On Elder Renlund's "Arrogant and Unproductive" Comment ("Demanding revelation from God is both...")

[smac97]

In his Saturday Evening Session talk, Elder Renlund said the following:

Quote

The Young Women theme begins, “I am a beloved daughter of heavenly parents, with a divine nature and eternal destiny.” This statement contains four important truths. First, you are a beloved daughter.
...
The second truth is that we have heavenly parents, a father and a mother...

He goes on to elaborate on this second truth:

Quote

The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother comes by revelation and is a distinctive belief among Latter-day Saints. President Dallin H. Oaks explained the importance of this truth: “Our theology begins with heavenly parents. Our highest aspiration is to be like them.”

Very little has been revealed about Mother in Heaven, but what we do know is summarized in a gospel topic found in our Gospel Library application. Once you have read what is there, you will know everything that I know about the subject. I wish I knew more. You too may still have questions and want to find more answers. Seeking greater understanding is an important part of our spiritual development, but please be cautious. Reason cannot replace revelation.

Speculation will not lead to greater spiritual knowledge, but it can lead us to deception or divert our focus from what has been revealed. For example, the Savior taught His disciples, “Always pray unto the Father in my name.” We follow this pattern and direct our worship to our Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ and do not pray to Heavenly Mother.

Ever since God appointed prophets, they have been authorized to speak on His behalf. But they do not pronounce doctrines fabricated “of [their] own mind” or teach what has not been revealed. Consider the words of the Old Testament prophet Balaam, who was offered a bribe to curse the Israelites to benefit Moab. Balaam said, “If [the king of Moab] would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the Lord my God, to do less or more.” Latter-day prophets are similarly constrained. Demanding revelation from God is both arrogant and unproductive. Instead, we wait on the Lord and His timetable to reveal His truths through the means that He has established.

His main points:

• "The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother comes by revelation and is a distinctive belief among Latter-day Saints."
• "Very little has been revealed about Mother in Heaven, but what we do know is summarized in a gospel topic found in our Gospel Library application."
• It is fine to "wish" to know "more," and we may "still have questions" and "want to find more answers," but we need to be "cautious," to avoid "speculation," and to follow the revelations we have been given (as to the manner of prayer).
• Prophets, both past and present, "cannot go beyond the word of the Lord ... to do less or more."
• Here's the part that seems to have created controversy: "Demanding revelation from God is both arrogant and unproductive. Instead, we wait on the Lord and His timetable to reveal His truths through the means that He has established."

From the Tribune today:

Quote

In his much-debated General Conference sermon warning members against speculation about Heavenly Mother, apostle Dale G. Renlund cautioned that “demanding revelation from God is both arrogant and unproductive.”

Wheat & Tares blogger Bishop Bill wonders, however, whether that counsel jibes with scripture and the church’s own history.

After all, James in the New Testament wrote that “if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God,” the very verse church founder Joseph Smith says ultimately led to Mormonism’s birth.

“Was Joseph Smith arrogant and unproductive [w]hen he asked God which church was right?” Bishop Bill asks. “Was [church President] Spencer Kimball arrogant when he asked God about giving Blacks the priesthood?”

The blogger points to other Latter-day Saint scriptures of ancient prophets crying out to the Almighty for answers.

“It seems Renlund is ‘upbraiding’ us,” he writes, “while God would never do that just for asking, as James 1:5 tells us.”

In a seeming counterargument, Times and Seasons blogger Stephen Cranney sees flawed thinking in members who “lobby for revelation,” suggesting they may be exerting “grassroots pressure” more than seeking “grassroots inquiry.”

I think the "Bishop Bill" entry linked to above takes a fairly jaundiced approach to Elder Renlund's talk:

Quote

While I could do a whole post on the statement that prophets “do not pronounce doctrines fabricated “of [their] own mind” (Adam = God anyone?), I’d like to focus on his declaration that “Demanding revelation from God is both arrogant and unproductive” If you look up the word “Strawman” in the dictionary, this is the textbook example.

What Elder Renlund is saying is that there are only two ways to learn about Heavenly Mother. One is we can just wait for revelation (the right way), and the other is we can demand an answer (arrogant and unproductive). There is no middle way. Asking is not allowed. Wait or demand.

No, I don't think that is what he is saying.

Asking for revelation and waiting for it are allowed (and encouraged, even commanded).  Demanding it, on the other hand . . .

"Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand."  (Jacob 4:10.)  "Wherefore, enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God. Amen."  (D&C 22:4.)

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Fether]

“Demanding” was the key word. Had he said “asking”, then there would be an issue and I feel everyone is acting as if that is what he said

[strappinglad]

Some people are triggered by words that they make up. Is it irony that Bishop Bill called the statement a " strawman " when that is exactly what he used.?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

.......................

• Here's the part that seems to have created controversy: "Demanding revelation from God is both arrogant and unproductive. Instead, we wait on the Lord and His timetable to reveal His truths through the means that He has established."

......................................

Asking for revelation and waiting for it are allowed (and encouraged, even commanded).  Demanding it, on the other hand . . .

"Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand."  (Jacob 4:10.)  "Wherefore, enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God. Amen."  (D&C 22:4.)...................

Sounds like a semantic problem.  All revelation is this Restoration has come because it was actively sought, from Joseph's prayer in the Sacred Grove to Spencer Kimball's lengthy effort to receive the will of the Lord.  It may be childish to characterize any of that as "demanding," instead of seeking.  I don't personally know any Latter-day Saints who go about arrogantly "demanding" revelation.  Even when someone like Abraham argued with the Lord about the destruction of Sodom, he was very humble and reasonable -- the Lord actually entertaining Abe's objections.  Similarly, when the Galilean rabbi Honi requested rain for the parched Holy Land, he simply placed his own life on the line so that the Lord would know that he was serious -- Honi drew a circle and vowed that he would not leave the circle until the Lord brought rain to the Land of Israel.  Because the Lord loved Honi, He brought rain.  There is a strong Jewish tradition of discussing matters with the Lord, and trying to make a deal.  I think that the Lord appreciates the passion and effort.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sounds like a semantic problem.  All revelation is this Restoration has come because it was actively sought, from Joseph's prayer in the Sacred Grove to Spencer Kimball's lengthy effort to receive the will of the Lord.  It may be childish to characterize any of that as "demanding," instead of seeking.  I don't personally know any Latter-day Saints who go about arrogantly "demanding" revelation. 

From the comments to "Bishop Bill's" blog post:

Quote

I don’t think there was anything disingenuous in what he said. Even if you’re right–and there’s no one making that specific demand–it’s perfectly reasonable for him to warn against making demands in order to mitigate what might be perceived as an unhealthy trend headed in that direction. Even so, there are a lot of folks–both in and out of the church–who are constantly pressing the brethren to make changes in order to suit their own social/political/philosophical/religious sensibilities. And there’s no question that some of those requests bump right up against demands. Honestly, I don’t know how church leaders are able to cope with the endless stream of complaints and criticism coming from both in and out of the church.

FWIW, I suspect Elder Renlund has run into instances of people apparently "demanding" that the Brethren do this or that.

I also wonder if the Brethren have been "shut down" by the Lord as, apparently, was Pres. McKay on the issue of blacks and the priesthood:

Quote

But the most remarkable account came from Richard Jackson, an architect who served in the Church Building Department from 1968 to McKay's death in 1970:

Quote

I remember one day that President McKay came into the office.  We could see that he was very much distressed.  He said, "I've had it!  I'm not going to do it again!"  Somebody said, "What?" He said, "Well, I'm badgered constantly about giving the priesthood to the Negro.  I've inquired of the Lord repeatedly.  The last time I did it was late last night.  I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone."

This uncharacteristic outburst in the presence of an astonished church architect highlights the contrast between two strands in McKay's thought that are, by today's standard, inseparably joined: civil rights for blacks and priesthood ordination for black men.  The blurring, combined with McKay's own reticence, means that this difference has not been understood until now.

The Lord let the Hebrews stew in Egyptian slavery for generations.  Conversely, the Lord was, it seems, occasionally relatively prompt and specific in responding to inquiries Joseph Smith.  Consider the preface to D&C 6:

Quote

Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Oliver Cowdery, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, April 1829. Oliver Cowdery began his labors as scribe in the translation of the Book of Mormon, April 7, 1829. He had already received a divine manifestation of the truth of the Prophet’s testimony respecting the plates on which was engraved the Book of Mormon record. The Prophet inquired of the Lord through the Urim and Thummim and received this response.

D&C 11:

Quote

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet to his brother Hyrum Smith, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, May 1829. This revelation was received through the Urim and Thummim in answer to Joseph’s supplication and inquiry. 

D&C 12:

Quote

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet to Joseph Knight Sr., at Harmony, Pennsylvania, May 1829. Joseph Knight believed the declarations of Joseph Smith concerning his possession of the Book of Mormon plates and the work of translation then in progress and several times had given material assistance to Joseph Smith and his scribe, which enabled them to continue translating. At Joseph Knight’s request, the Prophet inquired of the Lord and received the revelation.

D&C 27:

Quote

Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, August 1830. In preparation for a religious service at which the sacrament of bread and wine was to be administered, Joseph set out to procure wine. He was met by a heavenly messenger and received this revelation, a portion of which was written at the time and the remainder in the September following.

D&C 34:

Quote

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet to Orson Pratt, at Fayette, New York, November 4, 1830. Brother Pratt was nineteen years old at the time. He had been converted and baptized when he first heard the preaching of the restored gospel by his older brother, Parley P. Pratt, six weeks before. This revelation was received in the Peter Whitmer Sr. home.

And more.  I'm sure there is both rhyme and reason to the Lord's timing, but I think we are generally not situated to discern such things.  It's our job to ask and wait.

Also, a lot of the comments presuppose that the Brethren have not inquired of the Lord as to LGBT issues.  That they are deliberately ignoring these issues and not making them matters of prayer and fasting.  Such accusations are not congruent with what the Brethren have said, though.

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Even when someone like Abraham argued with the Lord about the destruction of Sodom, he was very humble and reasonable -- the Lord actually entertaining Abe's objections.  Similarly, when the Galilean rabbi Honi requested rain for the parched Holy Land, he simply placed his own life on the line so that the Lord would know that he was serious -- Honi drew a circle and vowed that he would not leave the circle until the Lord brought rain to the Land of Israel.  Because the Lord loved Honi, He brought rain.  There is a strong Jewish tradition of discussing matters with the Lord, and trying to make a deal.  I think that the Lord appreciates the passion and effort.

It would be interesting to see a compilation of scriptural/historical references of people "arguing" with God.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[JustAnAustralian]

 

42 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't personally know any Latter-day Saints who go about arrogantly "demanding" revelation. 

Ordain Women comes to mind. Sure they were saying something along the lines of "all we want is the brethren to pray about it", but it seemed like that was being used as a stand it for "go and get revelation telling us we are correct". Let's face it, if one of the first presidency stood up and said, "the first presidency have prayed about women being ordained to priesthood offices and the Lord has said that should not happen", I seriously doubt Ordain Women would have said "thank you for praying like we asked" and quietly disbanded.

Edited April 21, 2022 by JustAnAustralian

[SkyRock]

Demanding and asking are two different things.   Children often ask for something, but throw a tantrum when they don't get the answer they want when they want it.

We are instructed to wait upon the Lord.  Sometimes in my life,  I get answers right away.   On other things, I have prayed for years without answer or any solution. 

Patience is a virtue and a valuable skill.   Most today are extremely impatient.  When I don't get an answer or an asked for blessing, I try to see what the Lord wants me to learn and how he wants me to grow. 

Sometimes, as with children, the answer will be "no".  We need to learn to better humble ourselves and be obedient, no matter our own desires. 

[Robert F. Smith]

34 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Ordain Women comes to mind. Sure they were saying something along the lines of "all we want is the brethren to pray about it", but it seemed like that was being used as a stand it for "go and get revelation telling us we are correct". Let's face it, if one of the first presidency stood up and said, "the first presidency have prayed about women being ordained to priesthood offices and the Lord has said that should not happen", I seriously doubt Ordain Women would have said "thank you for praying like we asked" and quietly disbanded.

At the same time, Joseph Smith did give tremendous authority to the Relief Society, which was later rescinded -- reminiscent of the rescinding of ordination of Africans.  Sometimes it is essential to bring such issues into the priorities under discussion.  Revelation never comes just out of the blue.  It is always actively sought.  Humans are known for agitating one another when they think something is unfair.  Is that wrong?

Some might be dreaming of Camelot . . .

 

Edited April 22, 2022 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

.............................

It would be interesting to see a compilation of scriptural/historical references of people "arguing" with God.  ..................

Anson H. Laytner, Arguing with God: A Jewish Tradition (Aronson/Rowman & Littlefield, 1990/ 1998/ 2004).

David A. Frank, “Arguing with God, Talmudic Discourse, and the Jewish Countermodel: Implications for the Study of Argumentation,” Argumentation and Advocacy, 41 (Fall 2004):71-86, online at  https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/5298/Arguing-with-God.pdf .

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

In his Saturday Evening Session talk, Elder Renlund said the following:

He goes on to elaborate on this second truth:

His main points:

• "The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother comes by revelation and is a distinctive belief among Latter-day Saints."
• "Very little has been revealed about Mother in Heaven, but what we do know is summarized in a gospel topic found in our Gospel Library application."
• It is fine to "wish" to know "more," and we may "still have questions" and "want to find more answers," but we need to be "cautious," to avoid "speculation," and to follow the revelations we have been given (as to the manner of prayer).
• Prophets, both past and present, "cannot go beyond the word of the Lord ... to do less or more."
• Here's the part that seems to have created controversy: "Demanding revelation from God is both arrogant and unproductive. Instead, we wait on the Lord and His timetable to reveal His truths through the means that He has established."

From the Tribune today:

I think the "Bishop Bill" entry linked to above takes a fairly jaundiced approach to Elder Renlund's talk:

No, I don't think that is what he is saying.

Asking for revelation and waiting for it are allowed (and encouraged, even commanded).  Demanding it, on the other hand . . .

"Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand."  (Jacob 4:10.)  "Wherefore, enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God. Amen."  (D&C 22:4.)

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree, I don't think that Elder Renlund was saying that we either wait or we demand, especially since he said this previous to that other statement:

"Very little has been revealed about Mother in Heaven, but what we do know is summarized in a gospel topic found in our Gospel Library application. Once you have read what is there, you will know everything that I know about the subject. I wish I knew more. You too may still have questions and want to find more answers. Seeking greater understanding is an important part of our spiritual development,"

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

He goes on to elaborate on this second truth:

Hi my friend: I still struggle with understanding and differentiating between the LDS idea of beliefs and truths. You started the thread with a statement that you say contains four truths, including the truth of a Heavenly Mother. Then you quote Elder Renlund, or President Dallin Oaks, I am not sure which, that the doctrine of a Heavenly Mother is a distinctive belief of the Saints. I understand the part of it being a distinctive or unique belief - - would you also agree that it is a distinctive LDS truth as opposed to Truth - as in absolute Truth? Do you know a truth such as this, or do you faith a truth such as this? Is someone who doesn't faith or know this truth wrong, or do they simply hold different distinctive truths; neither of you being "right" or "wrong" in your distinctive and unique beliefs. I hope my questions are clear and that you don't mind me asking them. Thanks.

Edited April 22, 2022 by Navidad

[strappinglad]

Seems to me that one must have a very close relationship with the Lord before one would feel okay " arguing " with Him. 

[carbon dioxide]

Reason suggests that if the Father and Son are are one, the Father and the Mother are one.  So whatever is known or not known about our Heavenly Mother is completely in compliance with her wishes.  If we are instructed to not to pray to her, that is 100% compliance with her desires and views.  Any attempt to go beyond what that does not seek to honor her.  One actually is offending her as they are suggesting her views on the matter are wrong.  Very bad position to take against the most powerful, smartest, and wisest woman in the Universe.

Edited April 22, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[rodheadlee]

If anybody is going to demand something from God I'd like to watch from Far Far Away.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

If anybody is going to demand something from God I'd like to watch from Far Far Away.

*Nehor walks over and stands right next to you with scary grin*

Hi!

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Seems to me that one must have a very close relationship with the Lord before one would feel okay " arguing " with Him. 

No, it is actually pretty easy to do at all the spiritual levels I have reached.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Seems to me that one must have a very close relationship with the Lord before one would feel okay " arguing " with Him. 

It has been my personal experience that arguing with God has only brought me into closer relationship with Him. Like my earthly father, He is always keen for a wrestle with His boy. And He always wins! But the intimacy of the experience and the resulting growth are both well worth the inevitable defeat. 

Edited April 22, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Maureen]

6 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Reason suggests that if the Father and Son are are one, the Father and the Mother are one.  So whatever is known or not known about our Heavenly Mother is completely in compliance with her wishes.  If we are instructed to not to pray to her, that is 100% compliance with her desires and views.  Any attempt to go beyond what that does not seek to honor her.  One actually is offending her as they are suggesting her views on the matter are wrong.  Very bad position to take against the most powerful, smartest, and wisest woman in the Universe.

How do you know if they are her wishes if you are not allowed to ask (pray to) her yourself? How has she communicated her wishes if she is not even allowed to speak to her own children?

M.

[filovirus]

2 hours ago, Maureen said:

How do you know if they are her wishes if you are not allowed to ask (pray to) her yourself? How has she communicated her wishes if she is not even allowed to speak to her own children?

M.

This is totally coming from left field, and there is absolutely nothing to support this, but what if Heavenly Mother put off her body and is acting as the Holy Ghost? She would then be speaking to us more often than we realize. This is just speculation that I have heard in the past.

I put this this out there only to show we should not jump to conclusions with no backing.

[Amulek]

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

I understand the part of it being a distinctive or unique belief - - would you also agree that it is a distinctive LDS truth as opposed to Truth - as in absolute Truth?

Well, we are talking about the existence of a divine being here, so, in your paradigm, is the existence of a divine being a small or large "t" truth?

 

 

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend: I still struggle with understanding and differentiating between the LDS idea of beliefs and truths.

Let me give it a whirl:

"Truth" is, per D&C 93:24, "knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come."

"Belief" is, I suppose, the individual's hope for and acceptance of truth.

13 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You started the thread with a statement that you say contains four truths, including the truth of a Heavenly Mother. Then you quote Elder Renlund, or President Dallin Oaks, I am not sure which, that the doctrine of a Heavenly Mother is a distinctive belief of the Saints.

Yes.

13 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I understand the part of it being a distinctive or unique belief - - would you also agree that it is a distinctive LDS truth as opposed to Truth - as in absolute Truth?

I'm not sure I understand the distinction between "truth" and "absolute truth."

13 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Do you know a truth such as this, or do you faith a truth such as this?

About Heavenly Mother?  That's a faith thing for me.  A pretty strong one, though.

13 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Is someone who doesn't faith or know this truth wrong, or do they simply hold different distinctive truths;

I think there is truth, and then there is the individual's proximity to it.  His comprehension of it.  His willingness to accept and internalize it.

Joe Biden is the current POTUS.  There is no "different distinctive truth" from that because it is empirically testable. 

But there are, I think, many truths that are not empirically or objectively testable or falsifiable.  This includes very important topics, like whether Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  I believe that is true, but I can't prove it.  Others do not hold this to be true, but they cannot prove that, either.  So we end up not with, as you put it, "different distinctive truths," but with differing perspectives/opinions on this topic.  Which side has a better grasp of "knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come?"  Time will tell.

13 minutes ago, Navidad said:

neither of you being "right" or "wrong" in your distinctive and unique beliefs.

Each of us carries an amalgam of "truths" and opinions/feelings.  And some of those truths are not really testable or falsifiable. 

There are plenty of things for which there is no "right" or "wrong."  Is green a pretty color than blue?  Is Five Guys better than In-N-Out?  These are matters of opinion, taste and preference.  De gustibus non est disputandum.  Such personal preferences are merely subjective opinion that cannot be right or wrong, so they should never be argued about as if they were.

However, I think there are things that are not "merely subjective opinion that cannot be right or wrong," and are instead important - but not empirically testable - questions of fact.  Is Jesus Christ the Son of God?  This, I think, really is a matter about which "being 'right' or 'wrong'" is both necessary (either He is or He is not) and important (if He is, discipleship is vital, if he is not...).

13 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I hope my questions are clear and that you don't mind me asking them. Thanks.

No problem at all.  I appreciate the inquiry.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Maureen said:

How do you know if they are her wishes if you are not allowed to ask (pray to) her yourself? How has she communicated her wishes if she is not even allowed to speak to her own children?

M.

Who is it that has the power and ability to disallow Her to speak?

I think we have to be careful not to project our misogynistic and cultural ideas about women onto our Mother in Heaven.  She cannot be silenced against Her will anymore than Father in Heaven.  She is God. 

That's not to say that our attitudes towards Her could never affect our ability to have a relationship with Her.  Our attitudes towards our Heavenly Father certain affect our ability to have a relationship with Him and I don't see why it would be different with our Heavenly Mother.

But that is by God's design.  It is not an aspect of any power that we wield. 

 

 

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It has been my personal experience that arguing with God has only brought me into closer relationship with Him. Like my earthly father, He is always keen for a wrestle with His boy. And He always wins! But the intimacy of the experience and the resulting growth are both well worth the inevitable defeat. 

Mine as well.

It's in the arguing (and even anger)--if it comes from a sincere place and doesn't include me cutting of my faith in Him--that I have grown the most in my relationship with my Father in Heaven.

It's where my trust in Him comes from.  And that trust has allowed a different relationship to exist than existed before it.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, filovirus said:

what if Heavenly Mother put off her body and is acting as the Holy Ghost?

Then it would be contrary to the same sources that are telling us not to pray to her, imo.   Not saying it can’t be true (apparently Joseph never used a pronoun in connection with the Holy Ghost), but if we accept the latter based on their authority and not a personal witness, than we should be accepting the Holy Ghost is male.

There are those who believe such. Fiona Givens presented it a possibility iirc and cited Charles Penrose as support. 
 

added:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/a-mother-there-a-survey-of-historical-teachings-about-mother-in-heaven/
 

Quote

An article in the Deseret News, presumably written by President Charles W. Penrose (editor of the Deseret News, later ordained an Apostle on July 7, 1904) argued that there is a Mother in Heaven and cited the feminine gender of the divine Spirit in the morning of creation that moved upon the face of the waters as evidence

So Givens may be assuming Penrose means the Holy Ghost if this is the citation, but he may be thinking there is another Spirit.

Again the problem with putting off the body when we speak of them never separating again, but perhaps that means a complete disconnect, death and not a partial one that might have the body more asleep or comatose.  If we believe in out of body experiences, why couldn’t Gods do the same for extended periods of time. 

Edited April 22, 2022 by Calm

[filovirus]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Then it would be contrary to the same sources that are telling us not to pray to her, imo. 

I’m not following your line of reasoning here. I’ve never seen it mentioned even once that we are to pray to the Holy Ghost.

And I am not advocating that the Holy Spirit is Heavenly Mother. Just the usual speculation that goes around in the mission field among missionaries.

It seems that Fiona Givens got a slap on wrist about a year ago for pushing this line of reasoning a little too far, among other things.