Why does life make it so hard to trust God?

[bluebell]

On 10/9/2026 at 12:27 PM, MustardSeed said:

That’s such a great wondering and can be very painful too.  
 

Do you think when something bad happens that it’s Gods will? Is everything Gods will? 
 

Maybe if everything is Gods will the trick becomes radical acceptance, a willingness to accept the ride.  Letting go of your own expectations can require some grief, no? 
 

Good questions.  I don't think I believe that everything is God's will, but I do think I believe that God makes choices to allow things He could stop from happening.  I do think that letting go of expectations is mandatory in my relationship with God, but I also think that we do have a right to expect some things from Him because of our covenantal relationship.  I guess I just need to better understand what I should expect and what I shouldn't.

And yes!  Letting go of expectations requires grief.  And anger too.

[bluebell]

On 10/9/2026 at 12:56 PM, Pyreaux said:

Reminds me of one of my pillars of faith in God. I know I believe in justice and will never not believe in it, justice will always be a worthy goal to me, but I know often justice is not found on earth. If I'm to proceed to have any hope that justice could be served, I must have faith there is some other force in the universe that will deliver that justice. Like Karma or God.

The Just-World Fallacy is looking at present suffering, authority, or legal outcomes and working backward to assume, "They must have done something to deserve this," or "The system got it right because the system exists." The just-world bias actively protects injustice by sanctifying whatever outcome currently exists. It mistakes the status quo for right. If you believe in justice too, we should keep striving for what should be, rather than blindly accepting what is.

I do believe in justice and I think you are right in that we can't hope for justice in this world.  I believe in mercy too of course.  I'm starting to learn how the existence of God's mercy is another example of His justice.  I don't think justice could exist without God providing us with a Savior, for example.  

[bluebell]

On 10/9/2026 at 3:04 PM, smac97 said:

A few quick thoughts:

1. Agency.  Ascribing all events to "God's will" only works in the broadest abstract sense.  His will was to have us come to earth to be tested and to learn and to grow, but His will is not that we should sin, injure others, violate covenants, and so on.  He gave us the opportunity to sin, apparently because of the "opposition in all things" concept, but He also gave us the means to overcome those sins (the Atonement, repentance).

2. Vicissitudes of Life.  The natural, unpredictable ups and downs, shifts in fortune, and alternating phases of good and bad experiences that every person encounters.  My dad, when discussing such things, would sometimes conclude with a shrug as "Well, that's all a part of living in a Telestial World."  His implication was not fatalism, but rather that we can and will find a better place of peace and rest, but that meanwhile we do our part as best we can, and repent along the way.

3. For my part, I have found help in A) retaining in my memory, and repeating, the attributes of God (He knows us, loves us, our "immortality and eternal life" are His "work and {} glory" (Moses 1:37), B) striving to be grateful, and C) striving to be humble.  Remembrance.  Gratitude.  Humility.  These help me cope with difficult times.

4. Back in 2004, Elder Dennis Simmons gave a great talk: "But if not..."  Very much worth a read.

Thanks,

-Smac

The But if not talk is one of my favorites.  It doesn't help me to trust God more or feel safe trusting Him but it does help me to still feel loved by Him.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Good questions.  I don't think I believe that everything is God's will, but I do think I believe that God makes choices to allow things He could stop from happening.  I do think that letting go of expectations is mandatory in my relationship with God, but I also think that we do have a right to expect some things from Him because of our covenantal relationship.  I guess I just need to better understand what I should expect and what I shouldn't.

Yes, you do have to experience something to learn from it. 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

And yes!  Letting go of expectations requires grief.  And anger too.

 

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I do believe in justice and I think you are right in that we can't hope for justice in this world.  I believe in mercy too of course.  I'm starting to learn how the existence of God's mercy is another example of His justice.  I don't think justice could exist without God providing us with a Savior, for example.  

Justice and mercy are connected, because the human idea of justice is often limited or flawed, which is why we might prefer a more perfect and wise Judge untangle it all. True justice isn't just about punishment. After all, what is justice for someone who was wronged or falsely accused, justice is mercy and vindication. It can mean restoring what was lost or fixing what is broken.

Earth often seems serendipitous, I think It mostly is serendipitous. Meaning events are not always because God caused it, but because we live in an imperfect world where free will and earthly randomness does happen. Rather than viewing our heartbreak as 'God's plan' and forcing ourselves to call it good, maybe faith is believing the truth that its bad or otherwise not God's will, but rather that God has the ability to ultimately repair, heal, and set right everything that went wrong. That the story isn't finished until both justice and mercy have its day.

[smac97]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

The But if not talk is one of my favorites.  It doesn't help me to trust God more or feel safe trusting Him but it does help me to still feel loved by Him.

I am wondering if you could help me a bit.

I've been working on this concept of "safe."  My wife uses it here and there, a therapist we went to used it, some others of my acquaintance use it.  It seems, by the usage of some, to refer to emotional or mental safety.  But then I'm not sure what that means.  For me, "feel safe" in this context appears to more or less be an expression of trust.  That is, "reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence." 

I provisionally reach this conclusion by asking myself if a statement like this makes sense: "I trust you, but I don't feel safe around you."  I haven't quite been able to make that work.  I would therefore like to better understand what you mean by "it doesn't help me to trust God more or feel safe trusting Him."  Could you elaborate on what you mean here?  I'd like to better understand your perspective.

In The Chronicles of Narnia, C.S. Lewis repeatedly speaks of Aslan - the Christ figure - as "not a tame lion."  I have thought that what he means is that Aslan is free, sovereign, and not under human control.

In The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Mr. Beaver tells the children that Aslan is a lion and, when they ask whether he is safe, replies: “Who said anything about safe? ’Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good.” Later the same book notes that Aslan “doesn’t like being tied down” and is “wild… Not like a tame lion.” The line is repeated across the series (Prince Caspian, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, The Silver Chair, The Last Battle, and others) whenever characters are tempted to treat Aslan as predictable, summonable, or subject to their expectations.

The point is twofold. First, Aslan cannot be domesticated. He comes and goes as he wills, cannot be kept or compelled, and does not exist to confirm human plans or expectations or comfort. Second, his goodness is not the same as safety or mildness. He is both terrible and good; encountering him produces awe as well as affection. Lewis is recovering the biblical sense of the divine as holy and other—powerful enough to inspire fear, not a tame pet who can be managed or reduced to moral sentiment.

Because Aslan is Lewis’s imagining of what the Son of God might be like if incarnated in Narnia, the repeated reminder functions as a guard against sentimentalizing Christ. The Lion of Judah is not a domesticated symbol.

So perhaps "safe" in the context of what Mr. Beaver meant pertains to something like this: "He is not 'safe' in that He may do things that we do not prefer or expect or fully understand, but He is good, so we can 'trust' Him.  Not because He is predictable or under our control or subject to our preferences and expectations, but because no matter what He does, and even when He does things that are difficult for us to understand, we can trust that what He has done is right and good and true."

Anyway, just some thoughts.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 21 hours ago by smac97

[Calm]

On 10/10/2026 at 8:43 AM, Teancum said:

How is this different though from say a walk in the woods or a hike to a mountain top that generates a sense of peace and calm?

There is no sense of security with the peace that comes from movement in calm surroundings.  No sense of another’s presence. 
 

For me at least, the experience of what I identify as the Spirit, as God is unique.  

[bluebell]

On 10/9/2026 at 3:00 PM, Teancum said:

How do you distinguish this feeling of God's presence from any other emotional response? Is there something that makes what you felt different or special from normal emotional reactions?

Speaking only for myself, there is something that differentiates it from normal emotional reactions but I honestly could not put it into words in any way that would make sense.  I can only say that I perceived it as being very direct and from a space that was outside of myself.

But I don't want to give the impression that every interaction with the divine feels that unique way for me.  I believe I have received answers to prayers or been guided but it was much more nebulous and could have easily been a normal reaction (emotional isn't how I would describe it).  At those times I ascribed it to God because of what would probably best be described as circumstantial evidence.  

[bluebell]

On 10/9/2026 at 3:06 PM, Teancum said:

I used to love this quote. I came to feel differently about it. So my honest, and not taunting question to you is, why? Why would a loving God test and try us, intentionally intentionally, in such a way in order to inherit the celestial glory? Why?  It seems cruel to me. Would any of us intentionally inflict such suffering on one of our children?

 I have no answers but someone a few weeks ago talked about how maybe this life is better understood less as a test that God has designed and more as a prerequisite that must be accomplished (not because He capriciously decided it but because there is no way, no literal way, for us to be able to access the celestial kingdom without the changes that mortality creates, not just physically but in all the ways).

That person described it a lot better and it was actually connected to physics and the laws of physics (if I remember right it was the specific laws dealing with entropy) so it was a way cooler and more in depth explanation than my pitiful description of it, but it made a lot of sense to me.   

[bluebell]

On 10/10/2026 at 12:23 PM, ManyHobbies said:

I'm struggling a lot with this right now. I can absolutely see the hand of God guiding my life in numerous ways, but I'm definitely unhappy with the place that I've been guided to. 

It is really hard to deal with the idea that God's plan for you includes major disappointments that won't be fixed in this life, or that God is putting you through suffering that feels completely unnecessary or pointless. Or that God will block your efforts to improve your situation or is withholding good things from you that He freely gives to other people, because it's all part of God's plan for you. 

The idea that God would cause a bad situation to come to you, and there is nothing that you could have done to avoid it because it's God's will, is hard to deal with. I'm right there now. I do take a little consolation in the idea that if God put this bad thing in my life, then I am not responsible for causing it. I am still responsible for working through it, but I can exonerate myself of the responsibility for causing it. 

I completely get the trust issue. You can completely trust God, and your worst fears can still come true. You can give your life and your will over to God and still end up in the exactly the bad situation that you didn't want to end up in. 

I don't have a good answer. What I am doing right now is trying to frame it as the idea that I have to go through this bad situation whether I want to or not, and that at some point, it will be over. I'm even past the point where I would ask what I can learn from it or what God is trying to teach me. I just know that at some point, the situation will be over, because no season lasts forever. That's the best I can do with it right now. 

 

 

Welcome to the board and thank you for sharing your thoughts.  It's comforting to know that I'm not alone. 

I like what you said about what you are doing right now.... I find that's how I have to operate as well.  Find what gets me through at that time.  It might not be what helps the next time but so far there has always been something else that gets me through the next time so I find comfort in that.  And comfort in how every time I throw my hands up in the air and decide that I'm just going to take a step back from my relationship with God, or decide that something in the gospel isn't true, the spirit won't seem to let me.  I mean, if I continued to push those impressions away or was determined to change the relationship He would let me I know.  But He's never let me go that direction without trying to argue against it first, and that is probably one of the greatest blessings I'm given, even if I don't appreciate it all the time.

(hopefully that makes sense)

[bluebell]

21 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I don’t know that there is any doctrine that supports the idea that God creates hardships for the purpose of teaching a specific lesson.  I know our Sunday language suggests that but I really don’t know that anything backs that up? 

I agree, I don't think He creates hardships, but rather allows them.  In the thick of it, it doesn't always feel like there is a difference in those ideas.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am wondering if you could help me a bit.

I've been working on this concept of "safe."  My wife uses it here and there, a therapist we went to used it, some others of my acquaintance use it.  It seems, by the usage of some, to refer to emotional or mental safety.  But then I'm not sure what that means.  for me, "feel safe" in this context appears to more or less be an expression of trust.  That is, "reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence." 

I provisionally reach this conclusion by asking myself if a statement like this makes sense: "I trust you, but I don't feel safe around you."  I haven't quite been able to make that work.  I would therefore like to better understand what you mean by "it doesn't help me to trust God more or feel safe trusting Him."  Could you elaborate on what you mean here?  I'd like to better understand your perspective.

In The Chronicles of Narnia, C.S. Lewis repeatedly speaks of Aslan - the Christ figure - as "not a tame lion."  I have thought that what he means is that Aslan is free, sovereign, and not under human control.

In The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Mr. Beaver tells the children that Aslan is a lion and, when they ask whether he is safe, replies: “Who said anything about safe? ’Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good.” Later the same book notes that Aslan “doesn’t like being tied down” and is “wild… Not like a tame lion.” The line is repeated across the series (Prince Caspian, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, The Silver Chair, The Last Battle, and others) whenever characters are tempted to treat Aslan as predictable, summonable, or subject to their expectations.

The point is twofold. First, Aslan cannot be domesticated. He comes and goes as he wills, cannot be kept or compelled, and does not exist to confirm human plans or expectations or comfort. Second, his goodness is not the same as safety or mildness. He is both terrible and good; encountering him produces awe as well as affection. Lewis is recovering the biblical sense of the divine as holy and other—powerful enough to inspire fear, not a tame pet who can be managed or reduced to moral sentiment.

Because Aslan is Lewis’s imagining of what the Son of God might be like if incarnated in Narnia, the repeated reminder functions as a guard against sentimentalizing Christ. The Lion of Judah is not a domesticated symbol.

So perhaps "safe" in the context of what Mr. Beaver meant pertains to something like this: "He is not 'safe' in that He may do things that we do not prefer or expect or fully understand, but He is good, so we can 'trust' Him.  Not because He is predictable or under our control or subject to our preferences and expectations, but because no matter what He does, and even when He does things that are difficult for us to understand, we can trust that what He has done is right and good and true."

Anyway, just some thoughts.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think that I struggle to trust God because I struggle to feel safe in His care.  Does that make more sense?  It's hard to talk about such nebulous concepts sometimes.

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is no sense of security with the peace that comes from movement in calm surroundings.  No sense of another’s presence. 
 

For me at least, the experience of what I identify as the Spirit, as God is unique.  

Unique is the only way that I can find to describe it as well.

[smac97]

On 10/9/2026 at 3:00 PM, Teancum said:

How do you distinguish this feeling of God's presence from any other emotional response? Is there something that makes what you felt different or special from normal emotional reactions?

I hope you won't mind me responding to your inquiry to Bluebell.  Feel free to disregard if I am out of line.

I addressed this inquiry back in 2021.  It's a bit verbose, so here is a "TLDR" version generated by Grok, followed by the longer version:

TLDR Version:

Quote

I think we should have a testimony of the fundamentals, as derived from the Spirit, with the Book of Mormon and Moroni’s Promise as the catalyst. Everything else is downstream from those fundamentals.

1. Michael Ash’s Four-Legged Stool

Michael Ash has suggested that Latter-day Saints approach truth with four legs of a stool: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. Using all four is more reliable than relying on any one exclusively. The other three legs help vet personal revelation.

2. The Hafens’ Tripartite Progression

Elder Bruce C. Hafen and Sister Marie K. Hafen describe a progression from untested simplicity, through complexity (where we juxtapose the ideal and the real), to a tested simplicity on the other side of complexity. Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: “I would not give a fig for the simplicity on this side of complexity. But I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.” Stage 2 is where many struggle. Part of the answer is to seek the simplicity that transcends complexity.

3. Distinguishing the Spirit from Emotion

Consider:

• Duration: Cumulative confirmation over time tends toward a more constant sense of peace and enlightenment than fleeting emotion.
• Circumstance: Emotional thrills (sports, concerts) are real but are not how God ordinarily communicates fundamental truths. Doctrine and Covenants 9:8 and Elder Oaks’s description of the still small voice are relevant.
• Apparent purpose: From God’s perspective, is there a discernible purpose, or is the feeling a mundane response to stimuli?
• Effect on behavior: Moroni 7:16–17 teaches that whatever invites to do good and believe in Christ is of God; whatever persuades to evil and unbelief is not.

4. Defining Terms

The first three temple recommend questions ask about a testimony of God, the Atonement, and the Restoration. The rest ask whether we sustain, strive, or obey. Joseph Smith said the fundamental principles concern Jesus Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and ascension, “and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.” A testimony of the Word of Wisdom, for example, is derivative of those fundamentals. Doctrine and Covenants 76:22–24 is the culminating testimony.

5. Additional Resources

Daniel Peterson’s “The Reasonable Leap into Light” and “The Logic Tree of Life,” Davis Bitton’s “I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church,” and William Hamblin’s essay on Book of Mormon geography help clarify pitfalls in diluting the meaning of testimony.

On the additional questions:

• Experiencing one of the scriptural descriptions of the Spirit (burning of the bosom, peace, joy, etc.) can constitute confirmation.
• The devil can produce credible counterfeits. Lust can be confused for love; a correct principle can be distorted; charismatic figures can present a form of godliness while denying its power (2 Timothy 3; Romans 10). In The Last Battle, Shift mixes a little truth with his lie about Aslan, making the deception stronger. That pattern appears in some treatments of LDS doctrine and history. Ash’s four-legged stool is useful because each leg counterbalances the others.
• Experiences of God are reliable; determining which those are returns us to the four legs. Paul, Jacob, and Joseph Smith all note that the devil can appear as an angel of light.
• There are things the Spirit will not speak on. Moses was told not to inquire further about certain matters. Reasons can include that the information is not yet to be revealed or that the person is not prepared.
• We sometimes make discernment harder than it needs to be. See the simplicity on the other side of complexity. In the end we walk by faith, not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7).

Original Version:

Quote

Quote

Its the age old question, how do we recognize the spirit? How do we differentiate between my feelings and the spirit?

I think we should have a testimony of the fundamentals, as derived from the Spirit, with the Book of Mormon / Moroni's Promise as the catalyst.  Everything else is derivative of, is "downstream" from, those fundamentals.

A few thoughts:

1. Michael Ash's Four-Legged Stool:

I have found this comment from Michael Ash very helpful:

Quote

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation.  Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively.

2. Hafens' Tripartiate Progression (Untested Simplicity --> Complexity --> Tested/Proven Simplicity):

I've posted this a few times now:

Quote

Quote

Elder Bruce C. Hafen, an emeritus General Authority Seventy for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Sister Marie K. Hafen, once a member of the church’s Young Women general board, have just penned a refreshingly frank book— "Faith is Not Blind" (Deseret Book) — providing powerful paradigms for navigating faith in increasingly complex times.

In 2008, Elder Hafen delivered a devotional address at Brigham Young University (where he once served as dean of the law school and later as provost). His remarks centered on the lifelong journey of Christian discipleship.
...
Their new book extends this kind of faith-affirming discussion beyond the halls of BYU (or the ambiance of the local Olive Garden) and into the hearts of discerning Latter-day Saints of all ages.
...
But, with regard to style (the book is a breezy 130 pages) and substance, the Hafens clearly have a specific audience in mind — young adults.
...
The book amounts to one of the more readable, yet authoritative contributions to the expanding genre of literature speaking to the religious concerns of the rising generation.
...
A central cause of faith crisis in any age arises when we apprehend a gap between the real and the ideal. Simply minding this gap without ever bridging it arrests many a faith journey. The Hafens quote American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes: “I would not give a fig for the simplicity (on) this side of complexity. But I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.”

They propose a tripartite model of spiritual progression. It begins with childlike simplicity — “innocent and untested.” Then stage two commences as believers juxtapose the ideal and the real. This is where “we struggle with conflicts and uncertainty.” But those who successfully navigate this stage arrive at, in Holmes’ words, a simplicity that transcends complexity — “a settled and informed perspective that has been tempered and tested by time and experience.”

So we have:

Stage 1 ("Innocent and Untested") --> Stage 2 ("Juxtaposing the Ideal and the Real") --> Stage 3 ("Informed Perspective of Complexity-Transcending Simplicity Tempered by Time and Experience").

This seems about right.  Stage 2 is, I think, where a lot of members of the Church are struggling and giving up.

Part of the answer, I think, is to seek simplicity that transcends, that is on the other side of, complexity.

3. My Attempt at a Framework:

Here is a framework I tried to develop a few years ago (responding to a friend's inquiry that was fairly similar to yours) :

Quote

A) Consider the Duration of the Feeling:

 I read The Book of Mormon several times prior to this experience.  As a teenager, for an extended period I read it every night and prayed about it.  Over time I gained a cumulative spiritual confirmation that the book was true, that it is what it claims to be.  

After graduating from high school, I served 18 months in the military.  During this time I also had several spiritual experiences, mostly centered on The Book of Mormon, on Jesus Christ as savior, and also about Joseph Smith as a genuine prophet.  

Then I served a two-year mission and had more experiences, centered on the scriptures, on Jesus Christ, but also on the testimonies of people in Taiwan who joined the Church despite the language barriers, cultural impediments, and significant familial disapproval.  Converting from Buddhism / ancestor worship to Christianity was very difficult for many of these people, but they did so largely based on what they felt and determined to be the Spirit.  

Then I returned home and shortly thereafter had a very strong spiritual experience that, for me, solidified my previous cumulative experiences into a more cohesive whole, and also helped me differentiate "emotion" (which, as you have described, is "fleeting"), and the Spirit (which is "something more constant and which because a more permanent feeling of peace and comfort and enlightenment, etc.").

B) Consider the Circumstance of the Feeling:

A person may be able to determine whether a particular feeling derives from the Spirit or from mere emotional response to stimuli by looking at the source or circumstance of the feeling.  How did the feeling come about?  For example, every day there are sports fans all around the world who scream and shout in support of their particular team (we currently have a Brazilian exchange student living with us, and soccer looms very large in his life).  Are these people being influenced by “the Spirit?”  Generally not.  Sporting events are exciting, emotional.  My point in saying “consider the source” is to look at it from God’s perspective.  Does God communicate important and fundamental truths to His children through the emotional response they experience at a football game?  Probably not. 

So a person can, to some extent, differentiate “emotion” from “the Spirit” by examining the circumstances in which the experience occurred.  This is particularly helpful when you consider the teachings of the LDS Church.  For example, D&C 9:8 states: “But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.”  Elder Oaks put it this way: “We should recognize that the Lord will speak to us through the Spirit in his own time and in his own way. … We cannot force spiritual things … In most cases, ‘his own way’ is not the thunderous interruption or the blinding light, but what the scriptures call ‘the still small voice’ (1 Kgs. 1 Kings 19:12; 1 Ne. 1 Nephi 17:45; D&C 85:6). … We need to know that the Lord rarely speaks loudly. His messages almost always come in a whisper” (“Teaching and Learning by the Spirit,” Ensign, Mar. 1997, 10–12).

I had a very important spiritual experience just after I returned from my mission.  It was “important” not because it was extraordinarily powerful, or overwhelming, or any of the other adjectives that we Latter-day Saints – perhaps on occasion inappropriately – apply to important spiritual experiences.  Rather, it was “important” because of its clarity.  And its “clarity” arose because it occurred in circumstances in which confusing the Spirit with emotion was pretty much not possible.  

C) Consider the Apparent Purpose of the Feeling:

Another way to distinguish “emotion” from “the Spirit” is to again look at the experience from God’s point of view, and this time try to ascertain the *purpose* of the feeling.  That is, if God is trying to communicate with you, is He doing so in circumstances which have a discernible purpose?  Or is the feeling more properly attributed to a mundane response to emotive stimuli?

Let me give you an example: In high school I was a huge fan of music, mostly classical (Mozart, Beethoven, Dvorak), movie soundtracks (John Williams), and musicals (Andrew Lloyd-Webber, Stephen Sondheim).  My high school’s marching band, of which I was a part, once traveled to LA to participate in a competition, and while there we saw Michael Crawford perform “Phantom of the Opera” in the Ahmanson Theatre.  I returned to Utah and began listening to the soundtrack on a regular basis.  I would retire to a darkened room in our house and listen to most of the tracks on really good headphones, with the volume turned up, and I would re-visit the staged play in my head.  By the time I would reach the last track, with the full orchestra at a crescendo, and the Phantom singing “It’s over now … the Music of the Night…”, I felt a tremendous thrill.  (Yeah, this is geeky, I know.   If you question my masculine bona fides, I refer you to the last play of the 2006 BYU-Utah game, in which Johnny Harline caught the winning pass in the end zone.  Here’s a YouTube vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dflMnmCCZk.  I remember being pretty thrilled about that, too.)

So here I am, a guy who felt *something* very strongly when listening to “Phantom of the Opera” in high school and, later, when watching a football game on TV.  However, these circumstances were not ones which I would think God would use to convey spiritual promptings.  These were instead merely emotive reactions.

D) Consider the Feeling’s Effect on Behavior:

Another factor to consider is to evaluate a feeling’s effect on your behavior and ask whether the behavior prompted by the feeling is conducive to God’s will.  If yes, then it could be the Spirit, but if not, then the feeling is likely just an emotive response.  I think this principle is described well in Moroni 7:16-17:

Quote

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

So there you are.  I think a person can differentiate between the Spirit and “mere emotion” by analyzing feelings and considering A) their duration, B) the circumstances in which they occurred, C) their apparent purpose, and D) their effect on behavior.

4. Defining Terms and Parameters:

I think it is helpful for us to occasionally re-examine what it means to have a testimony.  Consider the Temple Recommend questions (emphases added) :

Quote

1. Do you have faith in and a testimony of God, the Eternal Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost?
 
2. Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and of His role as your Savior and Redeemer?
 
3. Do you have a testimony of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ?
 
4. Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?

5. Do you sustain the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators?
Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local leaders of the Church?

5. The Lord has said that all things are to be “done in cleanliness” before Him (Doctrine and Covenants 42:41).
Do you strive for moral cleanliness in your thoughts and behavior?
Do you obey the law of chastity?
 
6. Do you follow the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ in your private and public behavior with members of your family and others?
 
7. Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
 
8. Do you strive to keep the Sabbath day holy, both at home and at church; attend your meetings; prepare for and worthily partake of the sacrament; and live your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?
 
9. Do you strive to be honest in all that you do?
 
10. Are you a full-tithe payer?
For new members seeking a limited-use recommend: Are you willing to obey the commandment to pay tithing?
 
11. Do you understand and obey the Word of Wisdom?
 
12. Do you have any financial or other obligations to a former spouse or to children?
If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?
 
13. Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple, including wearing the temple garment as instructed in the endowment?
 
13. Are there serious sins in your life that need to be resolved with priesthood authorities as part of your repentance?
 
14. Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord’s house and participate in temple ordinances?

Note that the first three pertain to having "a testimony," the rest are "do you sustain," "do you strive," "do you obey," etc.

As Joseph Smith put it: 

Quote

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121).

And, of course, there is D&C 76:

Quote

22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—

24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

So should a person have a testimony of, say, the Word of Wisdom?  Or is that derivative of having a testimony of the "fundamental principles of our religion?"

5. Additional Resources:

I would point an interested party to the following essays:

• The Reasonable Leap into Light: A Barebones Secular Argument for the Gospel (Daniel Peterson)
• I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church (Davis Bitton)
• The Logic Tree of Life, or, Why I Can’t Manage to Disbelieve (Daniel Peterson)
• Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon (William Hamblin)

Reading these have helped me understand some pitfalls, however well-intentioned, can be dug when we dilute the meaning of "testimony."

Quote

Additional questions to ask ourselves:

- Feeling the spirit has been described as a burning of the bosom, love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance, an audible voice, thoughts in our mind, visions, dreams and more. Does experiencing just one of these things constitute spiritual confirmation?

It can.

Quote

- Are there things the devil can recreate? If so, how accurately?

I think he can create some pretty good counterfeits.  That's his thing.  Lust can be confused for love.  A correct principle can be distorted into something wrong.  A charismatic figure can say or write things that are, as Paul put it, "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof."  An individual or group may, as Paul also put it, "have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge," as they are "ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

I am reminded here of a part of C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle, the last book in The Chronicles of Narnia series.  A key plot line in the book involves Shift, a talking ape who lived near his friend/servant, Puzzle the donkey.  Here's a character summary:

Quote

Shift's greed served as his primary motivation. His actions to satisfy his greed increased his vileness over time. From lying to his "friend" Puzzle, he moved to manipulating the other talking animals of Narnia. In the end he had no problem murdering them and selling them into slavery to increase his own wealth and power.

As Shift's actions became increasingly evil, he also became increasingly human in his appearance and in the way he presented himself. He donned human clothing and explained that he was not an ape, and that if he appeared as one, it was only because he was "so very old: hundreds and hundreds of years old."

Shift gained the power to pursue these actions by tricking Puzzle into impersonating Aslan, the true ruler of Narnia, using his claimed humanity as 'evidence' of his great wisdom to justify how he was the only one who could speak to Aslan.

Shift's scheme is summed up this way:

Quote

Shift, a Narnian ape, had been conspiring with the Tisroc, planning the overthrow of Narnia, for a long time. One day, as he was walking by Cauldron Pool with his friend Puzzle, they found the skin of a dumb lion who had been killed by a hunter in the Western Wild. Shift, ignoring Puzzle's protests, sewed the skin into a "fine new winter coat" for Puzzle, as he said. Gradually, he persuaded the donkey that Aslan wanted him to dress up in the lion skin so that Shift could use the Lion's authority to "put everything right" in Narnia. Although Puzzle was hesitant, he knew that Shift was far cleverer than himself and thought that the ape must know what Aslan would want, so he agreed.

...

Shift used the animals' firm faith in and longing for Aslan's return to facilitate his rise to power. He allowed Puzzle in the lion's skin to be sighted by several animals to start rumors, and then presented him openly to all the beasts...

The heroes of the story, Jill and King Tirian, encounter Puzzle wearing the lionskin and sort out Shift's scheme.  They intend to expose the scheme, but before they can do so Shift (who by this point is in league with Rishda Tarkaan, a captain of the Calormenes, the enemies of Narnia, and who has discovered Puzzle's absence) takes the scheme even further:

Quote

Rishda Tarkaan dragged the Ape up close to the fire. The pair of them turned to face the crowd, and this of course meant that their backs were towards Tirian and his friends.

"Now, Monkey," said Rishda Tarkaan in a low voice. "Say the words that wiser heads have put into thy mouth. And hold up thy head." As he spoke he gave the Ape a little prod or kick from behind with the point of his toe.

"Do leave me alone," muttered Shift. But he sat up straighter and began, in a louder voice——

"Now listen, all of you. A terrible thing has happened. A wicked thing. The wickedest thing that ever was done in Narnia. And Aslan ... is very angry about it."

There was a terrible silence while the Beasts waited to hear what new trouble was in store for them. The little party by the end-wall of the stable also held their breath. What on earth was coming now?

"Yes," said the Ape. "At this very moment, when the Terrible One himself is among us—there in the stable just behind me—one wicked Beast has chosen to do what you'd think no one would dare to do even if He were a thousand miles away. It has dressed itself up in a lionskin and is wandering about in these very woods pretending to be Aslan."

Jill wondered for a moment if the Ape had gone mad. Was he going to tell the whole truth? A roar of horror and rage went up from the Beasts. "Grrr!" came the growls, "Who is he? Where is he? Just let me get my teeth into him!"

"It was seen last night," screamed the Ape, "but it got away. It's a donkey! A common, miserable a$s! If any of you see that a$s——"

"Grrr!" growled the Beasts. "We will, we will. He'd better keep out of our way."

The heroes of the story respond this way:

Quote

Jill looked at the King: his mouth was open and his face was full of horror. And then she understood the devilish cunning of the enemies' plan. By mixing a little truth with it they had made their lie far stronger. What was the good, now, of telling the Beasts that an a$s had been dressed up as a lion to deceive them? The Ape would only say, "That's just what I've said." What was the good of showing them Puzzle in his lionskin? They would only tear him in pieces. "That's taken the wind out of our sails," whispered Eustace. "The ground is taken from under our feet," said Tirian.

"By mixing a little truth with it they had made their lie far stronger."

That, I think, typifies the approach to LDS doctrine and history taken by some folks.  Chad Daybell certainly springs to mind.

Hence the value of Michael Ash's Four-Legged Stool (see above).

Quote

- If the devil can fabricate spiritual experiences, or if a single experience isn’t meant to confirm a doctrine or principle, how are we to proceed?

I think he can come up with pretty good counterfeits.  Paul spoke of the devil appearing as an "angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:14), as did Jacob (2 Nephi 9:9) and Joseph Smith (D&C 128:20).

Quote

- What spiritual experiences are reliable and what aren’t?

Those that are of God are reliable.  But then, how do you determine which are of God?  Again, the Four-Legged Stood seems pretty useful.  Each leg counterbalances the other three.

Quote

- Are there things that the spirit simply won’t speak on?

Yes.

Quote

Moses asked God about the specific plan for other works and God told him not to worry about it. Is that a sign that there are things the spirit may not confirm to us simply because it doesn’t matter for this earthly life?

Or that the information sought is not yet to be revealed.  Or that the individual is not prepared.  Lots of possible reasons.

Quote

- Is this supposed to be so difficult to figure out? Is there any wisdom in making the spirit so difficult to lock down?

I think we sometimes make things a bit too difficult.  See also the section above dealing with simplicity on the other side of complexity.

In the end, though, we do need to "walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7).

I would appreciate any critique or assessment of the above.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 21 hours ago by smac97

[Calm]

On 10/9/2026 at 3:13 PM, Teancum said:

How is the randomness of fair is God loves all his children eqiually? 

The only thing that makes sense to me if God loves us perfectly is that in the oneness with God that is promised our experiences of mortality will be shared with each other as if we experienced it ourselves.  I think this way for two reasons. Life becomes balanced and fair (in the sense that no one ends up suffering or having more than another) if we all end up experiencing the same thing.  Even more important to my thinking though—because I believe life needs to be just, I don’t believe life needs to be fair to work for our eternal joy—is how can we make a truly informed choice of what we want to have and be unless we have pure knowledge of all the possibilities and results of our choices with all the thoughts and emotions attached to them.  I did not come to this as a way to justify the endless suffering this life holds.  I can’t justify that.  This belief is just where my logic took me.  It makes sense to me if Christ could somehow join with us and then experience all of our potential pain from our bad choices (sins, errors) as well as actual pain so we don’t have to, that such perfect sharing of experience should be possible when one becomes one with Christ.

This does not make what we go through now just (there is nothing just in a child experiencing cancer or abuse no matter how many people share that experience and understand their suffering).  Nor does it address how to have faith when there is no actual awareness of our future state being.  I can’t speak to that at all.  I don’t know how to tell others to have faith. I just know there have been a few experiences in my life I cannot explain in any other way besides God is aware of me and loves me and others.  And those experiences tell me we will be where we want to be in the end no matter where we wander in the meantime (this literally happened once as I heard this, the other times reinforce he is there and paying attention even to the very little things).  This and the sense of God’s presence/connection that has always been with me besides a few years I took a drug that made me feel I was bubble wrapped seems to be what secures my faith is what sustains me.  I do not expect anything from God except peace and I get that when I ask when I have misplaced it. (I do ask for other things at times, don’t usually get them.  Not very satisfying, but okay.)

I am including the below not as a pity party or anything but to explain the process of my thought in how I can hold on to the belief in God’s perfect love while living in a world that looks insane.  Nothing I feel or think about myself needs sympathy.  I am content in my self which is what I need most.

I understand I may simply be talking myself into this sense of all of us being cared for.  I am not going to try and mess with it given how it’s worked for me for 65+ years.  I prefer to avoid an existential crisis and loss of faith given my situation.  If I have deluded myself and there’s nothing there, great, I am satisfied that to be deluded because it has allowed me to keep going when I feel I am not getting enough out of life myself to justify the effort.  

The idea of a future reward of a celestial or heavenly life does not motivate me in the least.  It’s more like birthday gifts, an expected treat I am not working for, but know I am going to get because my family loves me.  But another needs me to stay and care for them to survive and if my being around is worth it for them, it’s enough for me.  And it’s not like I am suffering all the time.  I have a very pleasant, comfortable life the vast majority of it.  I live in luxury (not decadent luxury, relative luxury) and haven’t had to work much for it.  It is just I don’t see much purpose in it for myself.  My dreams I have had are unattainable in this life.  (I have gotten wonderful things in my life, but they weren’t my dreams and almost all don’t fulfill me.  This board has given me one dream, a community I feel like I belong in that fits me.)  

But I can’t climb any mountains to see the view.  Can’t even get up in the foothills these days.  I am stuck to getting my mountain views on a treadmill  (this is both metaphor and literal, lol).

Edited 20 hours ago by Calm

[Calm]

Hey, I refreshed to be sure it hadn’t accepted my post…urg…..will delete the other duplicate later.  

Edited 20 hours ago by Calm

[Calm]

On 10/9/2026 at 3:34 PM, MustardSeed said:

I sort of get this.  I just can’t expect “blessings” because I get really disillusioned when the blessings expectation is grossly unmet. 
but I also get being in a mindset where every day seems to have miracles in it- you do find what you seek.  

I could see this if it’s ’seek and miracles in general and not specific ones’.  My children are miracles, the internet and this board is a miracle for me, living in Canada was one, many others…none of which I asked for specifically, just left it to the Lord to choose what to give me.  It’s been a long time since I trusted myself to know best what I needed. 

My mother was the most faith full person I have encountered and she was never blessed with much healing, just enough to keep going.  Her survival as a child was likely a miracle, but left her insides a mess.  She wanted to be a mother when doctors told her she couldn’t be and she managed five times.  She told me she prayed to be healed, she sought and expected to be healed, the get up and walk version even (she accepted whether in this life or the next; though it seemed to me she wanted it sooner rather than later, she never seem to be upset with God’s timing as she had what she desired most in her view, a wonderful family).  Maybe that is what set me up not to ask God for much in detail, but leave it to him.  

[Calm]

On 10/9/2026 at 3:34 PM, MustardSeed said:

I sort of get this.  I just can’t expect “blessings” because I get really disillusioned when the blessings expectation is grossly unmet. 
but I also get being in a mindset where every day seems to have miracles in it- you do find what you seek.  

I could see this if it’s ’seek and miracles in general and not specific ones’.  My children are miracles, the internet and this board is a miracle for me, living in Canada was one, many others…none of which I asked for specifically, just left it to the Lord to choose what to give me.  It’s been a long time since I trusted myself to know best what I needed. 

My mother was the most faith full person I have encountered and she was never blessed with much healing, just enough to keep going.  Her survival as a child was likely a miracle, but left her insides a mess.  She wanted to be a mother when doctors told her she couldn’t be and she managed five times.  She told me she prayed to be healed, she sought and expected to be healed, the get up and walk version even (she accepted whether in this life or the next; though it seemed to me she wanted it sooner rather than later, she never seem to be upset with God’s timing as she had what she desired most in her view, a wonderful family).  Maybe that is what set me up not to ask God for much in detail, but leave it to him

[Tony uk]

I have found, from a personal perspective. God, helps/aids/assists, in ways that people may not have expected, or in some cases preferred. The end result of God's interaction with people at specific times of need can be deemed a blessing, even if it is not, at times understood.

[Calm]

On 10/10/2026 at 12:23 PM, ManyHobbies said:

don't have a good answer. What I am doing right now is trying to frame it as the idea that I have to go through this bad situation whether I want to or not, and that at some point, it will be over. I'm even past the point where I would ask what I can learn from it or what God is trying to teach me. I just know that at some point, the situation will be over, because no season lasts forever. That's the best I can do with it right now. 

That’s very much along the lines of what I feel like.

God gave me the brain and heart (or maybe it’s my eternal nature) to want to care for others and then placed me in a world where I am constantly told it’s good to do so and it is certainly needed, plenty of opportunities.  But then I end up with a body that limits what I can do to very little.  And even allows me to make uninspired choices by accepting others’ authority who I have been taught I should trust (doctors, parents, teachers) that makes things much worse.  So instead others still suffer and I get to see their pain and do nothing.  I just don’t see much purpose in it.  Whatever I learned from it, I think I got in the first 20 years.

I have decided not to be concerned emotionally at least with the why, I am not likely to get answers when better people than I am did not.  I do what I can to make the best world in my very little corner of it.  Some day it will be over.  Maybe even be beautifully magnificent.  Maybe not, but I am going to construct my idea of life as if it is.  It seems the healthiest way to deal with this reality.  Definitely the best for my ego, lol.

[Rain]

Deleted. Changed my mind. 

Edited 17 hours ago by Rain

[MustardSeed]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I agree, I don't think He creates hardships, but rather allows them.  In the thick of it, it doesn't always feel like there is a difference in those ideas.

If it’s true that he intervenes at times and not in others, then there “is” no difference, as I see it

[let’s roll]

23 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I do have a hard time accepting that God’s grace can only be manifest by pouring out suffering everywhere. The idea that humans must be broken in order to learn has a heroic bend to it and overcoming struggles is aspirational. I just find that grace less impressive when the consolation comes from the person who inflicted the suffering in the first place. Or at least allowed it to happen though with an omniscient and omnipotent being I have a very hard time determining a distinction between allowing and acting as both are direct choices made.

I can see why some might find some logic in this sentiment.  That said, my understanding is that before any of us experienced mortality we were given the choice between mortality as we are experiencing it and a mortality where not one of us would be lost.
 

What is your view on why the version of mortality we are all experiencing was more acceptable to you and me than the version where no one would be lost?  Was there something that motivated our premortal choice that we are overlooking or did we just choose the wrong option?

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

If it’s true that he intervenes at times and not in others, then there “is” no difference, as I see it

I can only see the difference when I compare it to the way that I manage my own children.  I know the difference between when and why I intervene on their behalf and when I don't**, but it's not a difference that I've always been able to articulate to my children (or that they have been able to understand even if I could articulate it).  So intellectually I get that a similar structure of parenthood is going to exist between God and me. 

It all makes sense on paper that way. 

But mentally and emotionally, that really doesn't ever make me feel any better when life is in the thick of it.  So while I can see how the differences are there, that knowledge rarely makes me feel any better in the moment.  Sometimes after the fact it does but not always.

 

**Obviously there are some trials I would always intervene if I could (and those are the usually the ones where I can't intervene in any significant way anyway) 

[bluebell]

I saw a reel where someone was talking about a time that he was pleading for a specific blessing in the temple and a thought hit him that said "If I told you this blessing was never going to come in this life, would you still be here?  Would you still serve me?"

That thought caught me up short.  Do I believe I'm owed blessings and is that the only reason that I do the things I believe God has asked me to do?  Is that why trust feels hard sometimes?  Those are rhetorical questions that I'm pondering.