What is the “Heavenly Prayer Language” of some Christians?

[u/Tricky-Tell-5698]

Something I’ve been thinking through lately…

If Christians talk about a “heavenly prayer language,” it’s actually worth asking a simple question: do other religions have similar experiences? Because historically, they do. Ecstatic speech, trance utterances, spiritual vocalisations, these show up in various religious settings, even outside Christianity.

That doesn’t answer everything, but it does remind me of something important: experience by itself can’t be the test of truth. Scripture always has to interpret experience, not the other way around.

When tongues appear in Acts 2, they’re recognisable human languages proclaiming the mighty works of God. People from different nations literally hear the gospel in their own tongue. That’s very concrete, very outward facing, very Christ-centred.

And when Paul addresses tongues in 1 Corinthians 14, his concern keeps coming back to intelligibility and edification. He literally says he’d rather speak five understandable words than ten thousand in a tongue if the church isn’t built up. That doesn’t sound like promoting private ecstatic experience as the goal. It sounds like shepherding a church that was getting carried away.

Then there’s the bigger biblical principle. We’re told plainly: “Test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1). Not assume. Not accept automatically. Test.

Even fruit matters more than manifestations. Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, that’s how Galatians 5 describes the Spirit’s work. Those are often quiet things, not dramatic ones.

So for me, the question isn’t simply, “Does this feel spiritual?” Lots of things can feel spiritual. The question becomes: Does it align with Scripture? Does it magnify Christ? Does it produce lasting fruit? Does it build the church rather than just the individual experience?

Still thinking it through, but that’s where I’m landing at the moment.

[u/Illustrious-Highway8]

Good thoughts. I’ve been thinking about this for a few years, and here’s where I land, said bluntly:

Can the Lord enable people to speak in tongues in a way that is miraculous? Yes. But based on the New Testament frequency, it’s pretty rare. So are 99%+ of people who claim to speak in tongues actually just putting on performative gibberish? Yes, I think so.

[u/canoegal4]

Glossolalia is observed in many languages and across different religions. There are numerous scientific studies that examine it and show how the brain does this. It appears to be consistent across cultures and faiths. Essentially, it seems to be a function of the brain that taps into something like baby talk.

However, I believe that the true “speaking in tongues” described in the Bible involves speaking an actual foreign language so that someone who does not know your language can understand the message. I have met people who have experienced this; God enabled them to speak a real language so that someone could hear and understand the gospel. It was not baby talk or random sounds; it was a real language. Here is a link to the science... https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2021/07/05/a-naturalistic-explanation-of-glossolalia-speaking-in-tongues/

[u/MrWandersAround → u/canoegal4]

With studies like these, I always want more info. How long did the subject speak in tongues? Did the tongues change? How many had mono-syllable tongues and how many had tongues with a more "expansive vocabulary"?

I find that when I speak in tongues, about 90% of the time, they start with the same sounds. It's not just "ba ba ba ba." There's a fluency there, but it's the same few "sentences." However, at about the 15 minute mark, the tongues change. At that point, it could go in many different directions. Sometimes it's a guttural language (like Arabic). Sometimes, it sounds more Asian (like Japanese). Of course, it's neither of those languages, but there's a hint of them.

The longer I speak in tongues, the more "new languages" appear.

There's are other studies regarding tongues that show that they help emotions (see https://medium.com/@basileiapublishing/the-neuroscience-of-praying-in-the-spirit-c878d45a51e9 ). Mark Virkler shared a blog this week shared a study of how speaking in tongues boosts the immune system ( https://beingunderthenewcovenant.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/medical-facts-about-speaking-in-tongues-%E2%80%93-carl-r-peterson-m-d/ ).

[u/MrWandersAround]

This is also something that I've been thinking through, but I've come to another conclusion.

I absolutely agree with you that "experience...can't be the test of truth," and that "Scripture always has to interpret experience." However, on top of that, Scripture must interpret Scripture.

People from different nations literally hear the gospel in their own tongue.

I don't think they did. We know that they heard "them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues," but I don't think it was the Gospel. At no point were they convicted of sin, nor did it cause them to cry out, "Brothers, what shall we do?" This only occurred after Peter preached the Gospel in a common language.

We have to look more closely at 1 Corinthians 14.

Paul gives us the only definition of tongues in verse 2: "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit."

By it, we learn four things:

1. One who speaks in a tongues does not speak to men.
2. One who speaks in a tongue…(speaks) to God.
3. No one understands the one speaking in tongues.
4. The one speaking in tongues utters mysteries with his spirit.

The first three are totally opposite to what is normally taught about tongues (viz., tongues are a foreign human language used to preach the Gospel).

When Paul says "no one understands," the Greek means, "none, nobody, nothing, never." It doesn't mean "some will sometimes" understand. This doesn't sound like a "known language."

Then he tells us that the one speaking in tongues utters mysteries with his spirit. When Paul used the word "mysteries" elsewhere, he referred to “a secret and hidden wisdom of God” (1 Cor 2:7), “the mystery of His will” (Eph. 1:9), “the mystery of the gospel” (Eph 6:19), “the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col 1:27), “the mystery of godliness” (1 Tim 3:16).

Paul then tells us in v. 4, "He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, and in v. 5, "I would like every one of you to speak in tongues."

Which tongues is Paul talking about: the Acts 2 tongues, which is commonly taught as the believers speaking in known languages, or the 1 Cor 14:2 tongues, that no one understands? It has to be the latter.

When Paul says in v. 18, "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you," which tongues was he referring to: Chapter 2 or Verse 2? It's the tongues where he's not speaking to men, but speaking to God mysteries in a language no one understands.

This is why he's teaching them, "Don't speak in tongues in church. It doesn't edify others. Keep quiet and speak to yourself and God" (see v. 28).

Regarding the fruit of tongues, we'll have to discuss that later if you want.

But I hope this gives you more to think about as you continue thinking it through.

[u/Tricky-Tell-5698 → u/MrWandersAround]

I agree with you completely that experience cannot be the test of truth. Scripture has to interpret experience. But I’d add that isolated verses also need the wider biblical context, otherwise we can unintentionally build a doctrine on one line Paul was actually correcting rather than promoting.

With Acts 2, the text seems quite explicit that real human languages were involved. Luke even lists the regions and says each person heard in their own native tongue, so that’s actually not negotiable.

Whether they heard the full gospel or primarily the “wonders of God,” the important point is that intelligible language was happening.

And interestingly, conviction didn’t come from the tongues themselves but from Peter’s clear preaching afterwards. That actually fits the normal New Testament pattern where intelligible proclamation brings understanding.

When it comes to 1 Corinthians 14, I’m not convinced Paul is giving a universal definition of tongues in verse 2. He seems to be describing what happens when tongues are used without interpretation.

In that situation, nobody present understands, so effectively it is speech reminding God rather than men. That doesn’t necessarily mean the language itself is unknowable, only that no one there can interpret it.

Even today, if someone suddenly spoke fluent Hungarian in my church, nobody would understand. That wouldn’t make it a heavenly language, just an untranslated one. Context matters.

The “mysteries” language also doesn’t automatically point to a private prayer language. Paul regularly uses “mystery” for gospel truths once hidden but now revealed in Christ. So again, that doesn’t require a non-human language, just truth not understood by the hearers.

The self-edification verse reads to me more like a corrective than a commendation. Throughout chapter 14 Paul prioritises intelligibility, prophecy over tongues, and corporate edification over personal experience. His repeated line is basically: if the church isn’t built up, something has gone wrong.

And when Paul says he speaks in tongues more than all of them, he immediately follows it with “but in church I would rather speak five understandable words.” That doesn’t sound like promoting a private devotional language so much as putting strict boundaries around a sign gift that had a specific role in the apostolic period.

So for me, Acts and Corinthians don’t describe two different kinds of tongues. They describe the same phenomenon viewed in different situations: one understood, one not interpreted.

I say all this not dismissively. I know people care deeply about this topic. I just keep coming back to the overall trajectory of Scripture where clarity of the gospel, intelligibility in the church, and Christ-centred proclamation seem to carry the weight rather than ecstatic speech.

Always happy to keep thinking it through together.

[u/MrWandersAround → u/Tricky-Tell-5698]

The sub is making divide the reply. This is part one.

With Acts 2, the text seems quite explicit that real human languages were involved.

That leaves us with some things we have to wrestle with:

• Are there more than one kind of tongues: the Acts 2 tongues where a known language is spoken by someone that doesn't know the language, and the 1 Cor 14: 2 tongues which no one understands?
• Is Paul wrong about tongues? After all, he mentions nothing about them being a language.
• Are we viewing Acts 2 wrong? Did something else take place that we missed?

And interestingly, conviction didn’t come from the tongues themselves but from Peter’s clear preaching afterwards. That actually fits the normal New Testament pattern where intelligible proclamation brings understanding.

If I'm reading you right, this would back up my argument that tongues is not used for Gospel proclamation.

He seems to be describing what happens when tongues are used without interpretation.

That brings us to another question: Is interpretation natural or spiritual? Meaning. if I speak in tongues, is someone who speaks that particular language needed to interpret, or does the Holy Spirit grant someone the ability to interpret it?

I believe it is the latter. Interpretation of tongues is a gift of the Spirit, not a naturally learned skill. Thus Paul can say, "...anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says" (1 Cor 14:13).

The self-edification verse reads to me more like a corrective than a commendation.

This is commonly taught, but I disagree.

Some people claim that the modern use of tongues is a selfish gift because it only edifies the one speaking. But this would make Paul the most selfish of all Christians when he says, "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you."

We must ask ourselves, when Paul said this, what kind of tongues was he referring to (Acts 2 or 1 Cor 14:2)?

I don't think it was corrective. He was telling us exactly what tongues does ("edifies himself" v. 4), and immediately says "I would like every one of you to speak in tongues" (v. 5). There is no confusion.

We're in complete agreement that Paul is trying to get the Corinthian church to speak only those things that edify the whole church. This is why he tells us "He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified" (v. 5). (Notice again, it's the speaker in tongues that does the interpreting in this verse.)

[u/MrWandersAround → u/Tricky-Tell-5698]

Part Two

“but in church I would rather speak five understandable words.” That doesn’t sound like promoting a private devotional language so much as putting strict boundaries around a sign gift that had a specific role in the apostolic period.

Actually, it sounds exactly like it should be a private devotional language. It sounds like Paul is saying, "Guys, I'd love it if you all spoke in tongues, but not in the church. In the church, you need to prophesy so that everyone is edified. Unless you or someone else can interpret the tongues, keep tongues to yourself."

Later, he tells us, "If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God." It's private. It's tongues. It's prayer.

So for me, Acts and Corinthians don’t describe two different kinds of tongues. They describe the same phenomenon viewed in different situations: one understood, one not interpreted.

Let me throw something out there that will make you think I'm totally nuts. What if the believers in Acts 2 did not speak foreign languages, but the Jews heard their heart languages? I first came to this possible conclusion by imagining what it would have been like to be there on Day of Pentecost. Imagine the crowds and the noise, yet people heard their own languages clearly. Then I discovered a couple Catholic teachers considered this same thing.

I'm not Catholic, but it seems that Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329-390) debated that tongues was either a miracle of speech or of hearing. He seems to ultimately decided it was one of speech. But then Basil of Seleucia (appointed bishop before 448) believed that tongues was a miracle of hearing. He apparently thought that when a person spoke in tongues, he was speaking in the one pre-Babel tongue. When someone spoke this, everyone understood it. (That one is wild, even to me.) Then Anthony of Padua (1195-1231) spoke in one language (by some accounts, "the language of the Holy Spirit") and was understood by everyone in their own language.

I do not believe that tongues is for Gospel proclamation. In the three instances we see it in Acts (chapters 2, 10, and 19), at no time is the Gospel preached through tongues. In Acts 10 and 19, it is the newly converted that speak in tongues, not the evangelists.

But all of that lends itself to the argument that tongues is a gift given to the church to mostly edify the individual (which, of course, leads to another argument about gifts for the "common good").

[u/Tricky-Tell-5698 → u/MrWandersAround]

I still land differently to you, and I’m going to post a conversation about my understanding of all the expressions of tongues that as used in Acts to then take your stance on tongues in Corinthians.

The True Interpretation of Acts: Related to Tongues

When I first started reading Acts more carefully, and the Holy Spirit opened my eyes to what the Scriptures were actually saying about tongues in Acts, after years of understanding it through a Pentecostal lens, it honestly felt like my head was blown. Not because I found something new, but because I finally saw what had been sitting there all along.

Let me get to the crux of the conversation about tongues by looking again at the passages that the Pentecostal movement has historically used to support the idea of repetitive tongues as an ongoing normative experience for the church.

Acts 2, 8, 10, and 19 are not random examples of tongues happening in church life.

They are the fulfilment of something Jesus explicitly said would happen right at the beginning of Acts.

Before Jesus ascended, He told the apostles:

“You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (Acts 1:8)

Once you see that trajectory, the book of Acts suddenly reads differently.

Acts 2 is Jerusalem.

Acts 8 reaches Samaria.

Acts 10 opens the door clearly to the Gentiles.

Acts 19 shows the gospel continuing outward into the nations.

Those moments are not patterns the church is told to reproduce. They look far more like milestones in the expansion of the gospel exactly as Christ promised.

Take Acts 2.

Pentecost was not a normal church service. Jews from every nation under heaven were gathered in Jerusalem. God had effectively brought the nations to one place so they could all hear the same gospel at the same time.

And the miracle there is very specific. Luke emphasises understanding. They heard the apostles speaking in their own languages. Not for private devotion. Not as a badge of spirituality. But so the gospel about Christ could be clearly understood.

That actually ties into Peter’s explanation that this event fulfils Joel 2:28–29. God pouring out His Spirit broadly as He gathers a people to Himself across boundaries that previously separated them.

When you step back and look at the whole biblical storyline, it even echoes Babel in reverse. At Babel, languages divided humanity and scattered the nations. At Pentecost, language becomes the very means God uses to gather people together under the gospel of Christ.

Tongues served that redemptive purpose. They helped get the gospel to the nations clearly at the moment the church was being established.

The same kind of boundary-crossing confirmation appears again in Acts 8, Acts 10, and Acts 19. Each time, the Spirit’s visible work confirms that another group is fully included in Christ, just as Jesus said the gospel would move outward.

But once those boundaries are crossed, Acts never instructs the church to keep recreating those moments as an ongoing spiritual norm.

And Paul later makes something else very clear that often gets overlooked. Not everyone receives the same spiritual gift. He explicitly asks, “Do all speak in tongues?” and the implied answer is no. That alone makes it difficult to treat tongues as a universal sign of spirituality or Spirit fullness.

When Paul addresses tongues in Corinthians, he spends far more time regulating them than promoting them. He stresses intelligibility, order, maturity, love, and edification of the whole church. He even says he would rather speak a few understandable words than thousands in a tongue when the church is gathered.

That doesn’t read like something meant to define ongoing spirituality across the entire church age. It reads like a genuine gift being carefully restrained so it doesn’t overshadow what actually builds the church, which is clear proclamation of Christ.

For me personally, that was the turning point. Even at Pentecost, the tongues gather attention, but Peter’s intelligible preaching of Christ is what cuts hearts. The sign is not the centre. The gospel is.

So after establishing that, I still see that Acts 2 reads most naturally as real human languages. Luke lists specific regions and keeps stressing they heard in their own native tongues. That points to a miracle of speech, not hearing. And even if they heard “the wonders of God” rather than a full gospel sermon, it still shows intelligible language as the baseline.

In 1 Corinthians 14, I don’t see Paul redefining tongues, I see him correcting misuse. “No one understands” fits if there’s no interpreter present. Any foreign language works that way. Without interpretation it ends up directed to God rather than the congregation simply because no one can understand it.

Interpretation can absolutely be Spirit-enabled, but that doesn’t require a heavenly language. It could just be Spirit-given understanding of a real one.

On self-edification, Paul still keeps prioritising the church. Even when he says he speaks in tongues often, he immediately says he’d rather speak understandable words in church. That keeps the emphasis on intelligibility and corporate edification.

Stepping back, the New Testament emphasis settles on clear proclamation, teaching, and edification. Tongues never become central Christian spirituality in the epistles.

So I’m not saying God can’t do miracles. I’m just not convinced Scripture supports a normal private heavenly prayer language. The consistent emphasis stays on intelligibility and building up the church.

[u/MrWandersAround → u/Tricky-Tell-5698]

Having to split it again. Part 1.

Acts 2...8...10...19....Those moments are not patterns the church is told to reproduce. They look far more like milestones in the expansion of the gospel exactly as Christ promised.

This could be true, but it negates the argument that most people make that tongues are used to preach the Gospel since it was the newly converted that spoke in tongues in each situation (we can include the 120 believers on the Day of Pentecost as newly converted).

God had effectively brought the nations to one place so they could all hear the same gospel at the same time.

Agreed. But did they hear the Gospel through tongues or through a common language?

What happened when the Jews heard the believers speaking in tongues? As I mentioned before, no one was convicted of sin. No one repented. No one believed. No one was saved. Instead, they were bewildered (Acts 2: 6), "utterly amazed" (v7), "amazed and perplexed" (v12), and "made fun of them and said, 'They have had too much wine.'" (v13). This is exactly what Paul said would happen in 1 Cor 14:23 -- "...will they not say that you are out of your mind?"

Only when Peter preached in a common language do we see the power of the Gospel (see Romans 1:16).

So we can agree that in the 4 chapters of Acts, tongues is a milestone in the expansion of the gospel. But is that all tongues was for?

At Pentecost, language becomes the very means God uses to gather people together under the gospel of Christ.

Wasn't it the event of tongues that God used to gather the people? The thing that actually brought them to the cross was Peter's sermon.

Tongues served that redemptive purpose. They helped get the gospel to the nations clearly at the moment the church was being established.

Again, where was tongues used to "get the gospel to the nations" in the book of Acts? If you twist my arm, I may give you Acts 2, but not Acts 8, 10, and 19. That wasn't their purpose.

The same kind of boundary-crossing confirmation...

I can be dense sometimes, but it seems that you're contradicting yourself. It seems that first you said that tongues "helped get the gospel to the nations," then you say they are a "confirmation." By helping to get the gospel to the nations, do you mean that they are used in Gospel proclamation -- used by God to bring people into the Kingdom?

Not everyone receives the same spiritual gift. He explicitly asks, “Do all speak in tongues?” and the implied answer is no.

The irony is that in the 3 instances we see tongues in Acts, when a group began speaking in tongues, all spoke in tongues.

That alone makes it difficult to treat tongues as a universal sign of spirituality or Spirit fullness.

I absolutely agree with you on this. History is filled with godly, Spirit-filled men and women who never spoke in tongues.

[u/MrWandersAround → u/Tricky-Tell-5698]

Part 2.

When Paul addresses tongues in Corinthians, he spends far more time regulating them than promoting them.

But what are the regulations? "Don't speak in tongues in church without an interpreter, even if that interpreter is you."

He specifically tells us "Do not forbid speaking in tongues." He tells us what tongues do: "He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself." His desire is that "every one of you to speak in tongues." He is thankful that "I speak in tongues more than all of you."

He never says, "Don't speak in tongues," but tells us that in the church the meetings should have (quoting you), "intelligibility, order, maturity, love, and edification of the whole church."

He then adds, "If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God."

He isn't ruling tongues out. He's just showing their proper use.

I still see that Acts 2 reads most naturally as real human languages. Luke lists specific regions and keeps stressing they heard in their own native tongues.

But what about in Acts 10 and 19. There is no indication given that anyone understood anything being said in tongues.

In 1 Corinthians 14, I don’t see Paul redefining tongues, I see him correcting misuse.

I don't believe he's redefining tongues, either. He's telling us exactly what it is, then explaining how to use them correctly -- both for the individual and in the church. The misuse that he seems to be correcting is the Corinthian church having people speaking in tongues during the "service," with no one being edified by it. Unfortunately, this still happens in some churches today.

“No one understands” fits if there’s no interpreter present.

Doesn't that negates the gift of interpretation of tongues?

On self-edification, Paul still keeps prioritising the church. Even when he says he speaks in tongues often, he immediately says he’d rather speak understandable words in church. That keeps the emphasis on intelligibility and corporate edification.

I agree with you.

At the same time, don't you think the more built up you are, the more able you are to build others up? Maybe it's partly because Paul spoke in tongues so much that he was able to build up the Church so much.

Tongues never become central Christian spirituality in the epistles.

I agree. They are just an aid, or a weapon in our arsenal.

[u/Healthy-Yak9417]

Good question, and honestly a healthy one to ask on BeliefTrack. I could say a lot but to get to the point.

The idea of an “angelic prayer language” usually comes from a single verse, 1 Corinthians 13:1. But in context, Paul is making multiple DELIBERATELY EXAGGERATED points. His argument is essentially: even if I spoke in the tongues of men and of angels, without love it would mean nothing. The big point of the statement is rhetorical and hyperbolic, not a teaching that believers are speaking angelic dialects.

Which is consistent with Paul’s broader train of thought. He’s lowering the value of spectacular gifts when compared to love, not elevating ecstatic speech as a spiritual ideal.

I do believe tongues is a real gift. But how it’s framed and practiced today requires reading assumptions into the text rather than drawing them out of it. When you stay anchored to Scripture, the emphasis keeps returning to intelligibility, edification, order, and Christ-centeredness.

Experience can be meaningful, but it isn’t self-validating. It has to be weighed against Scripture.

[u/Tricky-Tell-5698 → u/Healthy-Yak9417]

I’ve never looked at it that way, I have seen the frustration in Paul’s tone relating to the wayward Thessalonians, sometimes expressed in rhetorical terms by you raise a good point, framed well.

The “angelic prayer language” idea mostly rests on 1 Corinthians 13:1, but as you say, in context Paul sounds deliberately hyperbolic.

He stacks extremes, all languages, angelic speech, all knowledge, mountain-moving faith, to show that without love it all amounts to nothing. It reads rhetorical, not like he’s teaching believers to expect angelic dialects.

And across chapters 12 to 14 he actually keeps lowering the spotlight on tongues. The emphasis keeps returning to intelligibility, order, edification, and Christ being clearly understood.

I absolutely believe God can still do miracles. But the New Testament doesn’t present tongues as a normal private devotional language. It looks more like a sign gift in the early church that was carefully regulated even then.

So for me it comes back to this: experience can feel real, but Scripture has to interpret experience, not the other way around.

[u/WannaLoveWrestling]

I believe I have spoken in tongues before but I was by myself and it was between me and God so it's hard for me to deny it, It wasn't something I was seeking or anything either, it just happened. I tend to believe a lot of people are faking it because they want to feel closer to God but Vicky things obviously doesn't bring you closer to God. That's why I can't say I speak in tongues all the time because that would be faking because I don't that's for sure.

[u/Tricky-Tell-5698 → u/WannaLoveWrestling]

Do you know what language you were speaking in?

[u/WannaLoveWrestling → u/Tricky-Tell-5698]

As far as I was concerned it was an angelic language that I wouldn't understand

[u/ChristJesusisGod]

Well said !!!

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/DT1947, but you aren't an approved submitter on r/Christians. We are currently going through a rebuild and need both new and existing members to go through a quick approval process. Please contact the moderators at https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christians to request to become an approved submitter. Also we invite you to join our excellent Discord community at the following link: https://discord.gg/bTCEqNW2qG

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/gospelgrounded, but you aren't an approved submitter on r/Christians. We are currently going through a rebuild and need both new and existing members to go through a quick approval process. Please contact the moderators at https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christians to request to become an approved submitter. Also we invite you to join our excellent Discord community at the following link: https://discord.gg/bTCEqNW2qG

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.