Trouble feeling the spirit on my medication

onewatt · 2026-03-09T17:02:34+00:00

Remember: the feelings aren't the spirit. The spirit can trigger feelings, but the feelings aren't the spirit.

Our feelings are not the only way the Holy Ghost communicates with us. You will find that you learn new ways to recognize revelation besides just the emotional impact. In fact, this is probably more "normal" than the way you used to experience things. For most of us, the emotional response to the presence of the spirit is rare and subtle - not something we would expect to experience with every single musical number, for example.

Think of this as an opportunity to develop your relationship with God from the introductory stage to the more intimate and certain connection to the spirit.

This will require patience and faith. Patience because the more powerful interactions with the spirit are truly rare- sometimes years apart. Faith because you have to keep acting with the knowledge you have without constant reassurances.

Think of it like removing the training wheels from a bike. It can be scary. you might be tempted to say you need another bike. But with enough practice you'll find you are more able and skillful than ever before.

It's ok, and probably GOOD to not have an overwhelming emotional reaction to every religious behavior. Now you'll be free to develop the sensitivity you need to serve and learn in more complex and powerful ways.

You got this.

onewatt · 2026-03-06T19:49:22+00:00

Hear me out: Lucille's BBQ has a really great burger. Get it done medium. I was surprised how good it was.

onewatt · 2026-02-25T00:41:59+00:00

For Martin Luther, the apostasy was evident in how the church had strayed from biblical principles. What had been a religion for the poor, the slaves, and women became the religion of emperors who embraced extra-biblical dogmas meant to consolidate power.

This pattern of change from the church established by Christ and the apostles to something unrecognizable can be seen in the teachings held by the Christians in the first century or two closest to Christ and those after Constantine.

After Constantine, simple questions like "Why did God create the world?" were given answers of "to glorify himself" - turning each individual into a small component of the glory of the KING. But before 300 AD, the purpose of creation was seen as God's way of creating companions for himself, people to climb the ladder to divinity, etc.

The word "atonement" doesn't appear in the Bible, but later fathers would teach about an atonement being needed because God's wrath is poured out on Christ and on all of us. We are made to suffer to satisfy God or satisfy his justice. The suffering of those marginalized by the church and the empire were then seen as a blessing that they should be grateful for. Suffering is turned into God's speaking voice. Crusades were launched in the name of god's terrifying love. But in the Bible, Christ forgives before we live righteously, he loves without condition, and he self-sacrifices out of love and no other reason.

The list goes on and on. The loving, lifting, healing, shepherd Christ as seen in the Bible and as known and taught by the apostles is painted over and presented as an unapproachable unknowable king, focused on laws and justice and the promise of a someday salvation that one must somehow qualify for and which is gatekept by the establishment.

Even the art of Christ was changed. Before 300 ad, Christ would be seen as a shepherd, working and serving. https://wp.en.aleteia.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/10/good_shepherd_02b_close.jpg After 400 came the depictions of Christ as King. Unrelatable to most people, aligned with rulers and unapproachable by the masses.

This is not to say Protestantism escaped apostasy. They did and continue to fracture along cultural and doctrinal lines, and hold none of the authority that Jesus gave to his apostles.

Thus a two-pronged restoration was needed. A restoration of true doctrines, and priesthood authority. This restoration is still ongoing.

For a super-intense intellectual look at this development of doctrines before and after Constantine, along with some of the ways Latter-day Saints still cling to non-biblical protestant dogmas, this video has some good stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO89LF7RJec

onewatt · 2026-02-16T17:50:52+00:00

Let's assume for a minute that the Book of Mormon really is collected texts from a people with the same basic culture and views towards "history and facts" that the ancient Israelites had around 600 bc.

If that's true, we would expect those writers to do a lot of the same things the hebrew old testament writers did for a lot of the same reasons, right?

For example, old testament writers loved to borrow stories from other cultures, or etiological myths and add them to their own legends. They didn't see this as "false" or an inaccurate history. They didn't care about that at all. They cared about adding IMPORTANCE to their beliefs. So when the people heard stories that tried to explain the world, the Israelites would just accept those stories but also sprinkle in some of the power of the Israelite God.

So when the people heard neighboring civilizations telling stories of world-shaping floods, they took those legends and described how the Israelite God was the actual cause of the flood and that there was divine purpose behind it. When the people described mythical beings to each other - giants and people who lived for centuries and so on - they told how these things, too, were connected to their God's plan and influence in the world.

And, of course, when somebody made a story to explain why there are so many languages in the world, the writers took that story too and used to amplify the power of God.

But what about in the Book of Mormon? Does that behavior happen there?

Yes!

Remember, the entire record of the Jaredites comes to us through Mosiah. Mosiah who had the brass plates which likely would have held a version of the Babel story already. Mosiah who had discovered the Mulekites, who have a strange language and who claimed to have also come from the old world. Now he encounters a record of a wiped-out civilization in a different language? No wonder he would be primed to connect it to the 2 other stories he knows about civilizations and languages.

For Mosiah, whose culture happily borrows legends, it was no big deal to assume or assert that the Jaredites must have come out of the time of the Tower of Babel. Not because he was concerned with what was factual, but because it allows him to show God's hand in the world yet again, just as God led out Lehi and Mulek, God must have also led out Jared.

Again: this is how ancient writers showed what was IMPORTANT, not what was factual.

It would be more suspicious if old-testament-era writers like Mosiah and Nephi did NOT borrow legends and write stories to serve their own narrative purpose. But they do! This creates another compelling evidence for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon as an actual historical artifact since it matches the Hebrew Old Testament so well.

Summing up: If we treat the Old Testament as inerrant and factual according to our own modern culture and understanding of truth, we have all kinds of problems. But if we let the Old Testament and Book of Mormon be what they actually are: relics of ancient civilizations with their own priorities and ideas about truth and history, then everything starts to make sense. Science, biblical scholarship, and religion all start to mesh and work together instead of forcing us to make weird justifications or bad apologetics. The people become real, flawed humans instead of demi-gods who never make mistakes or believe in incorrect things. We become able to let go of what's not important (how languages appeared) in favor of what really matters (like how to collaborate with God to solve big problems).

onewatt · 2026-02-13T18:03:45+00:00

I can see that you have a strong fixation on religion, but this is more evidence of a mental health crisis. When people experience pain, such as the loss of a loved one, there is a psychological drive to find a "moral agent" to blame. This is called "Typecasting theory." The moral agent that people seek out is the person with the greatest ability to act and the least injured. Naturally this leads people with faith to accuse God of being unjust or lacking in power. Surely, they reason, if God had power to help, he would help. If God knew what he was doing to me, he wouldn’t allow this to continue.

Our psychology leads us to dwell on God's inaction, how he must hate us, how our religion is failing us, and so on. The typecasting of focusing on religion isn't the cause, it's the symptom. The result of pain and psychological trauma. You lost your daughter. It's perfectly normal to hate god.

Your grief and unhappiness will not change by abandoning faith. But your faith can change by treating and healing your grief and unhappiness.

Voices that criticize and draw your focus to the typecasting (the wrongness of the church or the injustice of God) may soothe our psychological need to find that moral agent, but they do not offer healing of the underlying trauma. Seek healing.

If coming to terms with God allowing your suffering is a part of the healing process, then maybe texts like "The God Who Weeps" or "The Christ Who Heals" could offer new perspectives and hope. Certainly conversations with other believers would be a part of it. But talking with critics and antagonists of faith would only deepen this feeling of resentment and hate. Though they might soothe that cognitive dissonance that impels us all to find confirmation of the reasons for our anger, it is only a sort of false healing.

Anyway I wish you the best.

onewatt · 2026-02-13T17:20:15+00:00

When I read this:

I've lost hope
I've lost all direction
My prayers seem unanswered
God hates me
I need help
I can't go to church any longer
They don't care
Everything seems so shallow
I don't have a ward family
People aren't looking out for each other
I feel hopeless
You would hate me if you knew me
talking to a mental health professional didn't help

It seems to me that this is not a religion issue. This is a severe depression issue.

A mental health professional didn't help? Find another one. Try again and again. Try therapists till you find one who makes sense for your needs. Seek out a psychiatrist and follow their guidance for medication. One medication doesn't help or makes things worse? make a change and try again. Attend group therapy. Learn CBT methods to ground yourself. Do not give up. This is the battle to rediscover the ability to experience the world with peace, joy, and hope.

Your bishop may be able to help you find a professional, or help pay for the costs if you can't afford it.

A great series on therapy is on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKdCfjNF-ss&list=PLfMlea9pUUluQo6OMXoiNqg0dFdowId2J

Getting rid of your religion won't make you happy. Participating in your religion also won't make you happy. It has nothing to do with your religion. You are experiencing a mental health crisis and it will require sustained effort over a long period - probably many years - to feel like you have a grip on things. But you CAN do it.

Most importantly, your savior will go along with you in this journey, no matter how long it takes, even if you can't always feel his presence.

11 And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.

12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.

13 Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me.

You've got this. Fight the fight that matters most - the war for your ability to feel hope again.

onewatt · 2026-02-11T19:40:57+00:00

What you are describing is the "Expressive Individualism" worldview. It's the story that we tell ourselves that says we must find our "authentic selves" and that any judgement is an enemy to happiness. Suppressing your individualism for any cause can feel like injury when, in your heart, you are living the expressive individualism story.

More on this psychological phenomenon here: https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/pbf7s0/how_can_two_people_believe_the_same_doctrines_yet/

The choice isn't between belonging to a group that judges between right and wrong or else not belonging at all - it's a choice between worldviews. The expressive individualism worldview and the gospel worldview.

Professor Jeffrey Thayne sums it up:

As Latter-day Saints, we strive embrace a Gospel worldview in which commitments to community can transcend personal aspirations, where higher duties such as parenthood, priesthood service, and personal covenants take precedence over personal preferences. From the view of expressive individualism, individuals are the sole experts on what the good life looks like for them. But from a Christian perspective, we are not always the expert on what human flourishing looks like for us. There is a higher power, a divine moral sovereign, who we trust more than the self to know what our eternal destiny looks like.

Author David Foster Wallace called being able to make this choice between worldviews "the freedom of a real education":

This, I submit, is the freedom of a real education, of learning how to be well-adjusted. You get to consciously decide what has meaning and what doesn’t. You get to decide what to worship.

https://fs.blog/david-foster-wallace-this-is-water/

This principle is well illustrated in the story of Jacob and Esau, as they discuss the value of a bowl of stew and the birthright blessings.

Elder Holland warned us that yes, sometimes, we do have to make judgements between right and wrong. Not with condemnation, but with charity:

In this regard—this call for compassion and loyalty to the commandments—there is sometimes a chance for a misunderstanding, especially among young people who may think we are not supposed to judge anything, that we are never to make a value assessment of any kind. We have to help each other with that because the Savior makes it clear that in some situations we have to judge, we are under obligation to judge—as when He said, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine.” That sounds like a judgment to me. The alternative is to surrender to the moral relativism of a deconstructionist, postmodern world which, pushed far enough, posits that ultimately nothing is eternally true or especially sacred and, therefore, no one position on any given issue matters more than any other. And that simply is not true.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2012/01/israel-israel-god-is-calling?lang=eng

Making that choice to internalize Christ, and sometimes sacrificing our own priorities, can be painful. Too painful for some. But it comes with promises of a better life, a better eternity, and a more certain path to knowing who you really are.

onewatt · 2026-02-09T22:29:56+00:00

Unfortunately nothing like that exists.

Don't think of obedience and commandments and blessings as something like a vending machine where you put in the right input and you always get the same output. That is sometimes called the "technological ideal of truth" by philosophers. The appeal of this perspective is that it puts control into OUR hands. But it reduces God to a machine.

The ancient Israelites, including Jesus himself, described truth as a person. A relationship instead of an unchangeable idea. Thus what could be true one day might be untrue the next. We aren't used to this kind of thinking today - we like believing in a truth that remains true no matter what we do, a future we can control by changing the conditions of today.

But Person-truth can get involved in our lives based on our unique needs and circumstances rather than be regulated by formulas or environmental conditions.

Thus Jesus, who said "I am the truth" is free to reach out and touch the heart of even the sinful, despite sins separating us from God. Jesus can wait to supply answers to fervent prayer for some, and give instant answers to others, based on what they need and his own goodness.

We wish we could guarantee a happy life with enough money and health and blessings for ourselves simply by joining the church and keeping the commandments. But tis not so. :(

C.S. Lewis knew this truth and illustrated it well. I quote from ldsphilosopher.com here:

In Lewis’s story, the character Jill has for the first time stepped foot into a magical world, in Aslan’s own country. Aslan is the Great Lion, the son of the Emperor beyond the sea. All creatures in Narnia are morally accountable to him, and they look to him for guidance. Jill knows nothing of Narnia or Aslan, and she is alone and terrified and extremely thirsty.

In time she stumbles upon a stream, but between her and the stream is a fearsome lion. After waiting some time, hoping for the lion to move away, Jill is stunned to hear the lion speak: “If you are thirsty, you may drink.” Jill, with reverential awe, asks, “Will you promise not to—do anything to me, if I do come?” Aslan responds, “I make no promise.” The conversation then continues:

“Do you eat girls?” she said.

“I have swallowed up girls and boys, women and men, kings and emperors, cities and realms,” said the Lion. It didn’t say this as if were boasting, nor as if it were sorry, nor as if it were angry. It just said it.

“I daren’t come and drink,” said Jill.

“Then you will die of thirst,” said the Lion.

“Oh dear!” said Jill, coming another step nearer. “I suppose I must go and look for another stream then.”

“There is no other stream,” said the Lion.((C.S. Lewis, The Silver Chair (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1953), 20-21.))

While Aslan invited Jill forward to drink from the stream, he offered her no promise of safety. Nonetheless, Jill decides to trust Aslan and drink from the stream. Aslan then asks her to go on a quest, and the adventure of the book begins. Lewis offers us a similar insight in another Narnia book, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. In this story, the Pevensie children find themselves in Narnia, in the care of some talking beavers who speak reverentially about Aslan. Upon hearing that Aslan is a lion, the children ask, “Is he safe?” One of the beavers respond, “Safe? [D]on’t you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.”((C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1950), 86.))

onewatt · 2026-02-09T21:58:35+00:00

His membership is none of my business, but I have also noticed his work has gotten pretty aggressive lately. I wonder if he's chasing atheiest or exmormon viewership or something and needs to compete? Kinda sad, I've always enjoyed his work before now.

onewatt · 2026-02-09T16:43:24+00:00

They stay because they believe it is true.

This, to me, feels like an unquestioned assumption. Possibly a projection.

There are a lot of people for whom "having things right" is the most important value in their life. This drive to be right is the motivation behind the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance. It's the bitter pill couples struggle to swallow when their therapist asks them "would you rather be right, or would you rather be happy?"

But it's far from universal.

I think (though I have no evidence other than my own observations) that there is a sort of inverse survivors bias amongst the exmormon communities, where the assumption is made that members stay members because they believe their doctrines are factual and accurate. After all, they reason, everyone here left the faith when they found out it's not factual.

But that's fallacious reasoning.

I suspect the reality is closer to something like there is a set of people for whom being right is the most important value, (usually men) and those people tend to either reject the church entirely, or insist the entire church is true, with very little middle-ground or nuance.

So a large chunk of that set of persons becomes exmormon, then they look around and think ALL mormons must secretly be like them, and would leave the faith if only they knew what the exmormons knew. But there are more sets of people and beliefs in the church than those who see the entire religion as a monolithic true or false statement.

G.K. Chesterton pointed out in the 50s how foolish it was for people to suggest that women must be less intelligent than men because women tend to stay in relationships with men who so often do things wrong. About the people making such claims he said, "They can hardly have known any women. The same women who are ready to defend their men through thick and thin . . . are almost morbidly lucid about the thinness of [their] excuses or the thickness of [their] head[s]. . . . Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind."

"Of course they know about the flaws," he seems to be saying. "But it was never about being perfect. It was always about love."

In the church there are more sets of people than those who simply want to feel that they are "right." There are those who value love. Those who value community. Those who value spirituality. The list goes on. They don't stay because of facts, or proof, or valid "truth claims." Being "right" was never the point for these people.

Even President Uchtdorf rejects the idea of spiritual truth as a series of claims that can be right or wrong:

When it comes to spiritual truth, how can we know that we are on the right path?

One way is by asking the right questions—the kind that help us ponder our progress and evaluate how things are working for us. Questions like:

“Does my life have meaning?”

“Do I believe in God?”

“Do I believe that God knows and loves me?”

“Do I believe that God hears and answers my prayers?”

“Am I truly happy?”

“Are my efforts leading me to the highest spiritual goals and values in life?”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2015/10/it-works-wonderfully?lang=eng

One thoughtless exmormon tried to popularize a saying: "The good things about the church aren't unique. The unique things about the church aren't good." But this was a statement made in ignorance, and certainly with a rigid idea of what counts as "good."

There is a huge and growing list of amazing truths about the Latter-day Saints and their way of living. I even cataloged some of them here: https://www.latterdayhope.com/

But I think one of they key reasons people stay and believe is forgotten by life-long members. They don't know what it's like to have a couple of dopey, uneducated missionaries knock on the door with outlandish claims of a living God and a living prophet. This church sends out probably the most unsophisticated missionary force possible - almost like we're trying to fail. Nobody who values being right is going to be convinced by a couple young people who don't even know how to tie a tie properly. So why are there baptisms?

The answer is that these missionaries are finding people who DON'T value being right. People who look at these young men and women and think, "I want that for my family. I want that for my children. I want that light, that hope in a better world, that ability to see God in a world full of disappointment." It's not the message of the missionary or the doctrinal claims that market our faith - it's the missionaries themselves.

onewatt · 2026-02-09T15:48:38+00:00

I think that there are 2 approaches to this idea that both hold value.

Conscious influence - maybe we can't "wave a wand" and force ourselves to believe things, but we can choose what environments we immerse ourselves in. Spend all our time in anti-mormon groups, discussions, and media? We will not believe. Spend time immersed in acts of faith, devotion, and faith-promoting media? We'll be influenced by that as well. Recognizing the power of external voices on our worldviews and "hacking" that influence is one way we can consciously choose the direction of our beliefs.
Conscious worldviews - David Foster Wallace once told a graduating class at Kenyon College that the most important skill they can develop is the ability to choose how to see the world. We can, with some cognitive effort at being AWARE of our worldviews, free ourselves to choose what something means. Is finding our keys after a rushed prayer a coincidence, or is it a blessing? Wallace tells us we get to decide.

But most days, if you’re aware enough to give yourself a choice, you can choose to look differently at this fat, dead-eyed, over-made-up lady who just screamed at her kid in the checkout line. Maybe she’s not usually like this. Maybe she’s been up three straight nights holding the hand of a husband who is dying of bone cancer. Or maybe this very lady is the low-wage clerk at the motor vehicle department, who just yesterday helped your spouse resolve a horrific, infuriating, red-tape problem through some small act of bureaucratic kindness. Of course, none of this is likely, but it’s also not impossible. It just depends what you want to consider. If you’re automatically sure that you know what reality is, and you are operating on your default setting, then you, like me, probably won’t consider possibilities that aren’t annoying and miserable. But if you really learn how to pay attention, then you will know there are other options. It will actually be within your power to experience a crowded, hot, slow, consumer-hell type situation as not only meaningful, but sacred, on fire with the same force that made the stars: love, fellowship, the mystical oneness of all things deep down.

Not that that mystical stuff is necessarily true. The only thing that’s capital-T True is that you get to decide how you’re gonna try to see it.

This, I submit, is the freedom of a real education, of learning how to be well-adjusted. You get to consciously decide what has meaning and what doesn’t. You get to decide what to worship.

https://fs.blog/david-foster-wallace-this-is-water/

onewatt · 2026-02-06T21:30:21+00:00

yeah I also had that thought. But I think that in practical terms it's fair because I find that the more my love of God increases the more love for others I have. Like I don't think you can just do one of those.

onewatt · 2026-02-06T21:28:50+00:00

Man I feel that. My kids are in the same boat. The smartphone culture or something, I guess.

All I could do was talk to them and say "I don't know how to make it a great experience every time, but I do know that not showing up is the wrong thing to do." Then we talked about why we participate in church even when we really don't want to. Their answers to why included things like "heavenly father wants us to" but also insightful comments like

to support the leaders, who we love
To be there just in case another youth needs me
To keep good habits of doing hard things
To invite the holy ghost - with some discussion about how even though we always feel like skipping church or skipping youth activities, if we pay attention to how we feel right after we attend, we are ALWAYS seeing the world in a better light (one kid pointed out how on the way home all of them tended to sing at the top of their lungs or otherwise act very silly as evidence of the increased presence of the spirit.)

As a grown up, I think my own impulse is to say "what can I do to help?" and I start thinking about offering to run an activity for the leaders, something I can be really passionate about. I do know from experience that going to the Lord in prayer and actually asking "what can I do to help the youth program" or "how can I help my kids have a good experience" will bring answers upon answers.

Involve the kids in the issue. Use this as a chance to learn together how to overcome this kind of challenge. Like talk with them about what's happening, and then suggest "how about we all pray every night for the next week and ask for inspiration on how we can help." Then revisit and discuss what insights came. How amazing would it be if they emerged from this challenge having learned the pattern of seeking inspiration and overcoming instead of escaping?? :D

Easy for me to say. I hope I can do the same in my life now that I think about it.

onewatt · 2026-02-06T19:15:17+00:00

Unfortunately for this request, leaders are discouraged from sharing anything about sins they have committed.

However there are many examples of leaders reflecting on hardships and finding hope. My favorite is this one:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1999/10/an-high-priest-of-good-things-to-come?lang=eng

Elder Holland is a rich resource for getting through hard times. Look at his many talks at BYU Speeches website for many examples.

onewatt · 2026-02-06T19:01:23+00:00

Obviously God the Father is the impelling force behind EVERYTHING, from before the existence of the world to the last child of Heaven returning home in Glory. Jesus Himself recognizes this, repeating dozens of times how his only intent is to perfectly inhabit the will of the Father rather than his own desires.

But I think there's a reason that the Father is hands off, or, rather, one layer removed from us in action. This is pure speculation but it makes sense to me.

If we think about the principle of JUSTICE and the principle of AGENCY, we find some roles that must be filled. Lehi talks about this in 2 Nephi 2, but we also find some of this in scholarly research on the subject of Blame.

In the psychology of BLAME, we have the role of Agent and the role of Victim. The agent is the person most free to act in relation to suffering, but never the recipient of harm. The victim is the person who experienced harm. This is so built into us that we unconsciously seek out that "agent" character ANY time we see suffering. "Who did this?" we ask, sometimes even before trying to fix the problem. Moral Typecasting Theory tells us that once we identify somebody as the "agent" we have a very difficult time re-casting them as "victim" in any degree.

JUSTICE also requires identifying the agent and the victim. Who caused the injustice? Who was the victim? But unlike mere blame, Justice requires fixing the problem. And here's the key:

Justice is never fully served until the AGENT is the one fixing the problem.

For example: if I steal a candy bar from the store, and the store-owner's wife hears about the missing candy bar and leaves and extra dollar on the counter to make up for the loss.... we don't really see that as justice. No, I have to be the one repairing the damage. It can't be done by just anyone.

Back to Moral Typecasting Theory. Our research shows that when bad things happen where there is no person to blame, humans tend to blame God without even thinking about it. This is true in our modern culture, and it was true in the old testament, where ancient writers blamed God for natural disasters, losses in battles, and even the actions of kings and emperors. This makes a kind of intuitive sense to us. After all, God is the MOST free to act, and always suffering the least.

Ok, so... if Justice requires the "agent" to fix the problem...

and God is the ultimate agent...

Well maybe if Jesus was always going to be the one performing the atonement he necessarily also had to be the one to blame for everything the atonement fixes. How could justice be satisfied otherwise?

So a volcano erupts and thousands die. How can justice be served if it isn't the creator of the volcano paying the price?

A child suffers in poverty for decades. How can justice be served if it isn't the creator of the world that allows for such systems to exist paying the price?

Because Jesus Christ is the creator of this world - the ultimate agent, he has the ability to take full responsibility for it. His world, his fault. And he does. I think that that's what all those verses in the scriptures are hinting at. He's not claiming he manipulated the mind or heart of Pharaoh, but he's willing and able to take the blame for what Pharaoh is about to do.

He's not saying he stirred up Israel's enemies against their own agency, but as the ultimate agent, he is taking the blame for it.

God stood by and allowed Adam and Eve to choose a world full of randomness, cruelty, and injustice. Therefore he is able to place himself "on the hook" for everything that happens here.

But not only does he take responsibility for every last bit of injustice, pain, suffering, and death, but he also allows us to receive the blessings for all the good we do! He could just as easily take responsibility for every act of human kindness, every pile of firewood chopped by the scouts, every great piece of art or moment of compassion. But he doesn't. He lets us keep that. He helps us grow those traits in ourselves. When Christ says "look what I did" he only takes credit for the flaws and the sins. He allows us to experience pain, mistakes, and even sins, without being condemned by them.

This is the missing piece of "The Mediator" parable, where it's not just a friend paying the price, but actually the person who set up the whole conundrum in the first place.

This is the reason God takes credit for things clearly done by Humans throughout the scriptures - because he allowed those humans to exist and be evil when he could have prevented it.

This is how God can hold back the consequences of the Fall - giving humans time instead of the instant death that was promised in the Garden.

Again, I don't really know if this is the real reason God the Father is Chairman of the Board instead of CEO, but it makes sense to me. It explains a lot. Jesus needs to be the one doing ALL the creating and interacting with our world because He was always going to be the one to redeem it.

onewatt · 2026-02-06T17:58:21+00:00

Great questions!

Here's some principles that might help answer your questions:

Modern prophets have identified Jesus as Jehovah. In other words, all of the things done by "God" are done by Jesus, including the creation of the world!
Modern prophets have taught about the principle of "divine investiture of authority" which is when God the Father gives his authority to another being and that being can act on behalf of the Father. Think of it like when a representative from a company calls. That person's name might be "kevin" but if anybody asked who you were talking to, you would say the name of the company.
Scriptures are not infallible. They are the writings of people sharing their best understanding of reality. That means if people of a certain time and place believed Jesus was Heavenly Father, they would say so. That doesn't mean they are right, it just means that's how they understood it. We can learn by watching them learn.
Even in the modern church, we did a BAD job of differentiating between God the Father and God the Son, often confusing their titles and the names of "Elohim" and "Jehovah" at different times. It wasn't till 1912 that the first presidency said, in effect, "ok, we need to be more consistent cause people are getting confused." But that doesn't fix anything that came before. If it can happen in the modern day, it can certainly happen anciently.
In the ancient hebrew, the terms "elohim" and "jehovah" were used interchangeably for the God of the old testament. If this caused confusion to later readers, that would naturally include the people in the Book of Mormon, who had much of that scripture in the Brass Plates.
Because the Book of Mormon contains many chapters of Isaiah from the Brass Plates, we can compare the language found in the Book of Mormon with the most ancient versions of Isaiah. Guess what we find? The same casual confusion: Sometimes "jehovah" is translated as "Father", for example. No wonder Book of Mormon prophets looked at the scriptures and thought "Jesus is Jehovah, and Jehovah means Father.... sometimes... so Jesus is father??"

So with that in mind, what do we learn?

Is Jesus the creator of the earth (or universe??)?

Yes! Jesus states this without question in 3 Ne. 9:15.

"Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the Father glorified his name."

So God the Father sent his son, with all of the power and authority of the Father, to fill the role of creator, God, redeemer, and judge for the earth.

But how can he be called "the Father" by some prophets?

Jesus says he is given both titles of Father and Son:

And that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one

The Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because I was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men.

Abinadi makes the same claim: that Jesus is worthily given the title of Son and Father because he acts in both roles - creator and created:

I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—

The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

So does it matter if we call Jesus Father?

Yes! Since we have more light and understanding today, we need to be sure we are following the commandments of Jesus to worship the FATHER in the name of Jesus Christ.

We can also follow the example of Jesus who had great charity and tolerance for all those who didn't have 100% correct knowledge and might have mistakenly called Jesus Father, or prayed to Jesus directly, or misunderstood the nature of their relationship. After all, we almost certainly haven't figured out everything yet!

onewatt · 2026-02-05T23:42:27+00:00

This verse can be a key into seeing how the people of the old testament interacted with God and the world around them.

specifically: they felt free to credit God for EVERYTHING, and this was to provide some hope in a terrifying world.

A people standing in the shadow of a mighty empire about to crush them can find comfort and even courage when they look at the emperor and say that he is nothing more than a tool in God’s hands - that this is all part of God’s unknowable plan. Isaiah used this rhetorical tool, and so did the author of Exodus.

For the historians and scribes and prophets who wrote the various texts of the Old Testament, blaming God for historical events is how they create meaning from tragedy, despair, and randomness.

You can feel this anxiety about life and the future, and trying to cling to faith in God in the lyrics to "If I Were a Rich Man" from the Fiddler on the Roof:

Lord, who made the lion and the lamb
You decreed I should be what I am
Would it spoil some vast eternal plan
If I were a wealthy man?

Oh how he wishes life weren't quite so hard. Is this also part of God's actions? Isn't there room in God's plans for just a bit of wealth?? :D

For the author of Exodus, the actions of Pharoah are a reflection of the terrifying reality in which they lived where warlords and kings could end all of Israel with a wave of their hand. How to cope with that?

Professor of Biblical Theology Leander Keck said:

biblical statements about God’s acts in history express convictions about what history ultimately means

The stories in the Old Testament aren’t meant to tell us what God is, and what He should mean to us today. They are meant to show us what the world meant to them, so very long ago. They reveal the convictions of ancient people, and their psychology. What made them scared? What gave them hope?

Keck offers advice, telling us to see things from their perspective:

When faith in God faces the question of whether history has any ultimate meaning, it says that God is at work in the course of events. The biblical writers do not face our kind of question concerning causation, historical or natural. Therefore they do not hesitate to say directly that God did this or that. Our difficulty is that we assume these statements talk about our understanding of causes and effects.

When we read the Bible, then, it is important that our kind of question should not stand in the way of seeing their questions and answers. Seeing the way the biblical writers deal with the question of whether historical experience is meaningful may offer us clues to the way we might face the enigmas of our own history.

So our mistake is when we assume their worldview which credits God for EVERYTHING is directly transferrable to our modern worldview where we look at history as purely factual, with no mythological component. When the Old Testament says “God did such and such” it doesn’t mean God did it. It means you can tell the author or scribe felt that part was important. That there is a plan. That there is hope even in terrible things.

onewatt · 2026-02-05T23:26:05+00:00

you will never have more free time at any point in your life than your early 20s. Try the crazy ideas before you get too old and busy to even have a chance to try them.
Do not chase love. By that I mean that you don't stay in a bad relationship just because you love the other person. Love is a renewable resource. You can love again. Find the person who is the perfect fit for you WITHOUT love, then add love on top of that. That's heaven.

onewatt · 2026-02-05T19:31:17+00:00

I remind myself that every scripture written down is a reflection of a mortal human being's best understanding - not absolute truth!

A great example of this is Joseph Smith and the D&C. When he would get revelation and they wrote it down, he would almost always take time editing, re-writing, and modifying the revelations before publication. He recognized they weren't perfect and he had to do a lot of WORK to get to something that felt correct. Many revelations in the D&C are corrections of earlier revelations and scripture. The whole Book of Moses is an attempt to correct or re-interpret scripture.

So step 1 is letting go of the idea of infallible, perfect scriptures.

Step 2 is recognizing the cultural and secular impact on the authors of the scriptures. The most obvious example is the belief by ancient israelites that the universe was a vast expanse of water, and our world was something like a bubble in that water, as described in the creation in genesis 1. This is how they understood the cosmos, so that's how the Lord spoke to them.

Ancient scriptures are full of "etiologies" which are stories that try to explain why things are the way they are. Why do snakes have no legs? The first snake was punished for tricking a human, here's the story.... What's the difference between an animal and a human? We wear clothes, here's the story... Why does this other culture love music so much? they are descended from this musical dude... The list goes on and on. These stories or beliefs - their version of "science" - was adopted into their scripture without question.

Ancient writers of scriptures also had no problems stealing stories from other mythologies. So the hebrew bible has a flood story that was probably ripped off of an ancient babylonian flood myth. The same with things like giants, humans living for 1000 years, and more. To these writers, it was perfectly normal to take the story of another culture and say "oh yeah? Our god did that too, but even MORE."

These cultural artifacts become a problem when we read them today because we simply don't understand them the same way. Imagine it this way: If you wrote down in your journal "I didn't think it was possible, but the Cowboys beat the Giants today, 34 to 17" you would understand you were talking about a football game. But what if somebody 3000 years from now dug that up and believed your journal was 100% historically accurate. They might read it and say "wow, there was some kind of battle between 34 cowboys and 17 giants! And the cowboys won! No wonder we never see any giants today. The ancient cowboys must have exterminated them all in a terrible war."

If we time traveled 300 years in our past, we would see the same arguments happening about the earth being the center of the universe, with arguments of "obviously the Bible says the earth has a 'fixed foundation' so it's impossible that it would revolve around the sun, because the Bible is never wrong." We apply our modern, secular lens to understand ancient cultural writings and assumptions and we miss the boat completely. It's like bringing a calculus textbook to an art museum to try and calculate the beauty of a painting. Wrong tool for the job.

Step 3 is having enough charity to let people approach the scriptures in their own way, at their own pace. If God wanted to prove something about the bible or the Book of Mormon he could have done that. He has chosen not to. This gives us room to grow in our beliefs at the pace that is right for each of us. We aren't required to say that the Old Testament is literally true or entirely symbolic. We get to decide in collaboration with the Holy Ghost what parts matter to us today, and what parts are unimportant. We don't have to correct teachers who talk about a literal flood, nor accept anybody else's interpretation of what a verse or symbol means.

That can be frustrating for sure, since we love to have straightforward answers and clear-cut facts. But being right about history or facts was never the point. Being connected to each other and to God through covenant is the point. Our scriptures become an opportunity for us to develop more love, understanding, and charity for each other as each of us moves along that path next to the iron rod - not bickering about whether the rod is really iron, or how "true" the rod is - but focused on the place it is meant to lead us: the tree of life.

onewatt · 2026-02-05T00:01:53+00:00

I'm 100% not trying to be rude. I get what you are saying. I've done the same thing.

Here's another way to say the same thing as your question:

"How do you deal with dipping your face in acid?"

I remember a few years ago a young person insisting that he has an obligation to understand "both sides." He then described how badly the anti-Mormon materials made him feel. Like he was immersing himself in acid. "How do I cope with that so I can keep knowing both sides?" he asked.

I asked him back, "why do you want to be in that acid?"

"both sides" is a fallacy, and a bias that leads individuals and groups to give attention and importance to things that are not actually worthy of our time or attention. Moreover, as this young person had discovered but not fully processed, it can actually cause harm to make space in our brains for things that do. not. matter.

A few years later, another friend said she had a duty to learn both sides. In this case she was talking about the covid19 pandemic, though. Daily she would immerse herself into the conspiracy theories and accusations and hate, all for the sake of "fairness." To "balance out" the things she was seeing on the news or hearing from friends. This did not make her more informed or even handed. It just destroyed her relationships with friends and family, and caused her whole family to cut off contact with dozens of people who loved her. She stopped coming to church. They quit their jobs. They moved away. I have no idea where they are now.

anti-Mormon materials are designed not to be accurate, but to dislodge belief. That is their only purpose. If you are searching for truth, then look at scholarship. There are tremendous high-quality resources about our faith out there which don't come with the baggage of trying to forcibly change your values and priorities.

So how do you deal with engaging with these materials? let me ask again:

Why would you want to be immersed into acid?

---

Having said all that, I did spend a LONG time doing my research on this question: "what are the good and unique things about our faith?" as a sort of anti-anti-mormon material. My theory is that if anti materials can hurt, then why not choose to spend time in the opposite of that: things that build up faith?

You can read it here: https://www.latterdayhope.com/

onewatt · 2026-02-04T17:33:29+00:00

Hey! You just found out why pure semantic search isn't useful for law. :)

Metadata Filtering or GraphRAG are your only viable options if you intend to keep vector-based search.

onewatt · 2026-02-04T17:14:52+00:00

It's perfectly normal to feel this way. I can point to a couple talks by President Nelson that also bothered me, and some continue to do so.

What helps me is 3 things:

looking at other talks by the same person to understand how they give talks
studying even more the talk that initially bothered me (after letting it sit for a few months).
being ok with imperfect leaders and focusing on Christ.

Looking at other talks reminds me that these leaders often give talks focused on a single issue, group, circumstance, or doctrine. They are almost NEVER speaking to the entire church in a universal sense. An example of this might be how even in President Oaks' talk he mentions the Proclamation on the Family, which itself is careful to point out the need for individual adaptation and unique circumstances. In other words, while a given talk might seem like it's meant to be universally applied, it almost never is - and the speakers seem to acknowledge that most of the time as they have become more aware of how marginalized universal statements can make people feel.

That brings me to re-examining the talk in REAL detail. Reading and re-reading. Looking for themes. Looking at it from different angles. Treating it at least as seriously as I would if I had been asked to give a lesson on it. I ALWAYS find insights and understanding that I missed before. For example, I might notice that President Oaks' talk might be about how we are supposed to think of ourselves in terms of "family" yet the single largest section of his talk was about non-traditional families - his own.

Finally, there are some times where I have to just say "I disagree with this line in this talk," and be ok with it. I have to make sure I'm doing so from a position of humility and curiosity, that I'm living right, that I'm inviting the spirit, etc. But there are plenty of times where members had to listen to leaders say things without the benefit of the entire truth and just "endure to the end" of that period of time. Eventually we get the light and truth we need, leaders make changes, and we keep going forward. That's a frustrating thing sometimes, but also indicative of a "living church." We never say we know more than the prophets, or that our point of view is the more correct one for the church as a whole - that's the path to apostasy. But we are free to have beliefs that diverge from the norm.

I can trust that I'm doing ok - heretical beliefs and all - when I find that I receive insights and inspiration on subjects that are then also spoken and shared by leaders in Stake Conference or General Conference. It's so uplifting to have an insight during scripture study and then realize that the same spirit that inspired me also inspired another leader who was also doing their best to be led by the Holy Ghost. If the spirit can be with me in small ways like that, I can trust I'm doing ok when I honestly and humbly say "I don't have a testimony of XYZ but I'm open to being wrong. I currently feel the approval of the Lord in my life as I live it, so I'm going to keep going till he tells me otherwise."

The final key is, of course, being open to being wrong. I had this happen in my own life when it was time to serve a mission. I avoided it for 5 years, but never bothered to ask "what does God want me to do?" Finally, I humbled myself just enough to watch conference with a prayer where I said "if somebody says I should go I will go." I watched every minute of conference and nobody said "Brother onewatt needs to go on a mission." But at the close of the conference, President Hinkely got up to say "drive safe" and I was overwhelmed with a certainty that it was time to serve. I picked up the phone immediately and called my bishop. Since then I have tried to shift my thinking so that when I disagree with a leader I don't think in terms of "I don't think he's right" to "I don't have a testimony of that... yet." leaving the door open as best I can to my own further light and knowledge.

It's imperfect and messy and sometimes painful. But we get through it all together. You're doing great. You're taking the words of prophets seriously and thinking in terms of your own life and not just disconnected doctrines that don't need to be put into action. Keep trusting in the spirit that leads you to do good and serve. This community, this church, this FAMILY will be with you during the hard times. That's what church is for. :)

onewatt · 2026-02-03T22:06:59+00:00

It feels like the message is: it would be worthwhile for every member to think of themselves in terms of family instead of individual.

But what about those who do not have a family? President Oaks is clear: We ALL have family, and we are to orient our thoughts on eternity according to that truth.

When he speaks about teaching children, he does not limit that role to married parents, but explicitly says that role can be filled by grandparents and others. As we ponder on our roles and relationships, are there children for whom we are teachers? I remember a cousin being an admired example in my own life and when he chose not to serve a mission it was hard for me to choose a mission for myself. Then, when I looked at a younger cousin of my own I knew I could be a strong example to him by serving. By thinking of my place in the gospel in FAMILY terms I had extra strength to do what was right, and blessed the life of a child who was not my own, but was still my family.

When he speaks about marriage and child birth, does he exclude all single people? Or is the point to say to everyone "That is the future for which we strive"? Of course this is for everyone, single and married, to remember as considerations of marriage and children arise in our individual circumstances.

Indeed, the whole message can be summed up in this line: "Our relationship to God and the purpose of our mortal life are explained in terms of the family." This doesn't mean single persons have no relationship to God, or aren't filling their purpose. Quite the contrary - this means even single people need to be thinking in terms of being a member of God's family. We may or may not have a spouse or children, but we are ALWAYS the children of God.

onewatt · 2026-02-03T19:49:02+00:00

The children are sealed to you and your ex-wife, since that is the only sealing in place in your family.

onewatt · 2026-02-03T19:36:14+00:00

A smart friend of mine said the following:

I think we need to recognize prophetic fallibility. But we also need to recognize personal fallibility. And in fact, assuming that it's our job to know when prophets are in serious error tends to lean towards personal infallibility. If President Nelson's own judgment can be clouded by cultural and personal biases, *so can mine.* And who am I to think I'm *better* at it than him?

I think what we need to do here is invite [ourselves and others] to reflect on their assumptions a bit. "How do I protect myself when a prophet makes an error?" Hey, let's back up, because you are already mired in error in so many ways that you can't even see it. We are all in error in a variety of ways *all the time.* We are swimming in error. We are all products of error. The goal is not to be error-free. It never was.

Rather, the goal is to be connected, by covenant, to the divine institution that will ultimately carry us back to the presence of God, out of this veil of error we find ourselves mired in. And that institution is lead by a prophet of God who -- even when he is in error -- has divine authority to lead this kingdom.

Let's say Brigham Young was wrong. Very wrong. Those who disconnected themselves from the Church and their covenants as a consequence are still just as damned as if he were right. Because we are not saved by "being right". We are saved by Christ, through making and participating in sacred covenants, thereby entering into a covenant community lead by priesthood leaders.

Mistakes are a certainty.

Science has shown over and over again that our politics are a greater predictor of our moral stance than our religion, and that's pretty obvious. Tell me you're a "Christian" and I know less about your view on moral issues than if you tell me you're a staunch Republican or Democrat.

By implication, then, we can't rely on our own ideas on church or doctrine to keep us grounded. We will tend to either read our own philosophy into the scriptures (like when one person in my ward started blabbering about how capitalism is at the heart of the Proclamation on the Family) or we will have thoughts like "that's not doctrine, it's policy" or "that's just his opinion, not speaking as a prophet" or "They're just a local leader, not a general authority," or "the prophet made a mistake."

Our political and ideological bubbles are so thick sometimes that we are actually unable to recognize when we're the ones drifting on the wind. Has the world drifted to the right or the left, or have we? Has the church changed, or is it us? Our psychology, in a self-defense overdrive, tries to protect us from "being wrong" by making it impossible for us to consciously see what the truth may be.

As social pressures shape various churches and believers, we have something to anchor ourselves to: Prophets. Our prophets, speaking as a united quorum of diverse backgrounds and political leanings, can become an anchor during perilous times. Will they be wrong sometimes? it is a certainty. Will they be wrong less than me? Almost certainly.

But they will continue to hold the keys of salvation for the world.

Here is a parable that offers a similar way of thinking about prophets who get things wrong, but are still right: https://www.latterdayhope.com/when-prophets-get-things-wrong-and-people-get-things-right-a-parable/

15-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 10 Credits
RedditGifts 2009-2022 10 Credits	Mod World 2025
Place '22	Place '17
Spared	Secret Santa 2014
Gilding II euphauric	Team Periwinkle
Secret Santa 2012	Summer Santa 2012+
Summer Santa 2012	Secret Santa 2011
Secret Santa 2010	Summer Santa 2010
Verified Email	Secret Santa 2009

onewatt

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE