u/SnooRevelations1619

I was trying to think of a way to defeat Jiggs other than YISUN just getting bored and winking him out of existence. Perhaps, though Jaggs might be Immune to Harm, a sufficiently powerful spell could convert him into a harmless brick? Ir maybe even make him think he's destroying the world when really he is sitting in a matrix somwhere? Or perhaps his will is such that at this point only YISUN almighty could cast such a spell on him and have it stick? Is Jaggs also a master of the red, white and black arts, and thus immune to magical effects of any kind?

I am trying to understand the reasoning behind Alison's request. She states to Gog that she is unsure if Metatron is her enemy, only referencing Jagganoth's (and perhaps Zoss's) statements that Metatron sustains the cycle. Alison doesn't know how the cycle works, how Metatron does it, if he actually is doing it, ​what it looks like, or if Metatron can be reasoned with. So why provoke him?

Title basically. The Key of Kings is the physical crystallization of the Supreme Name of God, universally regarded as the most potent spell in all possible worlds. To possess it and understand it in its entirely is to graps the transcendent nature of YISUN itself. ​So my question is this: if Alison was a little more magic-savy, could she get it to do Green Lantern level magic? Or infinity stones level magic? Can it grant wishes like the triforce or dragon balls? Could a sufficiently adept user create universes, bend timelines, or potentially wish Jagganoth out of existence? ​

Jacob Hansen did a video earlier today (4th June 2026) in response to Jeff Strong's book Torn, where Jeff discusses gathered data on what is causing the high attrition rate among LDS members in certain parts of the world. I've watched a few interviews with Jeff and he strikes me as a thoughtful bridge builder. Jeff lists several self-reported claims by former members who have stepped away explaining why they stepped away, such as doctrinal issues, history issues, social issues, etc.

With that in mind, Jacob in his video makes a claim that ultimately what causes someone to step away is a lack of belief, which he largely seems to lay at the foot of secularism. (Also, hi Jacob! I don't know if you will read this but I appreciate what you're doing even if I don't always agree. I think standing up for your beliefs in such a contentious arena is super commendable.)

Okay so here is the set up to my question: in the arena of religion, we often talk about choosing our beliefs. However, it was pointed out to me by the venerable John Vervaeke (who has excellent cognitive science content on YouTube) that we don't seem to choose our beliefs at all, but that belief arises outside of our conscious control as a result of processing information. For example: you look up at the sky and see it is blue, and therefore you believe it is blue. You might tell yourself it is orange, but you wouldn't actually be able to convince yourself of this so long as you remain a rational agent. This seems to be the case with most (if not all?) of our beliefs, that they arise unwilled as a result of what we have learned.

The exception might be with ambiguous information. For example, there has been lots of information presented about the truth claims of the church. Because there is so much information that can serve as evidence for and against those truth claims, I suppose how I respond to that information is the result of other factors besides my analysis of the evidence. In this case I get to choose to act as if it is true or act as if it is not true. However I don't retain any beliefs about those claims one way or another, I just don't know.

That being the case, my point is this: Jacob, is it not therefore a truism to claim that someone left the church because they don't believe in it any more? I think Jacob's point caught my attention because I've been curious about the nature of belief and wonder if we've been talking about it wrong. Thanks for reading!