Pyreaux

I see the game as Testimony Targeting by Proxy: Targeting unrelated doctrinal/historical “gotchas”, then using the fallout to undermine the converted’s trust in their own spiritual experience. Let’s say a Latter-day Saint convert or teen bears a simple, heartfelt testimony: “I know the Church is true. I felt the Spirit so strongly when I prayed about the Book of Mormon.” An evangelical critic doesn’t even attack the Book of Mormon directly - instead, they go: “What about the Book of Abraham? That’s been totally debunked - it doesn’t match the papyri at all.” “If Joseph Smith couldn’t get that right, why trust him on anything he said?” “Maybe that ‘spiritual confirmation’ you had was just emotion. People feel the same thing when praying in Islam too. The heart is deceptive. You can't trust feelings.” What just happened? The Book of Abraham issue, which the person likely hadn’t even studied, is used to retroactively cast doubt on their Book of Mormon testimony. Then the validity of their spiritual experience itself is attacked. However, once the witness of the Holy Ghost is dismissed, so is theism in general - often the Spirit that told them the Book of Mormon was true also told them there is a God who answers prayers. The domino effect which often leads them straight out of all religion, not toward evangelical Christianity, after all, if they're spiritual witness cannot be trusted, what will draw them there?

I must say, it's been interesting to see what goes on between the non-Mormon factions. I'm trying to get a look at what the Ex-Mormon movement is from its Christian lurkers on their forum. One of the most consistent themes in Christian responses to ex-Mormon content is the idea that critics are just in it for the money. “They’re not sincere - they’re just making money. It's grift” Sure, LDS apologists are on there saying it, but this accusation has been especially loud from evangelical Christian circles, where LDS critics are sometimes dismissed outright as “wolves” profiting off the flock’s confusion. Then there are also cynical Ex-Mos who just distrust big names speaking out too. Who Are They Talking About? Names frequently brought up in this context include: YouTubers who make regular videos about LDS doctrine, culture, or scandals. Ex-Mormon TikTokers who post viral content about garments, missions, or church trauma. Podcasters like John Dehlin (Mormon Stories) or Radio Free Mormon, who get both praise and scorn there. Former Ex-Mormon turned Pastors, particularly evangelical converts who write books or run ministries about “coming out of Mormonism.” In these critiques, the money is framed as proof of insincerity - once a dollar is made, nothing the person says can be trusted. Example on Reddit: A recent thread in r/exmormon discussed a new LDS apologetic website targeting critics, but quickly turned into a debate about who’s profiting and whether either side can be trusted: “So both sides are basically grifting now?” “Why is it only ‘anti-Mormons’ who get accused of this? FAIR literally gets tithing money to run their stuff.” So, the reply is usually these "whataboutisms": LDS apologists like those at FAIR and Deseret Book get paid. LDS leaders get living stipends, security, travel allowances. Sites like C@rm.org, GotQuestions, or Christian YouTube podcasts sometimes frame Ex-Mo voices as “profiting off lies.” These same sources usually have donation buttons and their own merch. Or they'll defended them by saying most Ex-Mos don't actually make much money, just a few have learned how to gain a following. Ex-Mormon content is mainly consumed by Never-Mormons Ex-Mo processing or storytelling becomes entertainment or content fuel for Never-Mormons. Some just enjoy “cult drama.” Others see it as proof that all religion is harmful. This visibility pulls in critics, gawkers, and saviors from outside the faith - many of whom have no real context or connection. But Evangelicals are calling it out Ex-Mo grift... to defend Mormons? This is the wildest twist: Evangelicals - who have no theological sympathy for Mormonism - sometimes jump in to defend the LDS Church, not because they like it… but because they hate the Ex-Mo content creator more. While, Ex-Mos think LDS defenders are either on the Church’s payroll or deluded. Discussion: Have you seen Evangelical Christians jump in to “defend” the LDS Church from an Ex-Mo voice? Do you think their concern is theological, or just resentment toward public deconstruction? Why are critics so quick to assume LDS financial motives, but rarely reflect that back on their own side? Does money always cheapen a message, or are people just uncomfortable seeing others get paid to be outspoken?

I mean worlds before or to come. No Old-Jesus or a New-Jesus creating new worlds. No "my own planet" to be concerned with. If it happens it happens. Until it happens, it's not relevant now, there is no preemptive worship or homage to an unknown Jesus. "To us" there is no other Jesus. If there is an unknown Jesus, our Jesus is only relative to our world or worlds. An object moving in a void has no velocity, because velocity is relative, it's relative to other objects. Midst all these hypotheticals like “other Jesuses” or “other gods” misses something fundamental: relativity. Though gods there "maybe" "to us," Paul wrote, “there is but one God... and one Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 8:6). It’s not a denial that God may have done other things elsewhere, it’s the discipline of worshiping this God, the one revealed to us, in our time and place. We are not and will not be accountable to anyone or anything God hasn't clearly revealed.

I've been trying to think of new Topics, but the news is too slow and shallow. So, I've chose to take a look at the Anti-Mormon forums just to see what 'they've been talking about'. It seems there’s been a recent wave of exasperation on Reddit (especially on r/exmormon) directed at evangelical Christians who show up in ex-Mormon spaces trying to "witness" or "save" them. Evangelical Christians have been trying to engage with ex‑Mormon communities but are often viewed as pandering or disrespectful. One such Eva Ant-Mo post drew strong reactions with observations like: “Evangelicals … think they can come here to save us with anti Mormon info. They have no idea who they're talking to.” Critics cite a lack of understanding and tone-deaf messaging more than theological nuance. Christian-focused critiques are often seen as condescending. These Christian posters often assume that by helping someone deconstruct Mormonism, they’ve opened the door to true Christianity - usually Protestant, often Reformed or Evangelical. They may bring scripture-heavy arguments, testimonies about “finding Jesus,” and strong attacks on LDS theology. I guess they think they are doing a service by dragging Mormonism through the mud assuming it makes Christianity look better by contrast. But here’s the catch: A large majority of ex-Mormons on Reddit and elsewhere didn’t just leave Mormonism - they left religion entirely. They didn’t swap temples for churches. They left the whole structure behind. The Irony Christian critics have been some of the loudest anti-Mormon voices for decades. From Chick tracts to the GodMakers to modern YouTube apologists, they’ve hammered the LDS Church as an evil cult and a devilish gospel. But now, that ex-Mormons deconvert and show up online, they're running to scientism, secularism, humanism, therapy, or just plain nihilism. They helped create the Ex-mo movement and now they want to claim them? Shared Frustration - LDS and Ex-Mo Alike Here’s what’s wild - the general vibe toward Christian anti-Mormons tends to be perceived the same no matter where you stand: They're still loud, repetitive, weirdly obsessed, often uninformed about what Mormons actually believe, and always try and assume they’re the first to tell you something shocking. They don’t understand Mormonism deeply and they assume their opinions are original. For Ex-Mormons: Why do you think evangelicals struggle to understand Mormon and ex-Mormon minds? Has a Christian ever tried to “convert” you after you left Mormonism? How did it go? Is there a respectful way for Christians to engage with you? Do you think their critiques accidentally pushed you toward secularism instead? What makes Christian anti-Mormonism so uniquely off-putting to a modern Ex-Mormon? Questions for the rest of the Forum: Why do you think evangelical Christians have been so focused on not 'converting' but 'deconverting' Mormons for so long? Have your encounters with Christian "preaching" been so off putting, that even if it affected you, you'd never join them? Do you think your perception of the Church today is shaped more by secular or Christian critics? How should faithful members respond when Christian groups use LDS-specific issues to discredit your spiritual witness? Do you think these outside attacks on the Church strengthens or weakens your testimony of God? Is the Unholy Alliance of Anti-Mormon Christians and Atheists over?

Good to see you. I'm not sure if the Moderators have turned Sign Ups back on yet since the recent Spam Bot attack, so good to see new people coming back.

That is a very Jewish idea. In Jewish tradition, spirits or souls can appear in recognizable human form, often resembling their earthly or pre-earthly identity. The Guph: The Storehouse of Souls In Jewish thought, particularly in the Midrash and the Kabbalah, there exists the idea of a celestial realm called the Guph - literally, "Body (of Beings)", also known as the Otzar Neshamot, the Treasury or "Storehouse of Souls". This is the spiritual repository where all human souls dwell before birth. Each soul exists with its own divine purpose, waiting for the right time to descend into a physical body and enter the world. The souls are born in a certain order, hence the Messiah cannot be born soon after the Fall but must wait souls are fated to be born before him have been exhausted. According to Midrash (Yevamot 62a) and later elaborated in the Zohar and Sefer HaBahir. "The Son of David will not come until all the souls that are in the Guf have been exhausted." This implies a premortal existence, a common idea in Jewish mysticism, where souls are not newly created at birth, but are eternal beings sent into bodies at their appointed time. The Angel Israel: Jacob’s Premortal Identity In some kabbalistic and aggadic traditions, the patriarch Jacob (Yaakov) is said to have had a premortal angelic identity: the Angel Israel. In the Zohar (I: 137a-b), the name "Israel" is linked to a higher spiritual essence that preexists Jacob’s earthly life. The transformation of Jacob into “Israel” after wrestling with the angel (Genesis 32) is not just a name change but a return or revelation of his true, higher identity—his angelic form. The angelic name "Israel" is associated with spiritual mastery and direct intimacy with God. According to traditions summarized in The Tree of Souls, this angelic identity may predate Jacob’s earthly incarnation, and thus “Israel” is the name of his soul in the Guph, or his eternal self before he was born as Jacob. This explains why after wrestling the angel, he is told his name is Israel, as though reminding him of his true identity. Jacob Recognizes Esau as an Angel After this renaming In Genesis 33:10, when Jacob meets Esau after their long estrangement. Jacob says to Esau: “I have seen your face, as though I had seen the face of God [or an elohim/angel], and you were pleased with me.” This verse has been interpreted mystically by various commentaries, in aggadic and kabbalistic readings, Jacob is recognizing something transcendent in Esau’s presence, even a glimpse of the celestial identity of Esau, who also would have existed in the Guph. Esau, despite his earthly choices, was also created with a divine soul from the same storehouse. Let’s explore how this appears in Jewish sources: The Spirit of Samuel was Recognized When King Saul has the Witch of Endor summon the dead prophet Samuel, he immediately recognizes the spirit: “An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped in a robe.” (1 Samuel 28:14) “Saul knew that it was Samuel…” Saul recognizes Samuel by his appearance, Midrashic and Talmudic sources accept this encounter as literal (not symbolic) and take care to affirm that the dead can appear looking like their living selves. Souls retain clothing or appearance matching how they were buried or perceived in life (Sanhedrin 65b, Berakhot 18a). Berakhot 18b: "The dead are aware of what is said in their presence... they stand dressed in their shrouds and appear as in life." Bashert - Your Fated Match Predestined relationships, especially marriage that is divinely fated, is a deep and beautiful theme in Jewish thought, particularly in rabbinic literature. The idea that certain souls are destined to be together, that one is “fated to marry” another, is a firmly rooted concept in Judaism. The Talmud and the Heavenly Announcement The most famous statement on this subject comes from the Talmud, Sotah 2a: "Forty days before the formation of the embryo, a bat kol (heavenly voice) issues forth and proclaims: ‘The daughter of so-and-so is destined for so-and-so.’" The relationships are not random but predestined from Heaven. A Jewish articulation of “soulmates.”The Kabbalistic Concept: “One Soul, Two Halves” The Zohar and your Twin Hermaphrodite Soul Kabbalah deepens this idea with the belief that a husband and wife are originally two halves of the same soul. At birth, the soul is split into male and female parts, which descend separately. Marriage reunites these halves into wholeness (shleimut). This idea of reuniting a split soul forms the foundation for the romanticized view of "bashert" - the one who was “meant to be.” (Zohar II: 93a) Tobias was Fated to wed Sarah Sarah, daughter of Raguel, has been married seven times, but each husband is killed by the demon Asmodeus before consummation. God sends the archangel Raphael to guides Tobias to Sarah, telling him in Tobit 6:17, “She was set apart for you before the world was made.” This is one of the clearest declarations of a predestined marriage in all Jewish scripture. Be mindful, this is also from a time of providentially arranged marriages.

@theplains Having skimmed through, I just picked out a subject to get into. I don't think Peter says, “He preached only to those from Noah’s day.” He says Jesus also preached to “spirits in prison” who had been disobedient in the days of Noah, as a specific example, not restrictively. If Peter had intended to limit it, he might’ve used a more exclusive construction but by mentioning Noah’s generation, Peter underscores the severity of their wickedness, yet even they were not beyond reach. If they were reached, why not others? Inference: This implies a principle: if God extended mercy to them, He may to others likewise not entirely culpable (e.g. a humble Chinese rice farmer that never knew Jesus, the thief on the cross, etc). God Is Not a Respecter of Persons (Acts 10:34–35), “God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” If a hardened Cainite received preaching in death, would a sincere soul from another time or culture be less deserving? The principle of fairness demands equal access to truth. Any exclusivity would contradict God's justice and impartiality. Isaiah 42:6–7, 61:1: Freedom to the Captives describe Christ’s mission: “…to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison…” (Isaiah 42:7) “…he hath sent me to… proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound…” (Isaiah 61:1) When 1 Peter 3:19 uses the phrase “spirits in prison,” it echoes these same Isaiah passages. 1 Peter 4:6 “For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead…” Peter directly states the gospel was preached to the dead, not just the wicked, not just those in Noah’s day. “…that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.” This implies they can respond to be judged and live, not merely condemned. There’s no qualifier limiting this to any era or ethnicity. Nor in other New Testament verse concerning freeing the captive spirits. Catholic traditionally names Adam as being saved at the Descensus / Harrowing of Hell. P.S. - I think 8 were saved by water - in the narrative. And the "like figure" saves us. Peter brought up the flood because he likes the parallel that 8 is a water baptism initiation number. P.P.S. - I am partial to the Local Flood theory, we might be reading of archetypal figures and similarities to Apocalyptic writing, it's possible that Genesis is saying only 8 "living souls" had the Holy Spirit, or in Apocalyptic code dehumanizes the Cainites as not real people, like basically all part Nephilim. But not to go too far down that path.

Notice the tone and language of those sources reveal that they are exploratory, speculative, and personal, not authoritative or binding. Phrases like “You may suppose,” “Can we not believe...” is not the language of revelation, its the language of speculation. These discourses are invitations to consider a possibility, not commands to believe. Even Joseph Smith’s strongest language in the King Follett Discourse (as reconstructed) is framed as reasoned philosophy, not prophetic mandate. This unreviewed for correctness composite of a sermon is not a source of doctrine. Orson Pratt's The Seer was repudiated in 1865 by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, primarily for its speculative and controversial content, including its anti-Catholic rhetoric and theological overreach. So, I'm not sure what game this is. The Church does give liberty to believe it, to speculate on the possibilities, but does not require belief in an eternal chain of gods. When past prophets say things that causes confusion or distraction, modern prophets often do not reiterate them and that's by design. Thus, the modern prophets like Gordon B. Hinckley, when asked about if “God was once a man” said: “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it. And I don’t think others know a lot about it.” (Time Magazine interview, 1997) Russell M. Nelson’s General Conference talks contain: No speculation about God’s Father. No mention of eternal regression. A clear focus on Jesus Christ, covenants, and our current stewardship. *** Also, it’s a common mistake, especially among amateur critics of the Church, where anything said by a famous 19th-century Church leader, in any venue, is assumed to be LDS doctrine. A secondhand composite of a funeral sermon, (unfortunately titled) private books like Mormon Doctrine or Doctrines of Salvation, even disavowed books, suddenly become ‘official’ doctrine the moment it fits their argument. But that’s simply never been how doctrine works in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not now, and not even then. Ironically, critics who claim to "know LDS theology better than the LDS do", just betrays a shallow understanding when Latter-day Saints clarify that something isn't doctrine, start flooding the conversation with quotes from private sources or long-rejected theories doesn’t strengthen your case, it just proves you don’t understand what doctrine ever was.

Yhwh whom tradition thinks of as non-progressing had progressed, or were the works of Creation not progress? A once non-Creator in a void for eternity past, to the Creator of many things in several progressive days after. Progressing as He improves and expands His dominion the more He makes. Having inherited the nation of Israel from his Father, becoming the God of Israel in the fall of Babel (Deut 32:8-9) Jesus, traditionally considered fully God from eternity, the "I Am", progressed from a spirit into a human, grew in wisdom, experience temptations and suffered to perfect his judgment, died and resurrected, only then into the express image of His Father, exalted higher then when originally He left. On the other hand, Eternal Regression and aspects of Eternal Progression are not canon revelations. It's not solid LDS doctrine that God the Father had a God, or a father, that there are past or future Satans or past or future Saviors. The only thing justified to say is what I call LDS "Relativity": what we speculate may exist, even if true, relatively, "to us" there are "no other" gods, or beings, or worlds or times to be concerned with, whether or not they already exist or will exist. "To us" there is only one true God, and one Lord, relatively, from all eternity to present human reckoning (1 Corinthians 8:5). It is justified to ignore whether they exist. Doing so is in accord with 'covenantal loyalty' to give recognition and priority to Christ and the Father, as the only revealed beings. It aligns better with both scriptural teaching and modern LDS restraint. While early LDS teachings from King Follett Discourse or Journal of Discourses were never canonized in the Standard Works. The Church today emphasizes: The immediacy of God the Father, the centrality of Christ. a plan of salvation that, as far as we know, applies only to this world and human history, relatively.

Am I correct in detecting a theme that prioritizes getting women into Youtube Apologetics? In whatever way they feel they can, cause three are directed towards women specifically; The role of women in defending the Church, female equality in the Church, Lived experience of Mormon women. Then a lot of tools to get them (or anyone) to succeed online; live podcasts, motivational presentations, balancing facts and kindness, faith crisis, and if they are young.

“I didn’t say anything - I just posted a clip" This is a classic ex-mormon rhetorical deflection, hiding behind the illusion of neutrality while selectively curating a clip. You are not some neutral presenter of truth here; the very act of sharing a clip without context, knowing its effect, is a rhetorical move. It’s framing by implication, a form of passive accusation. Presenting a clip, even without commentary, is still a rhetorical act. Thanks for revisiting the full talk - it’s important to see the broader context. In his 2005 conference address "Now Is the Time to Prepare" Elder Nelson mentions tithing as part of a larger pattern of spiritual 'preparation'; repentance, prayer, temple worship - none of them as a fear-based ultimatum. Which is why the only mention of ‘burning’ comes from him quoting the D&C, and the D&C echoes biblical fire symbolism, and it isn’t singled out as a threat there either. Nelson emphasizes covenantal living, it's a leap to call that a 'straight-up scare tactic.' If you believe it is, I'd love to hear how it compares to the way prophets also fervently stress about prayer (as a shield), scriptures (as a sword), or temple worship (as divine protection) being likewise as vital, or in context of being prepared for the Second Coming. Are those scary statements too? Or is the fear framing applied selectively when tithing is discussed? "It’s a scare tactic. If it weren’t, he would’ve explained it." That is an assertion, not an argument. It assumes there’s only one way to interpret a scripture unless immediately disclaimed. False Dilemma + Argument from Silence: "Either Nelson meant to scare, or he would’ve softened it. He didn’t explain it, therefore it’s threatening” is assuming motive from omission. General Conference talks are brief and allude to scriptural themes. Couldn't or can't Nelson sometimes reference a relevant scripture for his talk without re-preaching the entire context for it? Analyzing issues deeply is basic discipleship. Implying that any interpretation not surface-level is dishonest or deceptive, ignores how faith traditions work. Christ and prophets often taught in parables and symbols. The idea that scripture should always be instantly literal is inconsistent with centuries of religious interpretation. God is not the author of confusion, but of growth into a mature understanding of things not immediately understood. Saying “you heard him” skips the broader doctrinal lens. And saying it’s a scare tactic assumes you somehow know his motives, which is a big leap. President Nelson emphasized preparation, repentance, and trusting Jesus Christ for eternal life. Tithing was mentioned as just one way to show dedication and to prepare spiritually, but it was just one part of a broader message about covenant-making, repentance, and spiritual readiness. False Dilemma + Argument from Silence

If you're suggesting that no Latter-day Saint has a right to feel offended, that’s not what Elder Bednar taught. Elder Bednar’s message was about resilience and ability to maintain your emotional agency, he's not invalidating all feelings and legitimate concerns. He is encouraging members to not hold grudges or take offense as a lasting emotional injury, especially when it leads to alienation between people. “Choosing not to be offended” is admirable, but it doesn’t mean people aren’t allowed to feel pain, concern, or hurt, especially when their deeply held faith is misrepresented. Just like we expect to have empathy for marginalized voices in other settings (like Jews or Muslims mocked in media), Latter-day Saints deserve respect and accurate representation. Jesus didn't teach us to be passive. You've just been played by Zelph on the Shelf's cheap methods. First is the Shock-and-Clip Editing. The video opens with D&C 64:23, emphasizing "burned" as a threat. Uses sarcastic tone + somber music. Juxtaposes LDS scriptures and leaders’ quotes without doctrinal or historical explanation. This primes you emotionally before any real argument is made. They use mock-serious narration and laughing to emotionally frame LDS doctrine as absurd or abusive. They shows images of fire, smoke, and "pay up or else" threats to manipulate viewer mood. This isn't an analysis, its propaganda masked as commentary. Appeal to Ridicule: Laughing at beliefs is emotional manipulation to avoid real debate Then is Context Stripping / Quote Mining. The main scripture used: “Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming.” (D&C 64:23) What the video claims: This means all non-tithe payers will be burned. What’s missing: This verse was given in 1831, during early Church organization, in the context of preparing for the Second Coming. It uses biblical imagery of the Lord’s judgment, consistent with scripture language in Malachi 3, Matthew 25, Revelation, etc. It doesn't single out poor people or casual members, it’s covenantal, not coercive. The next verses talk about repentance and forgiveness (which are skipped). This is not a "threat tactic." It's an very ancient theme of spiritual preparation tied to consecration. The LDS canon is frequently cited in LDS teachings as describing how non-tithe paying, non-LDS, non-Christian Jews are still very alive and unburned during the Second Coming. "And then shall the Jews look upon me and say: What are these wounds in thine hands and in thy feet? Then shall they know that I am the Lord; for I will say unto them: These wounds are the wounds with which I was wounded in the house of my friends. I am he who was lifted up. I am Jesus that was crucified. I am the Son of God." (D&C 45:51–52) Therefore, they imply a False Doctrine: “Pay or be punished” Claiming LDS leaders and scripture teach that if you don’t pay tithing, God will literally burn you. But… LDS leaders teach: Tithing is a voluntary covenant from which there are spiritual blessings tied to it, like all acts of sacrifice and obedience. The “burning” metaphor (D&C 64:23) refers to being spiritual prepared for the Lord’s return, not a tithing enforcement mechanism. Elder Bednar, President Nelson, and others often talk about tithing in terms of faith, spiritual discipline, and blessings - not fear. They are using False Cause: "They mention fire = they want your money" Biblical metaphors ≠ financial threats Slippery Slope: "Church says burn = coercion = cult" Ignores nuance, makes leaps in reasoning Loaded Language: "Threat" "burn," "pay up” Frames doctrine to sound sinister or extortionary More logical and reasonable LDS interpretation: The verse is apocalyptic and symbolic "He that is tithed shall not be burned” = a promise of spiritual readiness, not an economic threat. Even if I granted you some church leaders may have used intense language, if they intended to threaten us, I say the rhetoric could be more intense, as today’s leaders overwhelmingly use invitational and encouraging language.

That seems to be how Greek Orthodox read the Greek, "We are God's offspring [Acts 17:28], His kin... The gulf between creature and Creator is not impassible... we will become like God.... To be deified... to become a second god, a god by grace." (Ware, Orthodox Church 219)

I'm making my second trek to see my mom for the last time before she dies. Cathy Sue Craycraft's lungs are filling up with liquid, she's oxygen hungry, she can't sit up and sit still to extract it, they have to sedate her to keep her face mask on, her heart failure is getting worse. This might be it. She's a candidate for hospice care, if she goes, she'll be dead in a week. I need the prayers of everyone I know. I would love for her to get better, but Iguess what I really want is to talk to her one last time to ask her 30 questions before I never can ask her again. If she can't talk, what other things I can do? Spiritually, she hasn't been to church for decades, she been very ill and dependent. What should I do?