW, Kudos to David Canzi for the term "Christianoid". It's excellent! -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
rcb@rti-sel.UUCP (Randy Buckland) (01/27/85)
> I think the term cult in general terminology today means: > > 1. Any religion that teaches that man can become God. > 2. Any religion that teaches that Jesus was not God. > > These two beliefs are opposed to christianity which is what uses the > term cult. I personally can't see how "christianity" can be considered less of a cult than any other religion such as "jewish", "morman", "moonie"... etc. With the exception of the vast difference in the number of believers, I see nothing that makes one any more valid than any other. Your definition of a cult is basically anything that does not agree with what you believe. According to your definition, jewish people belong to a cult. Think about it. Randy Buckland Research Triangle Institute ...!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (01/28/85)
Steve,
speaking of definitions, my Webster's says CULT means
1. a system of religious worship or ritual. I think
Judaism and Christianity both qualify. I think the
connotation of the word is "deviation from the orthodox
(usually Christian) belief with the followers especially
devoted to an exalted person or doctrine." Christianity
would qualify as a cult of Judaism, no ?
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}bch@ecsvax.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) (01/28/85)
In article <260@teklds.UUCP> larryg@teklds.UUCP (Larry Gardner) writes: >I think the term cult in general terminology today means: > >1. Any religion that teaches that man can become God. >2. Any religion that teaches that Jesus was not God. > >These two beliefs are opposed to christianity which is what uses the >term cult. I really would like to know how karen aka larry came on to this definition. If we really follow it we find the world is divided into christians and cultists exclusively and exhaustively...interesting. Actually a great deal of work has been done on the cult/church continuum by sociologists. What they find is that the difference between cult, sect church and ecclesia is less dependent upon belief than upon organization and relation to the surrounding culture. If I remember correctly the distinguishing features of a cult are a small loosely knit group of followers held together by belief in the divinity of a single, possibly living, charismatic individual. Thus the followers of the Rev. Jim Jones would qualify as cultists, as would the very *early* Christians as would those who followed Moses out of Egypt. Most cults die out after the death of their leader or leaders unless they find a way, a form of organization, which can take the place of the initial charismatic attraction. In general, should this kind of permanence be established, they become "sects" characterized by an ongoing organization with provision for future changes of leadership, a more formal organization and provision for formally bringing in new members. Some sociologists of religion divide sects into "established sects" and just "sects," but this seems more a matter of size and length of establishment than any substative difference. a "church" (in the sociological sense) takes this development one step further by having a professional rather than lay leadership who are legitimized by a group which is independent of the body of believers. This guarantees continuance of the religious order irrespective of the vagueries of individual congregations, regions or political events. Ultimately, of course, a well-developed church organization can make inroads into the political sphere and become identified with the state. Some sociologists call this an "ecclesia" in that it differs substantively from the church due to its ability to bring in new members without their volition. One must be aware that this is not a sequence of discrete categories but a description of points on a continuum and many religious organizations fall in the spaces. Perhaps it sheds some light on definitions, though it has been many years since I did sociology and I may not have it all in perspective. -- Byron Howes System Manager -- NCECS ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Pesmard Flurrmn) (01/29/85)
> I think the term cult in general terminology today means: > 1. Any religion that teaches that man can become God. > 2. Any religion that teaches that Jesus was not God. > These two beliefs are opposed to christianity which is what uses the > term cult. > karen alias larryg Thus, a cult is any religious belief that in some way goes against the status quo. The status quo defines which is the cult and which is the "true way". There is no more to the word than that. -- "Pardon me for breathing which I never do anyway so I don't know why I bothered to mention it--Oh, God, I'm so depressed." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
dre@ptsfa.UUCP (Doug East) (01/29/85)
> Indeed? Have the rules changed (again) or isn't it still necessary for > a woman to be married before she can be given deistic status (presumably > by her deified husband)? Actually, a man must be married to achieve this status also, no discrimination on that point. Ever wondered why the family unit is so important in the religion? > Incidentally, do Blacks have real souls this week, or do they still have > second-class souls which will never become "gods"? They have the same status as non-Blacks; i.e. everyone else. This change in the doctrine occurred several years ago. Doug East (Pacific*Bell -- San Francisco) {ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!dre
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (01/30/85)
> From: larryg@teklds.UUCP (Karen Gardner) > Date: Thu, 24-Jan-85 15:40:42 EST > > I really think this should be moved to net.religion or something but > here goes anyway, since you are discussing it here. > > I think the term cult in general terminology today means: > > 1. Any religion that teaches that man can become God. > 2. Any religion that teaches that Jesus was not God. > > These two beliefs are opposed to christianity which is what uses the > term cult. > > karen alias larryg First, we are not here defining the word cult. Cult is a label with negative connotations and no real negative substance. What we are really doing here is saying "these are the groups we will insult with this otherwise meaniongless term". And, oh, what a list of groups that is, from the starry heights of the Upanishads through the wisdom of the Talmud to the inaction-in-action of the Tao, through all other religions save that one which calls Jesus its savior, and even then excluding some Christian sects. Thus the definition: Christianity is the only religion. All else is "cults". I think we should all send money to Karen for making this so luminously clear. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.
hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) (01/30/85)
I'm not sure that this discussion of "cult" is accomplishing anything. However let me say that it is often used as a quasi-technical term. The intent is not to cover anyone that disagrees, or anyone who is not Christian. Rather it is intended to characterize a certain class of religious movements that seem to share a number of similar tendencies: - rejection of the rest of the Church as substandard or even non-Christian - their own private revelation. I don't mean to include anybody who has new ideas about theology, even ones I think are misguided. I am talking about people who have angels descend to their founder and reveal that the human race is a large turnip. - a "personality cult" centered around their founder or some other high officials - high-pressure recruitment tactics, often involving classical brainwashing techniques The term is normally used these days to characterize current movements. The early Mormons certainly fit several of the criteria (certainly 1 and 2, probably also 3). Today's Mormon church is much less subject to the definition. Using the term of them is sort of marginal, though I guess I would be willing to do so. Knowing the sort of fine people that the Mormon church seems to collect as members, I really hate to group them with the Moonies (or with what the Moonies are claimed to be - I claim no direct knowlege).
dre@ptsfa.UUCP (Doug East) (02/04/85)
> > There's also the RLDS (reformed LDS). Ask one about the other and > >be prepared for fun. > > RLDS is "Reorganized", not "Reformed". They're based in Missouri, and have > some interesting features, one of which is the "Inspired Version" of the > Bible, which they say Joseph Smith produced. Weird changes from the King > James, on which it is based. The Salt Lake City branch doesn't accept it, > presumably because it didn't support polygamy. (That last is a conjecture, > not to be confused with my impeccable information and scholarship detailed > above :-)). One of the major reasons for the Reorganized Church separating from the LDS church was (is) their belief that the leadership of the Church belongs to the descendants of Joseph Smith; i.e., an ordered succession. The LDS leadership, on the other hand, is determined by a unanimous decision of a body called the "Council of the Twelve Apostles," made up of twelve (obviously) men. The President of the Church (LDS) elected (unanimously) by the Council is (or was) generally a member of the Council. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The opinions/statements/comments/etc. expressed above are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer or my bank. Doug East (Pacific*Bell -- San Francisco) {ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!dre
david@ukma.UUCP (David Herron, NPR Lover) (02/11/85)
In article <464@ptsfa.UUCP> dre@ptsfa.UUCP (Doug East) writes: >> > There's also the RLDS (reformed LDS). Ask one about the other and >> >be prepared for fun. [Yer durn tootin. And I'm an RLDS member too!] >> RLDS is "Reorganized", not "Reformed". They're based in Missouri, and have >> some interesting features, one of which is the "Inspired Version" of the >> Bible, which they say Joseph Smith produced. Weird changes from the King >> James, on which it is based. The Salt Lake City branch doesn't accept it, >> presumably because it didn't support polygamy. (That last is a conjecture, >> not to be confused with my impeccable information and scholarship detailed >> above :-)). uuuuummmmm......The Inspired Version was inspired translation from the King James Version. The main difference (as I recall from Sunday School) was some long sequences dealing with Enoch and a city he built that was eventually translated into Heaven (er...Zion anyway). There were some other things, like the Lords Prayer is different. BTW, the Inspired Version doesn't comment on polygamy, other than that it was practiced in biblical times. It is interesting that the Book of Mormon *strongly* condemns polygamy. The LDS church doesn't have the Inspired Version because of a falling out between Brigham Young and Emma Smith (the widow of Joseph Smith). When the LDS church left Nauvoo, Illinois for Utah in ~1846, Emma Smith wouldn't hand it over. Later when the splinters re-organized around Joseph Smith III *they* had that version. The other "strange" book we have is the Book of Mormon. This was translated from gold plates provided him through the Angel Moroni. It contains stories about a group of people who left Jerusalem around the time of the Babylonian invasion (at ~600 BC). These people (from what we can tell) settled in Central America and are probably the ascendents of the Mayan civilization. > One of the major reasons for the Reorganized Church separating > from the LDS church was (is) their belief that the leadership > of the Church belongs to the descendants of Joseph Smith; i.e., > an ordered succession. The LDS leadership, on the other hand, > is determined by a unanimous decision of a body called the > "Council of the Twelve Apostles," made up of twelve (obviously) > men. The President of the Church (LDS) elected (unanimously) > by the Council is (or was) generally a member of the Council. The leadership passes down through Joseph Smiths line because of tradition. The original succession happened while Joseph was being held in the Jail at Liberty, Missouri. He ordained his son to be his successor when the boy was 9 years old. Brigham Young (at the time of the schism) refused to accept that this ordination took place. Subsequent prophets have named close relatives as their successor. In the LDS church, president of the quorom of twelve apostles becomes the new prophet. This is a tradition from the time of the schism. Brigham Young held that office at the time of Joseph Smith's death and used that to claim succession. -- -:--:- David Herron; ARPA-> "ukma!david"@ANL-MCS or david%ukma.uucp@anl-mcs.arpa UUCP-> {ucbvax,unmvax,boulder,research}!anlams!ukma!david UUCP-> {mcvax!qtlon,vax135,mddc}!qusavx!ukma!david UUCP-> {A-Large-Portion-of-The-World}!cbosgd!ukma!david No stupid sayings (I can't think of one). No stupid disclaimers (Nobody else would claim my statements anyway).
sitze@rruxo.UUCP (R Sitze) (02/13/85)
Hmmm...... Very interesting really.... But what happened to the "Line" of succession?? As I recall, the line died out, and the RLDS's current Prophet is not a decendant of good ol' J.S.... :-) <ras>
david@ukma.UUCP (David Herron, NPR Lover) (02/14/85)
>Hmmm...... Very interesting really.... But what happened to the "Line" >of succession?? As I recall, the line died out, and the RLDS's current >Prophet is not a decendant of good ol' J.S.... :-) > > <ras> It did have a slight break. A couple of adjacent prophets were bothers. Other than that it *has* remained "in the family". -- -:--:- David Herron; ARPA-> "ukma!david"@ANL-MCS or david%ukma.uucp@anl-mcs.arpa UUCP-> {ucbvax,unmvax,boulder,research}!anlams!ukma!david UUCP-> {mcvax!qtlon,vax135,mddc}!qusavx!ukma!david UUCP-> {A-Large-Portion-of-The-World}!cbosgd!ukma!david No stupid sayings (I can't think of one). No stupid disclaimers (Nobody else would claim my statements anyway).
jim@randvax.UUCP (Jim Gillogly) (02/23/85)
In article <726@ukma.UUCP> david@ukma.UUCP (David Herron, NPR Lover) writes: >uuuuummmmm......The Inspired Version was inspired translation from the >King James Version. The main difference (as I recall from Sunday School) >was some long sequences dealing with Enoch and a city he built that was >eventually translated into Heaven (er...Zion anyway). There were some >other things, like the Lords Prayer is different. Here's an example of what you can do with a Bible if you use inspiration: Lot is talking to the Sodomites who want to get to know his angelic visitors better. King James version, Genesis 19:8. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; ... Inspired version (from RLDS church), Genesis 19:13. And Lot said, Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, plead with my brethren that I may not bring them out unto you; and ye shall not do to them as seemeth good in your eyes; ... This demonstrates clearly the advantage of using inspiration: all the scholarship in the world wouldn't have deduced the latter from the surviving originals. :-) -- Jim Gillogly {decvax, vortex}!randvax!jim jim@rand-unix.arpa
call@byucsa.UUCP (Rod Schiffman) (02/23/85)
The belief that the RLDS church will not be able to continue its line of
authority because the current prophet has no son is not correct. There is
more than one direct blood line back to Joseph Smith. The next prophet of
the RLDS church will not be the current prophets son, but he will be a direct
descendent of Joseph Smith.
This is how it was explained to me when I visited the RLDS headquarters in
Missouri in 1982. I am not RLDS myself.
--
{ihnp4,noao,mcnc,utah-cs}!arizona!byucsa!call