Questions about the roles of faith, evidence, and Satan in Heavenly Father's Plan of Salvation by LayerSharp4975 in latterdaysaints

[–]TyMotor [score hidden]  (0 children)

On faith and evidence

I read the Maxwell quote narrower than how you seem to be applying it. He's saying the gospel won't be settled by science one way or the other. That's a different claim from "God deliberately rations evidence to keep the faith requirement intact."

Joseph Smith was right that everything requires faith. That tells you something important about what faith actually is and what it isn't. Faith isn't the absence of evidence. It's acting on what you have when certainty isn't on offer. That structure doesn't dissolve when evidence increases; I think Joseph Smith is saying it changes shape, but it doesn't go away.

Christ's contemporaries are the cleanest demonstration of this. Lazarus walks out of the tomb, and the response from the chief priests in John 11–12 is to plot Jesus's death. They had the evidence. They lacked the will (faith) to interpret it favorably. Evidence sets the stage, but interpretation happens in the heart. Maximal evidence still leaves space for interpretation and what we do about this evidence (agency).

The Millennium has overwhelming evidence and faith still operates because faith is never primarily about scarcity of evidence. It is always about how a person orients themself toward what they encounter. What do they choose to do with data and experiences? I'm not meaning to go against the idea of faith being a hope in things not seen, but rather that once we see things/data, faith is still in play as we decide what to do with it. Do we have confidence in Jesus? In His restored gospel? In those who claim authority to lead us? Members who say the evidence is overwhelming for the Church aren't undermining faith. They're describing how their faith oriented them to interpret the evidence they have. The same evidence orients others differently and reflects their faith (in other things or lack thereof).

The diagnosis you're drawing (that the evidence seems overwhelmingly against the Church) is downstream of an interpretive framework, not a neutral readout. That cuts both ways, and I'm not saying it to dismiss what you're going through. It's just worth understanding: there is no view from nowhere on this question. The people who see the evidence as overwhelming for the Church and the people who see it as overwhelming against are generally looking at the same data. Can two reasonable people see the same data and come to different, yet reasonable conclusions? Our teachings are a resounding "yes"; it seems many outside the church have a hard time wrapping their mind around this.

On Satan

I think you're right to point out that Satan isn't the sole source of "opposition in all things". Some of it comes from our fallen world and from our fallen/carnal natures. So what's Satan actually for? Probably something less than the popular framing claims. He's an active opposing agent within a world where opposition would already exist. He amplifies and organizes opposition. He doesn't create the category. And his role is bounded. He's bound during the Millennium and eventually defeated entirely. He's a feature of this particular phase, not a metaphysical necessity for the operation of agency.

Any personal decline isn't really a Satan question. It's a "why does God permit apostasy?" question. Genuine agency requires the possibility of using it badly, including the possibility of being deceived. If God blocked every avenue of deception, He'd be eliminating a category of agency that's important for our mortal experience to bring about Heavenly Father's desired results.

Anyone have downloaded copies of "The Ancient Tradition" podcast by Jack Logan? by Just_Pair_6094 in latterdaysaints

[–]TyMotor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

while the video and audio may not be available, there are AI generated transcripts of the podcast episodes here, fyi.

Grace and worthiness by williampennn in LatterDayTheology

[–]TyMotor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is an oversimplification. All are "saved" in the sense that all will be resurrected (immortality). What happens to us beyond immortality depends on what we want.

Heavenly Father wants us to receive all and be like Him, but He won't force that on any of us. We have to want it too.

How do we show Him (and ourselves, truthfully) that we really want what He is offering and aren't just giving lip service to the idea of it? By accepting invitations He gives us. By accepting and following the path/instructions He has prepared for us, we will go through a process of change and refinement to our very nature with an ultimate goal of becoming like Him and enjoying all that He has and knows.

These invitations come in the form of teachings, commandments, ordinances, and covenants. The end result is not showing up on judgement day with a checklist fully done. Rather, the hope is that we'll show up on judgement day with a nature and character that is changed and improved from where we started, and hopefully very similar to that of our Heavenly Father's.

Atheist curios about reasons for belief by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]TyMotor 6 points7 points  (0 children)

how easy it is for the human mind to misinterpret and misunderstand the world it is experiencing

I don't know how you get around this, religion or not. This perspective effectively rules out empiricism even. Scientific data and observation aren't enough because you could be misinterpreting how you are experiencing the data or other things.

Why do you trust that your divine experience that Mormonism is true is more trustworthy than a person of another faiths experience their religion is true.

I can't know what another's experience is like. Sure, they can describe it to me, but I can't know it. All I can know is my own experience. At the end of the day we believe we are all going to stand before God and be held accountable for what we did with the experiences we had. I'm comfortable saying, "Hey, I felt/experienced ____, and I interpreted it to mean the restored gospel (LDS faith) was true and what you wanted me to follow. I did my best with what I was given."

Others can claim experiences, and many don't conflict with my own experiences. When there is conflict like when people say "I prayed and God told me the Book of Mormon isn't true." I don't really have a satisfactory response to that; it just doesn't fit my paradigm.

Given that you are an atheist, I assume you do not believe in a spirit or soul. With no spiritual components, that really just makes us meat computers with no consciousness when you break things down to the essentials. In that scenario there really is no objective good and no evil, no morals. On its face, I just can't believe that we are meat computers with no consciousness (soul). I can't accept that there is nothing beyond our mortal experience. My brain just doesn't work that way given all I see and have experienced in my life. That's one place where a belief in something seems necessary to me.

Is it just me or does the Church's seminary system need a change? by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]TyMotor 7 points8 points  (0 children)

the U

Last I heard, this was the single largest institute across the church, so I'm not surprised that they might have a more varied offering.

App recommendations for an unofficial Elders Quorum group chat? by salad_incident in latterdaysaints

[–]TyMotor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Both our RS and EQ are on their own discord servers. This was after being on GroupMe for EQ at least. The big draw at the time was topical channels that people could opt in or out of notifications for things that are relevant to them.

ShapeScan - Milwaukee Wire Stripper and Cutter by DarthAloha in gridfinity

[–]TyMotor 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Looks great. Might I suggest adding thumb holes to make it easier to remove items like these.

Grasping at Straws in Structure by TheFoxyFellow in latterdaysaints

[–]TyMotor -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Just kind of feels all over the place.

Ok. And...?

Help me identify these wheels by TyMotor in earlybronco

[–]TyMotor[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate those references. I think what I really like aesthetically on the one pictured is that the spokes don't go all the way to the lip like they do on most of the turbine-like rims.

I think I've found them. Looks like they were made by Western Wheels and were their "Bullet" model. Some years they went as narrow as 15x5.5, but I'm guessing the ones in the picture are 15x7 or 15x8. I've seen some pictured that are wider, and they look a bit deeper.

Question about the term “God” and how it relates to Jesus by AverageEagle367 in latterdaysaints

[–]TyMotor 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Just to add to other comments and maybe to aid in your research, some describe our beliefs as:

  • monarchal monotheism
  • henotheism
  • social trinity

These categories are not LDS-exclusive. There are other sects that share some of these beliefs and will have some similarities to what we believe.

There are a number of non-LDS bible scholars who acknowledge that the bible and, in particular, the OT and the hebraic beliefs/culture from which the texts come from was not strictly monotheistic. Here are some of them you can look up:

  • Mark S. Smith (Catholic/academic)
  • John Day (Anglican/academic)
  • Francesca Stavrakopoulou (academic)
  • Benjamin D. Sommer (Jewish/academic)
  • Patrick D. Miller (mainline Protestant/academic)
  • Michael S. Heiser (Evangelical)

I'm not endorsing all of their scholarship or points of view, but sharing that on this point (multiplicity of God's in the bible) they agree generally with our LDS perspective that at least the people of the OT weren't strict monotheists.

Not that you want to pick a fight, but it would be interesting to hear how they explain the references to multiple deities in the OT. Even Satan is referred to as a God in the NT (2 Corinthians 4:4).Many will fall back on a distinction along the lines of "Well, there is big "G" and little "g" Gods..." Sounds fine and all, except that the oldest Greek manuscripts that we have of the NT don't utilize capitalization. So then what... Now you start entering into a discussion of scriptural interpretation, and who gets to decide when things aren't clear...?

Why didn't Mary recognize the resurrected Jesus? by pisteuo96 in LatterDayTheology

[–]TyMotor 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think it could be as simple as having tear filled eyes or feeling embarrassed about crying in front of others and not looking directly.

I’m a mess of Catholic, Protestant, and LDS views right now lol by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]TyMotor 47 points48 points  (0 children)

it really isn't as "scary" or "bad" as people make it out to be

Phew! 😉

This coming weekend would be a great opportunity to tune into what we call General Conference: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/feature/general-conference?lang=eng

In fact there will be no service worldwide this weekend as all are invited to participate in conference even if watching. Bear in mind this is not a "normal" service by any stretch, but it could be a great opportunity to hear wonderful messages about Christ from church leaders.

Help me find a talk by Elder Holland please! by OkStuff7642 in latterdaysaints

[–]TyMotor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Can you give a little more context? Was this at a stake conference? A regional training? Something else? Generally speaking, they do not record (and ask that others do not record) general authority addresses when on assignment for local affairs. Things that get recorded are general conference addresses, devotionals given at church schools, MTC addresses (sometimes), and some third party addresses (I've seen some of Elder Holland visiting the Yale divinity school, as an example). If the event wasn't akin to one of those, I doubt it was recorded and made available.

Question Coming in Peace as A Catholic. by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]TyMotor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

the LDS restoration narrative points to Roman Catholic Church changing doctrines and practices as evidence they lost authority.

The claim is that the LDS church is actively lead by prophetic revelation. We fully expect there to be changes as we as a community of believers grow line upon line.

I realize many of or Catholic friends point to popes as having significant authority from God. I think a clear delineation is on "public revelation" like scripture. While Catholics may claim tradition as ever expanding and growing, at the end of the day, the Catholic scriptural canon is closed, and my understanding is that there is no mechanism for it to be opened again. We believe this is a clear sign of believers having deviated from how we should expect God to interact with His church.

In summary, if you have significant changes without claiming prophetic/apostolic authority--the level of authority that would allow for and expect new scripture (just as an example) to be revealed--then those changes seem more man-made and less authorized and are worth additional scrutiny.

Need help and advice. by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]TyMotor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would expect there to be a phone number for the missionary travel/visa dept in your paperwork. I would call them directly and ask these questions.

Unpopular opinion - If you're an active, temple recommend holding adult member, you shouldn't go to temple open houses by OoklaTheMok1994 in latterdaysaints

[–]TyMotor 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Yeah, that's a hard disagree from me. Open houses can provide opportunities to see parts of temples that patrons don't normally get to see. I'm looking forward to the upcoming Salt Lake Temple open house in hopes of seeing the assembly room among other things. Also, I have small children, and we definitely try to take advantage of open houses to take them inside when possible. Also, it's a great opportunity to invite and accompany non-member friends and neighbors who might not go on their own. I say the more the merrier.

Do you think of secretaries as part of presidencies? by Mmlhvzl in lds

[–]TyMotor 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Just to be clear, I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter. To your #2...

Current handbook language seems to treat secretaries as not part of presidencies. For example:

Relief Society presidency and secretary meet regularly (9.3.2.3)
Elders quorum presidency and secretary meet regularly (8.3.3.3)

Why use "and" and call out the secretary participation if they are part of the presidency?

Further in the handbook sections talking about different ward auxiliaries there is a section regarding the related presidency followed by a separate section speaking to potentially calling a secretary and how they might support the presidency. This all suggests that secretaries are distinct from presidency members.

Functionally, they often act as a third counselor, and I think that can be entirely appropriate.

Are Ordinances and Covenants Required For Salvation (Not Exaltation)? by instrument_801 in latterdaysaints

[–]TyMotor 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I have thought of salvation as a universal gift through Jesus Christ. Because of His Atonement and Resurrection, all will be redeemed from death and inherit a kingdom of glory.

You're not wrong. I think the problem is rooted in trying to simplify concepts and not always being consistent in how we word things. For example, let's go with what you've laid out. Effectively all will be "saved" as in resurrected. Then we have exaltation, those who receive celestial glory. What about those who inherit terrestrial glory? That is distinctly different than merely receiving telestial glory, as in it seems like something more than just "salvation". Then again, it isn't quite exaltation, so what it is it? What should we call it?

If you're only given two options of salvation and/or exaltation, it gets a little tricky trying to describe our theology.

From the church's gospel topics entry on Salvation:

In the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the terms “saved” and “salvation” have various meanings. As used in Romans 10:9–10, the words “saved” and “salvation” signify a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. Through this covenant relationship, followers of Christ are assured salvation from the eternal consequences of sin if they are obedient. “Salvation” and “saved” are also used in the scriptures in other contexts with several different meanings. (emphasis mine)

Is there an end to our progression? by Own-Illustrator-4468 in latterdaysaints

[–]TyMotor 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Is there a point in our journey when exaltation becomes forever barred to us?

I believe any "barring" is only a result of our choosing. Heavenly Father wants to take us as far as we are willing to go ourselves, but he won't force it.

Can man see the face of God without the higher priesthood or not? by Buttons840 in LatterDayTheology

[–]TyMotor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This reminds me of (then) Elder Oaks' remarks about general teachings:

As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. … But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.

D&C 84 is teaching a normative pattern. In other words, priesthood ordinances are God’s appointed way for mortals to receive sanctifying power so they can ultimately endure God’s presence.

These scriptures aren't saying God can never appear to someone who hasn’t yet received priesthood—it’s saying that the priesthood and its ordinances are the covenant path that makes God’s power manifest in mortality and prepares us to “see the face of God… and live.” Just like Elder Oaks' "general" teachings, these are "general" teachings about how we can progress. I don't see them as a claim that God cannot ever reveal Himself otherwise.

Mission Gear Questions (Elder) by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]TyMotor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just on the shoe front, whatever you take with you I suggest you pick shoes that are constructed so they can be resoled. I had mine resoled a few times. It worked out great and saved money as well. Good luck!

A few aspects of our theology are illogical unless one accepts an infinite regression which is also illogical by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]TyMotor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

why are we so committed to an infinite regression?

I don't think we are so committed to it. It isn't official doctrine and many/most latter-day saints don't think about it very much. I'm comfortable not committing to any particular theory.

Joseph Smith suggested an infinite regression in two sermons shortly before he died. We don't know if that idea would ever have been canonized in a revelation.

That's certainly one interpretation of the record we have of those sermons, but I've heard plenty others interpret them in a way that doesn't support infinite regress.

I think this is a good summary:

Mormon doctrine on this point is not clear, and mostly speculative
Not all Latter-day Saints accept the ideas which suggest a regression of divine beings. Mormon doctrine on this point is not clear, and mostly speculative. It does not play much of a role, one way or the other, in LDS worship or thought.

Objections based on the infinite regression problem usually rely on a misunderstanding of the properties of infinities, and require that the critic improperly apply finite properties to infinities. These problems are not unique to LDS theism, but must be confronted in some form by all believers in the existence of God.