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.
daver@hp-pcd.UUCP (daver) (01/20/85)
Would a Mormon or a Moonie consider a Baptist or Catholic to be a true Christian? What you see depends on where you look from. Dave Rabinowitz hplabs!hp-pcd!daver
grunwald@uiucdcsb.UUCP (01/23/85)
bizzaro -- All this stuff about the LDS is rather novel to me. I used to live
with a woman of LDS background if not belief. While I read a lot about the
beliefs and practices, I never came across anything about ascending
to 'god' except perhaps similar to the buddist concept of unifying with a
godhead, which is a far sight different than becoming a god. Couples become
'bonded' (there's another word, which I've forgotten) to each other when
married in a temple so that they can find each other when they die (little
more complex, really). I think that accepting mormonism means you also get
bonded to god, and hence the possible misconception.
The reason geneology interests them so much is that they
have 'baptisms for the dead', in which a living soul accepts the baptism for
a dead person. At the time of resurrection, that dead person can accept or
reject that baptism. This is basically a cover for the old catholic question
of 'what about little babies in peri', which, while solved by pergatory, is
still a stickler.
Their religion is essentially an extension of christanity, if I have
the story correct (christ died & then visted S. America. Later prophet
Moroni came, hence name mormons. The Book of Mormon were the alleged words of
Moroni).
LDS is as interesting to study as any other religion, and it's kind of
fun to hit some of the superficial doctrinial soft spots ("Why were the indians
told to look for a WHITE god, when christ was dark skinned?" -- obvious
influence). Only problem, as with most religions when you start looking for
information, is that they try and convert you and they're very persistent
people.
There's also the RLDS (reformed LDS). Ask one about the other and
be prepared for fun.jim@randvax.UUCP (Jim Gillogly) (01/28/85)
Some minor bugfixes on a recent article about Mormonism: In article <9900049@uiucdcsb.UUCP> grunwald@uiucdcsb.UUCP writes: > bizzaro -- All this stuff about the LDS is rather novel to me. ... > ... I never came across anything about ascending to 'god' ... Yes, they do indeed believe that people who go to the highest degree of heaven (the Celestial Kingdom) have the potential to become gods and goddesses over their own worlds. > Couples become 'bonded' (there's another word, which I've forgotten) to... The word is "sealed", and is supposed to last forever (not until death us do part). > Their religion is essentially an extension of christanity, if I have >the story correct (christ died & then visted S. America. Later prophet >Moroni came, hence name mormons. The Book of Mormon were the alleged words of >Moroni). The name "Mormons" comes from the Book of Mormon, supposedly written by the eponymous prophet. Moroni is the name of the angel who Joseph Smith said gave him the scoop. > 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 :-)). -- Jim Gillogly {decvax, vortex}!randvax!jim jim@rand-unix.arpa
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).
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