.
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
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
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
-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
>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
//
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
>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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
///
>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]
>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
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
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
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:
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
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
-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
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 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
---
> 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
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
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
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
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
47 matches
Mail list logo
