Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-23 Thread George Cobabe
. 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

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-23 Thread George Cobabe
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 m

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-23 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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

RE: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-23 Thread Stephen Beecroft
-George- > When God created this universe -Jon- > He did not create this universe. He caused it to be organized. > Big difference! -Stephen- > 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 "cr

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-23 Thread Paul Osborne
>And does this mean that I've been PO'ed? :-) No. Just watch your P's & Q's. Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com //

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-23 Thread Jon Spencer
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

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-23 Thread Jon Spencer
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 r

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-23 Thread Jon Spencer
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 p

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-21 Thread George Cobabe
IL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, 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 crea

RE: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-21 Thread John W. Redelfs
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. No

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-21 Thread John W. Redelfs
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 chil

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-21 Thread Paul Osborne
I agree with with Stephen. Paul O On Sat, 21 Dec 2002 18:39:41 + Stephen Beecroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > -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 a

RE: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-21 Thread Stephen Beecroft
-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, j

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-21 Thread Paul Osborne
>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

RE: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-21 Thread Jim Cobabe
A quote from the _Gospel Fundamentals_ manual, chapter 36. I prefer this level of presentation when discussing the nature of our Heavenly Father. The tone of our discussion strikes me as overly famililiar at times when we touch on the most sacred topics. The Church manual material is substa

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-21 Thread Jon Spencer
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 nothi

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-21 Thread Jon Spencer
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 th

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-21 Thread Jon Spencer
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 state

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-20 Thread John W. Redelfs
George Cobabe favored us with: My earlier, rather lengthy, post suggested several reasons, in the quotes provided, why many people agree with the idea that our God is uniquely responsible for the laws by which we must operate. What did you think of their arguments? I have read quite a lot of Ta

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-20 Thread John W. Redelfs
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

RE: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-20 Thread Elmer L. Fairbank
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 home*[teaching]*wo

RE: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-19 Thread Jim Cobabe
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 ///

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-19 Thread Paul Osborne
>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 I don't know. The learning process will have ended. Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-19 Thread Paul Osborne
>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

RE: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-19 Thread Jim Cobabe
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 (Al

RE: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-19 Thread Tom Matkin
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 (emphas

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-19 Thread George Cobabe
erate. 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:

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-19 Thread George Cobabe
Thursday, December 19, 2002 1:38 AM Subject: Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law > Paul Osborne favored us with: > >God does what his Father did before him... > > As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become by obeying the same >

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-19 Thread George Cobabe
I say that I, with you, believe this is just not a realistic concern. George - Original Message - From: "Jim Cobabe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 11:25 PM Subject: RE: [ZION] Subject to natural law > > George

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-19 Thread John W. Redelfs
Paul Osborne favored us with: God does what his Father did before him... As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become by obeying the same laws that God did to become God. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please

RE: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-19 Thread John W. Redelfs
Jim Cobabe favored us with: 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 t

RE: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-19 Thread John W. Redelfs
Jim Cobabe favored us with: He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever. A

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-18 Thread Marc A. Schindler
I think we're all in that boat. But speculation can be fun sometimes, too :-) Jim Cobabe wrote: > Paul Osborne wrote: > --- > God does what his Father did before him... > --- > > Paul, I agree with this idea, but then must confess that it is about as > far as I'm able to go, philosophically. I d

RE: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-18 Thread Jim Cobabe
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

RE: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-18 Thread Jim Cobabe
George Cobabe wrote: --- I can agree "that God is "subject to 'natural law", but only in the sense that He has created those laws and needs to maintain the integrity to obey the same rules that He has created. If He did not honor His word or His law He would cease to be God. --- The possibili

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-18 Thread George Cobabe
l Message - From: "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 l

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-18 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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:

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-18 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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 quo

RE: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-18 Thread Jim Cobabe
Paul Osborne wrote: --- God does what his Father did before him... --- Paul, I agree with this idea, but then must confess that it is about as far as I'm able to go, philosophically. I don't claim to have much more insight here than extends from my own simple common sense, which really is pre

RE: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-18 Thread Stephen Beecroft
-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

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-18 Thread Paul Osborne
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 //

RE: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-18 Thread Jim Cobabe
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

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-18 Thread Marc A. Schindler
--- > 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 with: > > >I think it is not doctrinal to assert that Hea

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-18 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-18 Thread George Cobabe
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 natu

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-18 Thread John W. Redelfs
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 reverses the attribution of cause. God decreed the laws of the universe, and sustains them by the word of His power--the la

Re: [ZION] Subject to natural law

2002-12-18 Thread Marc A. Schindler
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