Marc - it seems the question is not he definition of natural law, except as
it involves who created that law.

The question is:  Did God, i.e. our God, create the natural law for his
creation or did He just transpose it from the overall eternal concept of
Natural Law.

Is every universe, form every God - the same or can they vary?

I, of course, do not know the answer but I believe that the law of our
universe was created by our Father.

This does not mean that He did not progress from a universe that had the
same, nor different, natural laws.

When we are told that God created all in the universe - I believe it.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc A. Schindler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: [ZION] Curiosity About Alma 1:21

I think we just need to be careful how we're using the terms. If I may be a
presumptuous, there is a sense in which I would agree with you, if you're
the term the way Kent P. Jackson does: [studies in Scripture, vol. 7:1]

The Creation
There is a tendency for people in our generation to discount the "special
creation" account of the origin of our heaven and earth as related in the
The modern trend is to accept a "naturalistic" or "mechanistic" view of the
of our solar system, including our earth and all things upon it. fn Such a
proposes that these things came into existence by chance-by the strict
of "natural law" rather than by God's purposes being fulfilled as a result
of his
wisdom and power. This mechanistic view looks upon natural law as eternal or
self-existent and as determining absolutely what happens to physical matter
over a
given time. There is no allowance for a divine or supernatural power of any
over physical matter. fn Such a view leaves no room for a God who has all
knowledge and who thinks and plans (no divine purpose in the universe); fn
for a
sovereign God who is all powerful fn and who is the author of natural law (a
who has control or power directly over physical matter); fn or for miracles
divine intervention (God cannot change or revoke natural law). fn This
"mechanistic" view also eliminates the spiritual realm in the universe
spirit matter (with "intelligence") can influence or control physical or
spirit matter. This assumes that the spirit matter does not exist; fn
animals, and plants do not have spirits; fn there is no such thing as a God
with a
spirit; fn and there is no influence whatsoever from God to the spirits of
fn or to anything else in the universe. fn Obviously this view also
revelation, so there can be no such thing as commandments from God. Such a
relegates man (and other "living" creatures) to a position of being mere
machines with no agency or freedom to act by themselves. fn They can only be
upon, since all actions or events are determined completely by preceding
events and subsequent operation of natural law.

But that's not the way I was using the term, and I disagree with his choice
several words, including "supernatural." In any case, I am using it the way
Fielding Smith did, e.g., in Man: His Origin and Destiny (484):

A miracle is not, as many believe, the setting aside or overruling natural
Every miracle performed in Biblical days or now, is done on natural
principles and
in obedience to natural law. The healing of the sick, the raising of the
giving eyesight to the blind, whatever it may be that is done by the power
of God,
is in accordance with natural law. Because we do not understand how it is
does not argue for the impossibility of it. Our Father in heaven knows many
that are hidden from us.

And the way James E. Talmage did in Jesus the Christ (81):

That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father,
not in
violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation
and, the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial
and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the 'Son of the

The problem arises out of the word "natural," and is a limitation of our
By natural are we referring to the corruptible telestial world, or are we
referring simply to the fact that there are higher laws which are "natural"
which operate in *their* realms, and which we by their and our very nature
comprehend? I'm using the term in its latter connotation.

Stephen Beecroft wrote:

> -Marc-
> > We LDS do *not* believe God is omnipotent in the sense the Romans
> > used this term -- we believe he's subject to "natural law,"
> Perhaps you believe so. I don't. God's word defines "natural law". He is
> the master, not the subject. That is why he is called the Lawgiver.
> Stephen
> ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
> ///      ///

Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland

"Knowledge may give weight, but accomplishments give lustre, and many more
see than weigh." - Lord Chesterfield

Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author's
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///      ///

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///      ///

This email was sent to:

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to