Well, then, if I am on an eternal progression, how come my current house is
smaller than my previous home (although the lack of a current mortgage is a
nice by-product!).
And does this mean that I've been PO'ed? :-)
Jon
Paul Osborne wrote:
Then, my friend, what is meant by the term eternal
Sorry, but your stating a specific definition does not make it so.
The prophets and the scriptures tell me something different than they tell
you.
Good thing we have a prophet to sort things out for us!
And I'll bet that GBH would not think that this specific discussion was high
on his list to
And just to add a little something, this is not what I believe we are taught
in the temple.
Jon
- Original Message -
From: Paul Osborne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law
I agree
No, it means you've been humbled, which is spiritual progression...
Jon Spencer wrote:
Well, then, if I am on an eternal progression, how come my current house is
smaller than my previous home (although the lack of a current mortgage is a
nice by-product!).
And does this mean that I've been
]
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law
No, it means you've been humbled, which is spiritual progression...
Jon Spencer wrote:
Well, then, if I am on an eternal progression, how come my current house
is
smaller than my previous home (although the lack
for it.
George
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Beecroft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 9:33 PM
Subject: RE: [ZION] Subject to natural law
-George-
When God created this universe
-Jon-
He did not create this universe. He caused
No, it doesn't. You are creating doctrine that does not exist.
Apostasy alert! Apostasy alert! :-)
Jon
George the Babe wrote:
As God is, man may become by obeying the
laws that God (created) to (allow us to) become God.
Just a little change. :-) Then it becomes a truly correct
George the Babe wrote:
When God created this universe, and
this world, He created the Laws by which things work, which may be the
same
as what His Father created or they may be different. The bottom line is
that our Father is responsible for the Laws by which we live.
He did not create this
Then, my friend, what is meant by the term eternal progression? Are we
being lied to?
Jon
Paul Osborne wrote:
There is much to learn. To complete the task requires an eternity on
the job.
Not so. When God lays his hands upon my head and ordains me God Almighty
there will be nothing that
Then, my friend, what is meant by the term eternal progression? Are we
being lied to?
Jon
No, we are not being lied to. You just don't understand what eternal
progression is, Jon. It is a state of never ending progress as worlds
come and go. The size of heavenly Father's kingdom grows with
-George-
When God created this universe
-Jon-
He did not create this universe. He caused it to be organized.
Big difference!
The prophets and the scriptures are unanimous in declaring that God did,
indeed, create the heavens and the earth. Cause to be organized is
what create means, just
Jon Spencer favored us with:
Then, my friend, what is meant by the term eternal progression? Are we
being lied to?
Even though God is truly omniscient, and hence knows EVERYTHING and can no
longer learn new things, he progresses by bringing to pass the immortality
and eternal life of his
Stephen Beecroft favored us with:
The prophets and the scriptures are unanimous in declaring that God did,
indeed, create the heavens and the earth. Cause to be organized is
what create means, just like when you create an email or a songwriter
creates a song. George is right in his usage.
Not
, December 21, 2002 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law
George the Babe wrote:
When God created this universe, and
this world, He created the Laws by which things work, which may be the
same
as what His Father created or they may be different. The bottom line is
that our
At 20:41 12/19/2002 +, Gib Mij wrote:
Paul Osborne wrote:
---
Not so. When God lays his hands upon my head and ordains me God Almighty
there will be nothing that I don't know. The learning process will have
ended.
---
Yes, and I certainly hope you will have completed your
Paul Osborne favored us with:
Not so. When God lays his hands upon my head and ordains me God Almighty
there will be nothing that I don't know. The learning process will have
ended.
This is correct. --JWR
//
/// ZION
. What did you think of
their arguments?
George
- Original Message -
From: John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 1:18 AM
Subject: RE: [ZION] Subject to natural law
Jim Cobabe favored us with:
He comprehendeth all things, and all
Mij wrote:
The idea, as Joseph Smith might say, feels good to
me.
Didn't Joseph talk about how truth tasted good to him? That was
provocative enough for me to remember it. Maybe he said feels good
too.
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843-44, p.354
Quote (emphasis
Tom Matkin wrote:
---
Didn't Joseph talk about how truth tasted good to him? That was
provocative enough for me to remember it. Maybe he said feels good
too.
---
In Lehi's Tree of Life vision he declares that the fruit of the tree is
most desirable and sweet.
Alma's discourse on faith (Alma
Redelfs' Commentary: God became God by obedience to pre-existing,
coeternal law. And if we are to become Gods we must follow the same
path
that he took. The idea that God made up the laws by which he became God
is
a Protestant idea. It is not the gospel.
Amen!
I can see that John has it
Paul Osborne wrote:
---
Not so. When God lays his hands upon my head and ordains me God Almighty
there will be nothing that I don't know. The learning process will have
ended.
---
Yes, and I certainly hope you will have completed your homework by then!
:-)
---
Mij Ebaboc
I think it is not doctrinal to assert that Heavenly Father is subject
to natural law in the same sense that we are. To put it thus
incorrectly reverses the attribution of cause.
God decreed the laws of the universe, and sustains them by the word of
His power--the laws are subordinate to Him.
Jim Cobabe wrote:
I think it is not doctrinal to assert that Heavenly Father is subject
to natural law in the same sense that we are. To put it thus
incorrectly reverses the attribution of cause.
Ah, there's a crucial difference there: that we are. I would agree with your
modified
Give me some time John and I think I can demonstrate that this is not
necessarily so.
George
- Original Message -
From: John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law
Jim Cobabe favored us
You've said it much more coherently and succinctly than I did. Thanks. As I've
explained in a separate post to Stephen, it depends on what you mean by natural
law. There are, I think, two connotations, one an earthly (corruptible) sense
and one an eternal (incorruptible) sense, but not magic --
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law
Jim Cobabe favored us with:
I think it is not doctrinal to assert that Heavenly Father is subject
to natural law in the same sense that we are. To put it thus
incorrectly
John W. Redelfs wrote:
---
The idea that he made all the laws included those by which he progressed
to become a God is a Protestant idea. It is akin to creating something
from nothing, which of course is impossible even for God.
---
One of the problems we encounter in discussing such ideas is
God does what his Father did before him...
Paul O
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com
-John-
It is my understanding of Mormon doctrine that the laws by which
Heavenly Father became and exalted being are coeternal with him.
They are uncreate. And it was by obedience to these laws that
he because God.
My understanding follows Jim's quotation of Joseph Smith's teachings and
of
Stephen Beecroft wrote:
-John-
It is my understanding of Mormon doctrine that the laws by which
Heavenly Father became and exalted being are coeternal with him.
They are uncreate. And it was by obedience to these laws that
he because God.
My understanding follows Jim's quotation of
Jim, as one hammer to another, you have hit the nail right on the head: these
words have baggage that we have to be wary of. I don't think any of us here are
really disagreeing with each other in substance (to use another word full of
ancient baggage), but only in semantics.
Jim Cobabe wrote:
: Marc A. Schindler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law
Stephen Beecroft wrote:
-John-
It is my understanding of Mormon doctrine that the laws by which
Heavenly Father became and exalted being
John,
I'm honestly not trying to promote Protestant doctrine. But there are
obviously some issues here that merit further consideration.
I am sure you realize that we are not necessarily covering new ground in
any of our discussions on this list. I have little doubt that the
people of this
33 matches
Mail list logo
