In Retrospect, Was The Raising Of The Bar A Good Thing?

[Cobalt-70]

Is the LDS church going the way of the RLDS church? Could an argument be made that the shifting of direction of the LDS church towards mainstream Christianity is the same shift the RLDS/Community of Christ church did years ago?

Nothing so dramatic.

LDS theology is currently constrained by a few set points that I don't see changing any time within the next couple of decades. These include the existence of a Heavenly Mother and the "spirit babies" doctrine. We have recently been "doubling down" on these doctrines, partly to reinforce the Mormon patriarchy. Although I think there are ways to incorporate a Heavenly Mother idea within a traditional Christian framework, that could not happen so long as we need Her to play the role of the Eternal Submissive Babymaker as an example to mortal Mormon women.

[Cobalt-70]

NEWS FLASH - The LDS Church actually believes in continuing revelation. Prophets continue to speak, a shocking decree to some Mormons that have created their own pet gold calves of supposed doctrine and demand that God stop talking and get with their program of chosen truth.

And some wonder why members fall away from the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ? They have itching ears and refuse to follow.

That would be fine if there actually were revelations on these issues. What we have, however, is teachings by prominent LDS leaders working without the benefit of new revelations, and sometimes in serious conflict with each other. So you have to pick and choose. Do you follow what Joseph Smith taught circa 1844, what Brigham Young taught, or what James Talmage taught? If you stick solely with the revelations, you ought to be something like a Trinitarian.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Saints Alive]

I for one would love to see some good ole fashioned "thus saith the Lord" revelations.

[MiserereNobis]

I for one would love to see some good ole fashioned "thus saith the Lord" revelations.

I made this point on another thread (I think it was the general conference/missionary age one). It seems like the LDS church has come a long ways from "thus saith the Lord" as the preface to now where the preface was "after prayerfully pondering." Why the switch? Why don't your prophets speak in the name of the Lord anymore? Prophet is a very strong term and has strong connotations which seem to be missing -- where is the prophesy?

[MiserereNobis]

Think of it in the same way that outsiders to catholicism would see the statements about Limbo over the years.

This seems like a good analogy. Limbo was never dogma, just speculation, but it was highly accepted speculation. However, I would say that one difference would be that it was never taught in an authoritative matter (the Catholic Church has very clear demarcations as to this). Your prophets and apostles appeared to teach authoritatively, especially Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

Honestly, I know very little about Catholicism in difinitve terms. My direct experience with it entails midnight mass, some conversation with a person in a school to become a priest, inherent cultural references, and whatever references made in Art History. And that's about it.

I'd be happy to catechize you

Just because it may appear to outsiders like this or that, does not make that perception accurate.

Absolutely. I'm not claiming otherwise. I just thought I'd point out how it looks from the outside and then see how you all see it from the inside.

[Tacenda]

Nothing so dramatic.

LDS theology is currently constrained by a few set points that I don't see changing any time within the next couple of decades. These include the existence of a Heavenly Mother and the "spirit babies" doctrine. We have recently been "doubling down" on these doctrines, partly to reinforce the Mormon patriarchy. Although I think there are ways to incorporate a Heavenly Mother idea within a traditional Christian framework, that could not happen so long as we need Her to play the role of the Eternal Submissive Babymaker as an example to mortal Mormon women.

IMO it will never happen. Not where the church has temples everywhere now. You don't see the RLDS or Community of Christ church have them. It'll never come to that. My comment that it's going more mainstream doesn't include the temple. So it will forever be set apart.

[MiserereNobis]

Nothing so dramatic.

LDS theology is currently constrained by a few set points that I don't see changing any time within the next couple of decades.

The next couple of decades seems to be pretty fast to me. But then again, I am a traditional Catholic, and we take change slowly (the post-Vatican II rush to change everything has finally gone away and people are slowly but surely returning to the way things were before).

[Cobalt-70]

The next couple of decades seems to be pretty fast to me. But then again, I am a traditional Catholic, and we take change slowly (the post-Vatican II rush to change everything has finally gone away and people are slowly but surely returning to the way things were before).

Even after a couple of decades, it would probably require a crisis of some sort. We don't usually make dramatic changes until there is a crisis. One crisis that could cause a reevaluation of the spirit baby doctrine might be a revolt among Mormon women who don't think that they will be spending eternity as demure, invisible machines for making spirit babies. I think the Heavenly Mother doctrine is probably going to be a permanent fixture within Mormonism, because if done correctly, the Heavenly Mother doctrine is extraordinarily feminist. The relatively near-term switch in doctrine would be a conversion of the Heavenly Mother from a fragile, invisible baby maker into a powerful deity.

At some point, Mormon theology might be able to reconcile with certain feminist currents within mainstream Christianity who are beginning to recognize a theological feminine, sometimes identified with the the person of the Holy Spirit. Some Mormons also make that connection, but to make this connection stick within Mormonism, we would probably need to revise or remove D&C 130:22 from the canon. This verse, which says the Father has a tangible body, but the Holy Spirit does not, is from one of Joseph Smith's sermons. Because it was not itself a revelation, it could be removed from the canon just as easily as were the Lectures on Faith (which described the Holy Spirit as the shared mind of the Father and the Son, but not as a person).

[BlueDreams]

This seems like a good analogy. Limbo was never dogma, just speculation, but it was highly accepted speculation. However, I would say that one difference would be that it was never taught in an authoritative matter (the Catholic Church has very clear demarcations as to this). Your prophets and apostles appeared to teach authoritatively, especially Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

I’d say sometimes it’s easier to look inward. Instead of making a belief other oriented try to seek out parallels between your belief and another. It’s helped me at least. Some things don’t work as well. For example I can’t think of a good parallel for the role of Saints in the Catholic church compared to the LDS. But it helps with a lot of things.

Also Authoritative is not equal to innerant. Just because a prophet/apostle once says something about a theological topic does not elevate it to the status of doctrine. Parallel to how Catholics have a hierarchy of teachings and beliefs there is also a hierarchy for LDS.

I'd be happy to catechize you

Lol! I think I’ll pass, thank you.

Absolutely. I'm not claiming otherwise. I just thought I'd point out how it looks from the outside and then see how you all see it from the inside.

Well, from my perspective as an insider, I think the idea of “distancing” and whatnot is a little overblown. For instance, of the random list cobalt spouted off well earlier in this thread, I can still see a number of those beliefs within the LDS context, just with different wording and emphases. The only thing that isn’t is probably the God was once a man. And for good reason. It’s more like Limbo in that it fills a theological gap in understanding, but may not be sufficient in doing so.

My thing is with the priority given to such beliefs. What is most important is the Doctrine of Christ. That is most central. That is what should be given priority in teaching, and that is what is seen today. It’s the means to conversion, developing a relationship with God and gaining understanding in any other Gospel topic. Without a firm understanding of that, no other principle, belief, concept, etc. can be truly understood period.

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

Even after a couple of decades, it would probably require a crisis of some sort. We don't usually make dramatic changes until there is a crisis. One crisis that could cause a reevaluation of the spirit baby doctrine might be a revolt among Mormon women who don't think that they will be spending eternity as demure, invisible machines for making spirit babies.

Cobalt,

The last time someone told me that I would be spitting out babies for the rest of eternity like some machine it was a baptist who was very insistent on telling the missionaries what we believed. My companion and I looked at each other for a second and then bust out laughing. Not giggled. Not chuckled. Not smirked in knowing better. Bust out laughing till our sides hurt in front of his face. It shut him up, but we did feel guilty, and stated (when we could better catch our breath) “I’m sorry, but you’re wrong.” So I’ll say it a little bit more nicely but with just as strongly: that’s ludicrous. I don’t know one LDS woman who thinks she’ll be an invisible machine making spirit babies I would say more, but I have some things to do that I’m late for.

With luv,

BD

Edited October 12, 2012 by BlueDreams

[altersteve]

I made this point on another thread (I think it was the general conference/missionary age one). It seems like the LDS church has come a long ways from "thus saith the Lord" as the preface to now where the preface was "after prayerfully pondering." Why the switch? Why don't your prophets speak in the name of the Lord anymore? Prophet is a very strong term and has strong connotations which seem to be missing -- where is the prophesy?

They do speak in the name of the Lord. Every sermon is closed "in the name of Jesus Christ."

[Cobalt-70]

The last time someone told me that I would be spitting out babies for the rest of eternity like some machine it was a baptist who was very insistent on telling the missionaries what we believed. My companion and I looked at each other for a second and then bust out laughing. Not giggled. Not chuckled. Not smirked in knowing better. Bust out laughing till our sides hurt in front of his face. It shut him up, but we did feel guilty, and stated (when we could better catch our breath) “I’m sorry, but you’re wrong.” So I’ll say it a little bit more nicely but with just as strongly: that’s ludicrous. I don’t know one LDS woman who thinks she’ll be an invisible machine making spirit babies I would say more, but I have some things to do that I’m late for.

I don't doubt that you don't know any LDS woman who believe this doctrine. But how many LDS men? Especially, LDS men older than about 40 years old who were taught this repeatedly as children, and grew up imagining resurrected Females literally giving birth to spirit children in the Celestial kingdom. This is why I am saying this doctrine is on its way out, but it may take another generation. You can still find somewhat oblique references to the spirit babies doctrine in LDS manuals, however--written by men, of course. (Also, here) In case anyone does not understand what it means that we will have spirit children just like our Heavenly Parents do, the phrase "literal spirit children" appears many times on the lds.org website.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Saints Alive]

They do speak in the name of the Lord. Every sermon is closed "in the name of Jesus Christ."

You know full well what we are talking about. D&C is full of the Lords dialogue with Joseph and all sorts of "thus saith the Lord" I'm not saying that current revelation isn't valid or even directly from the lord, but it is nice for it to be stated that way.

[Storm Rider]

That would be fine if there actually were revelations on these issues. What we have, however, is teachings by prominent LDS leaders working without the benefit of new revelations, and sometimes in serious conflict with each other. So you have to pick and choose. Do you follow what Joseph Smith taught circa 1844, what Brigham Young taught, or what James Talmage taught? If you stick solely with the revelations, you ought to be something like a Trinitarian.

Cobalt, you have tried this type of reasoning with me before and I reject it en toto. Joseph was not and never was a Trinitarian, nor was the Book of Mormon. To get to that point one must ignore what some verses say and focus solely on others. I remain true to the scriptures and if there is a revelation that is added to the Standard Works, then it is scripture and not until. The KFD is unfinished and no other prophet saw fit to expand upon it, explain it, or declare that it is doctrine. I refuse to be bound by the speculations of men.

The concept of man needing to become a savior on another world ignores the promises of scripture that declares that through Christ we become gods, joint-heirs with him. If the Atonement and scripture is true and complete, there is no need for a further sacrifice. The blood of Christ is complete and final for all creation. No other blood is needed or demanded.

I appreciate when s learned man expounds on the scriptures. I appreciate even more when the Spirit declares the truth of the scriptures to my heart. Our Church is built upon revelation first, foremost, and everlasting. There is nothing as important as one gaining a witness of the Spirit of the truth and reality of Jesus Christ. If apostles and prophets will lead the disciples of Christ into more holiness, then we will follow. If they choose to speculate, then their opinion is of no more value than my own or anyone else's. Why would I or anyone else be bound by any man's speculation?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

At some point, Mormon theology might be able to reconcile with certain feminist currents within mainstream Christianity who are beginning to recognize a theological feminine, sometimes identified with the the person of the Holy Spirit. Some Mormons also make that connection, but to make this connection stick within Mormonism, we would probably need to revise or remove D&C 130:22 from the canon. This verse, which says the Father has a tangible body, but the Holy Spirit does not, is from one of Joseph Smith's sermons. Because it was not itself a revelation, it could be removed from the canon just as easily as were the Lectures on Faith (which described the Holy Spirit as the shared mind of the Father and the Son, but not as a person).

Not only that, D&C 130 was printed weird. When Joseph was refuting the idea that the Father and the Son literally dwell in a person's heart as a false sectarian notion, he also debunked the idea that the Spirit was literally there too. Compare the original:

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; The Son also; but the holy Ghost is a personage of spirit and a person cannot have the personage of the Holy Ghost in his heart. He may receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. It may descend upon him but not to tarry with him. (The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, April 2, 1843)

... with the printed version:

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. A man may receive the Holy Ghost, and it may descend upon him and not tarry with him." (D&C 130:22-23)

Notice the reversal. The second makes it seem that the reason the Holy Spirit is said to be incorporeal is so that He/She/It can literally dwell within us. The original makes much better sense; references like D&C 8 talking about the Spirit "dwelling" in us should probably be read in this metaphorical light.

Edited October 12, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[BlueDreams]

I don't doubt that you don't know any LDS woman who believe this doctrine. But how many LDS men?

None.

Especially, LDS men older than about 40 years old who were taught this repeatedly as children, and grew up imagining resurrected Females literally giving birth to spirit children in the Celestial kingdom. This is why I am saying this doctrine is on its way out, but it may take another generation. You can still find somewhat oblique references to the spirit babies doctrine in LDS manuals, however--written by men, of course. (Also, here) In case anyone does not understand what it means that we will have spirit children just like our Heavenly Parents do, the phrase "literal spirit children" appears many times on the lds.org website.

Not seeing it. You're reading into manuals more than can be implied. There's nothing about spirit babies (being children of God does not equal being babies of God). Nothing about women being spirit baby machines. And certainly nothing about the mechanics of how it all works. The only way you get that is by first reading it in as a premise. I hold no qualms with what is said about spirit children/heavenly parents. I have plenty of issues with your descriptor of it. Your argument is an oversized straw man, to say the least.

With luv,

BD

[yootaw]

The next time 60 minutes or Time Magazine interview you about our theology you can shoot back with a perfect answer for every question.

This doesn't seem an unreasonable standard for a prophet answering questions about our theology.

[Tacenda]

None.

Not seeing it. You're reading into manuals more than can be implied. There's nothing about spirit babies (being children of God does not equal being babies of God). Nothing about women being spirit baby machines. And certainly nothing about the mechanics of how it all works. The only way you get that is by first reading it in as a premise. I hold no qualms with what is said about spirit children/heavenly parents. I have plenty of issues with your descriptor of it. Your argument is an oversized straw man, to say the least.

With luv,

BD

BD, how else are the Gods & Goddesses going to be heavenly parents? Where are those spirits going to come from? I think the early leaders believed it to be just as it is in our earth life. Won't that change doctrine if we discontinue this pattern since we believe God is an exalted man? Edited October 12, 2012 by Tacenda

[BlueDreams]

BD, how else are the Gods & Goddesses going to be heavenly parents? Where are those spirits going to come from? I think the early leaders believed it to be just as it is in our earth life. Won't that change doctrine if we discontinue this pattern since we believe God is an exalted man?

Tacenda, it's going above and beyond anyone's knowledge. There is no manual to it, no description, no revelation on how God made spirit children. Just that we are litterally spirit children of God. But the key word is spirit. Not physical. Those are extremely different. Especially in the scriptural accounts where son and daughter on a spiritual note is considered more of a title and state that is changeable. Our bodies come from sperm and egg. Our spirits are attributed to intelligence/light/truth. That's a pretty big distinction. We come from heavenly parents; how is not described. We have more description on the creation than the creation of a spirit. Anything beyond that is speculative at best.

Likewise who God is period is of a point of existance that is beyond much of our comprehension. He is not simply man, He is Man of Holiness, someone who is described as eternal, endless, One who "can stretch forth mine hands and hold all the ^acreations which I have made; and mine eye can pierce them also," etc. Who He is is certainly well above us all. That there is a similar pattern does not assume that life is exactly the same. In fact, the descriptions found in the scriptures insist that such a thing is not so. Look at how all the scriptures describe God then think of people and what they're like in the scriptures/life. It's not a change of doctrine....His ways are not our ways. That much is blatantly obvious.

With luv,

BD

Edited October 12, 2012 by BlueDreams

[Tacenda]

Tacenda, it's going above and beyond anyone's knowledge. There is no manual to it, no description, no revelation on how God made spirit children. Just that we are litterally spirit children of God. But the key word is spirit. Not physical. Those are extremely different. Especially in the scriptural accounts where son and daughter on a spiritual note is considered more of a title and state that is changeable. Our bodies come from sperm and egg. Our spirits are attributed to intelligence/light/truth. That's a pretty big distinction. We come from heavenly parents; how is not described. We have more description on the creation than the creation of a spirit. Anything beyond that is speculative at best.

Likewise who God is period is of a point of existance that is beyond much of our comprehension. He is not simply man, He is Man of Holiness, someone who is described as eternal, endless, One who "can stretch forth mine hands and hold all the ^acreations which I have made; and mine eye can pierce them also," etc. Who He is is certainly well above us all. That there is a similar pattern does not assume that life is exactly the same. In fact, the descriptions found in the scriptures insist that such a thing is not so. Look at how all the scriptures describe God then think of people and what they're like in the scriptures/life. It's not a change of doctrine....His ways are not our ways. That much is blatantly obvious.

With luv,

BD

I'm not a scriptorian and may misunderstand quite a bit. But I thought we were physical beings in heaven and can perform physcial feats. Like possibly procreation. Atleast that would be my LDS line of thinking. Of course non Christians probably believe we are spirits in heaven with the form of a body but function as spirit. And so may we believe this, not sure. I guess no one is sure of it. Except some of our early leaders statements point to us having a physical ability to create spirits. You probably don't need me to reference them though.

[Alan]

I believe we know nothing of this. Just because mothers physically give birth here doesn't mean it will happen that way there. The Lord and the scriptures are silent on the subject, and probably for good reason.

When we do finally learn how it is done I can imagine some of us are going feel rather silly. In my view it is a very good idea to refrain from conjecture about things the scriptures are silent about.

Regarding the existence of a heavenly mother; it appears to me this is not official Mormon doctrine and not therefore relevant to my salvation.

[BlueDreams]

I'm not a scriptorian and may misunderstand quite a bit. But I thought we were physical beings in heaven and can perform physcial feats.

Wait, are you saying before (Pre-earth) or after (post-death) or way after (post resurrection)? Because if you are saying we were in pre-earth life, I strongly recommend going back to the basics. Heck, even if you are not, I'd still recommend going back to the basics. You don't have to be a scriptorium to understand this.

Honestly, you seem to have a poor understanding of basic/core doctrinal beliefs. I don't think this is astounding....it's possible…I personally think many ex-mormon, now Christian stories are based heavily on this misunderstanding of what is actually taught....and it's also easily fixable. Considering the various things that I've read from you, I recommend starting with Preach My Gospel, at least the lessons chapter, particularly lessons 1-3. And for these questions lesson 2 particularly (plan of salvation). Read the descriptions, then read the scriptures tied to it. I recommend it for study because it gives you an easy to follow guide in where to go that anyone can easily utilize and gets you into the scriptures. Study can be as short or long or shallow/in depth as you want it to be.

You currently are following every last little bit of half-truth, second-hand claims, old quotes, speculative claims, and biased info that you can get your hands on while the foundational core of what the gospel is, is being neglected in comparison. You will not grow this way. You will not reach the understanding you want. You will not find peace. You will be lost, disoriented, and continually dissatisfied until then. I say this as a promise and certainty: you will not find the fullness of truth this way. There is no other way to stability but working to gain understanding and application of the most basic gospel truths. It's like you are picking up dried up old fall leaves trying to figure out if the tree is strong enough to support you and how this would make a tree in the first place. You find yourself constantly disatisfied when you rake them up and try to sit firmly on them, only to find them crumple and shuffle and break beneath you. The answer is there, the stability is possible, you just need to look at the actual source. So many questions are best answered by a powerful, strong, and deep understanding of the gospel basics. Focus on those and you will have more answers than I or any other person can ever give you off a discussion board, random Christian website, etc.

With luv,

BD

Edited October 12, 2012 by BlueDreams

[Tacenda]

Wait, are you saying before (Pre-earth) or after (post-death) or way after (post resurrection)? Because if you are saying we were in pre-earth life, I strongly recommend going back to the basics. Heck, even if you are not, I'd still recommend going back to the basics. You don't have to be a scriptorium to understand this.

Honestly, you seem to have a poor understanding of basic/core doctrinal beliefs. I don't think this is astounding....it's possible…I personally think many ex-mormon, now Christian stories are based heavily on this misunderstanding of what is actually taught....and it's also easily fixable. Considering the various things that I've read from you, I recommend starting with Preach My Gospel, at least the lessons chapter, particularly lessons 1-3. And for these questions lesson 2 particularly (plan of salvation). Read the descriptions, then read the scriptures tied to it. I recommend it for study because it gives you an easy to follow guide in where to go that anyone can easily utilize and gets you into the scriptures. Study can be as short or long or shallow/in depth as you want it to be.

You currently are following every last little bit of half-truth, second-hand claims, old quotes, speculative claims, and biased info that you can get your hands on while the foundational core of what the gospel is, is being neglected in comparison. You will not grow this way. You will not reach the understanding you want. You will not find peace. You will be lost, disoriented, and continually dissatisfied until then. I say this as a promise and certainty: you will not find the fullness of truth this way. There is no other way to stability but working to gain understanding and application of the most basic gospel truths. It's like you are picking up dried up old fall leaves trying to figure out if the tree is strong enough to support you and how this would make a tree in the first place. You find yourself constantly disatisfied when you rake them up and try to sit firmly on them, only to find them crumple and shuffle and break beneath you. The answer is there, the stability is possible, you just need to look at the actual source. So many questions are best answered by a powerful, strong, and deep understanding of the gospel basics. Focus on those and you will have more answers than I or any other person can ever give you off a discussion board, random Christian website, etc.

With luv,

BD

I love how you word things! And you are right. I'm a junkie on alot of inuendo on the internet. My son received "Preach My Gospel" this past year to help him prepare for a mission. I'd better read up on what we believe specifically. Thanks for the kick in the pants, BD!

[Tacenda]

Wait, are you saying before (Pre-earth) or after (post-death) or way after (post resurrection)? Because if you are saying we were in pre-earth life, I strongly recommend going back to the basics. Heck, even if you are not, I'd still recommend going back to the basics. You don't have to be a scriptorium to understand this.

Honestly, you seem to have a poor understanding of basic/core doctrinal beliefs. I don't think this is astounding....it's possible…I personally think many ex-mormon, now Christian stories are based heavily on this misunderstanding of what is actually taught....and it's also easily fixable. Considering the various things that I've read from you, I recommend starting with Preach My Gospel, at least the lessons chapter, particularly lessons 1-3. And for these questions lesson 2 particularly (plan of salvation). Read the descriptions, then read the scriptures tied to it. I recommend it for study because it gives you an easy to follow guide in where to go that anyone can easily utilize and gets you into the scriptures. Study can be as short or long or shallow/in depth as you want it to be.

You currently are following every last little bit of half-truth, second-hand claims, old quotes, speculative claims, and biased info that you can get your hands on while the foundational core of what the gospel is, is being neglected in comparison. You will not grow this way. You will not reach the understanding you want. You will not find peace. You will be lost, disoriented, and continually dissatisfied until then. I say this as a promise and certainty: you will not find the fullness of truth this way. There is no other way to stability but working to gain understanding and application of the most basic gospel truths. It's like you are picking up dried up old fall leaves trying to figure out if the tree is strong enough to support you and how this would make a tree in the first place. You find yourself constantly disatisfied when you rake them up and try to sit firmly on them, only to find them crumple and shuffle and break beneath you. The answer is there, the stability is possible, you just need to look at the actual source. So many questions are best answered by a powerful, strong, and deep understanding of the gospel basics. Focus on those and you will have more answers than I or any other person can ever give you off a discussion board, random Christian website, etc.

With luv,

BD

I wonder if by saying the following quotes pasted below are not revelant anymore, does that mean we don't have the original church that was put in place by JS? So I do not need to believe in being a Goddess and creating worlds without end with my husband? I'd really like to get to the bottom of this. I know that "Preach My Gospel" is a missionary tool. Wouldn't it leave out some things, because that might cause some uncomfortable situations? Like meat before milk?

Unattributed quote removed, it was plagiarized from an anti-Mormon site. Poster removed.

[ERayR]

BD, how else are the Gods & Goddesses going to be heavenly parents? Where are those spirits going to come from? I think the early leaders believed it to be just as it is in our earth life. Won't that change doctrine if we discontinue this pattern since we believe God is an exalted man?

I think modern medical advances could suggest a couple(at least) of ways spirit children could be brought into being. That said absolutely nothing has been revealed of the processes involved. It does no good to choose one and become dogmatic about it when one knows absolutely nothing.