Martain

I hope you'll read what I linked. The individual there was on multiple high level pain medications which even then were not enough. He found something that was even more effective for overcoming his pain then Lori-tabs.

I understand where you're coming from apple and though I disagree with you on some matters, I hope you do not take the following to be an attack on yourself in any way. Yes I can see how it could be sad if someone else had previously done the work for a convert's ancestors. It seems such a scenario would apply even if it was a family member who did it. Either way the descendant missed out on an opportunity for a wonderful experience right? Yet ultimately we have to ask ourselves this question. Who are we doing the work for? Is this work for the living or the dead? Out of respect for those left behind we do not do the work for those whose immediate relations request otherwise so long as those individuals yet live. Yet those who have no such living immediate relations, Jewish Holocaust victims being the exception, do not have such restrictions. For such, the message is to get the work done as soon as possible. The work for the dead is critical as they can not progress in the spirit world without it. If you had never heard the gospel in this life and had been waiting for hundreds of years in the spirit world for your work to be done, do you really think you would care whether or not it was done by descendants or by a church extraction program? Think of baptism and the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost. How can they receive this gift save we do their proxy work for them? Knowing how much of a difference it makes in my life I find I do not want anyone who has died to wait any longer than absolutely necessary for their work to be done. Think of temple sealings? Do you think that those who die without this endowment can still live together lawfully as husband and wife in the spirit world? They're no longer married there and can not be so unless this saving ordinance is done for them here. I find I do not want anyone who has died to wait any longer to be sealed to their spouses any longer than absolutely necessary for their work to be done. You're absolutely right regarding how wonderful it is when a descendant steps up and does the work for their dead but this work isn't about them. I know how much I cried and plead to finally be allowed to enter the temple myself and finally be allowed to make those covenants myself and I can imagine that there are those in the spirit world who shed tears of sorrow and who are pleading earnestly in prayer for someone, anyone to do their work for them. I think of with sorrow those individuals who had no records left behind or who have been lost and who in all likelihood will have to patiently wait until the millennium for their work to be done so that they can progress. While I recognize that I feel differently than you do I hope you can understand how I feel too. I would not be sad if someone had already done my ancestor's work. I would be very happy! I would be at peace knowing that those of them who had accepted the Gospel of Jesus Christ and who were waiting had not had to wait for me to rise up and do it for them. I would be at peace knowing that those who accepted in the future wouldn't have to wait even a single day. I would want to thank who ever had done the work for them so that they could progress rather than wait even a single day without the blessings these ordinances bring. I'd feel that way because in my mind, it's not about me.

While I don't have any useful information, I do have an anecdotal story to share from my own childhood. My mother tells the story (quite well actually) of how when I was a babe I learned to stand up before I learned to sit down. I'd stand up in my crib all the time but would always lock my knees and would cry because I didn't know how to sit down. So my mother would lay me down and I'd stop crying only to have me start crying again because I'd stood up and couldn't sit back down. She said that I'd get so tired that I'd be swaying back and forth and eventually would just fall straight backwards with legs locked straight due to fatigue. Her solution? She duck taped my hand and legs to the crib so that I couldn't stand up. While it worked, I'm glad I finally learned how to sit.

I can empathize with what you're going through and your desires to become well and provide for your family. Surely the Lord is with you in that desire. There is indeed something I feel is a solution I can present. It's not much reading so please read the article's below as well as the other links I've provided. Ponder and pray about whether or not this solution would work for you for I'm convinced that it would. If I were in your shoes and I wanted to recover, become pain and painkiller free, below is what I would do. Part 1 Part 2 Additional Info Additional Info Scripture Scripture Scripture

To me this policy explains that we check with close relatives not the closest living relative. If no close relative of the deceased as defined above is available to express preference or had not done so before becoming deceased themselves, then the preference of other living descendants is not a deterrent to doing an individual's work. To me the obvious exception for this would be when living descendants procure a promise that such work will not be done prior to providing the genealogical records in question. In such cases, while Church policy would not prevent it, integrity and the promise of the individual receiving the records does. Another exception is in regards to Jewish Holocaust victims. In order to do the work for Jewish Holocaust victims, one must also secure the permission of the closest living relative. This restriction currently only applies to Jewish Holocaust victims only as far as I can tell.

Hmm... I don't think it's so much that those who've recovered from serious sin are stronger than most... but rather that such change has a high chance of lengthening one's stride. Repentance of serious sin requires serious effort and serious changes. Those that pass through such gates then realize just how much time they've lost and will often push themselves harder in an effort to compensate and reclaim lost ground. Basically put, such a change has a high chance of leading such individuals to a very serious and earnest commitment to be completely diligence to God's commandments from there on out. No matter who you are or what you may have done, if you want to become strong in the gospel you have to go through the same steps as everyone else. One need look no further than Alma the younger to see an example of someone who had committed serious sin but who after complete repentance followed by personal diligence later went on to great strength and righteousness. One need look no further than Joseph Smith to see an example of someone who had never committed serious sin who through personal diligence went on to great strength and righteousness. Is it not the personal effort involved that makes you strong regardless of what the original motivation was? The strongest athletes are those who are the most diligent and who train and practice more than the majority of everyone else. The spiritually strong are those who are the most diligent in living the gospel and who exercise greater faith than the majority of everyone else. While still taking into consideration Mosiah 4:27; Sow more, reap more. So no the strongest ones aren't the ones who never go down that path to begin with nor are they those who go down that path and return. The strongest ones are those who live the gospel most fully. After all, when one truly repents God remembers our sin's no more. Also God is no respecter of persons. Those who've repented and are now equally as righteous as those who never did are equally esteemed in the sight of the Lord save that the latter has more works of righteousness to his name. That being said, considering the pain and suffering that comes not only from both committing sin and in repenting of it (think Alma the Younger for the latter) and the risk of never making it back at all... it's clear which path is the better way to achieve strength. I feel we do indeed know where this sits in a gospel context. That being said, not all are instructed sufficiently in this life. All mankind will either in this life or the next be instructed sufficiently to know good from evil. The sooner they learn the better for it is much easier to repent and forsake a sin committed once then to repent and forsake a sin committed every day for an entire life and then in the spirit world as well. I recall the parable of the olive tree's in Jacob 5. I hope from this I am able to convince you that being raised in the conditions you describe above does not "set as to where the flowchart of their decision making process will go" any more than being raised in righteous conditions would predetermine an individual's righteousness.

Really? It would? Woah... Well... it wouldn't cover MY garment that's for sure... I wasn't aware that they were so different. Your news was surprising!

Another alternate resource would be using the website found here and doing a bit of research. Since most medicinal compounds are found originally in nature, you could find out what the active medicinal compound is in her medications and look for it's natural counterpart within nature. Perhaps this would lead to something you could actually stockpile. As for doomsday scenario's, I think you'll really love "The Great and the Terrible" series. It's by an LDS author and was phenomenal. Not only for the story line but for gems of truth witnessed by the Spirit. Ultimately if you can't stock pile them then you can't stock pile them. Personally I've done a lot of research and have gained a lot of experience with non-western approaches to healing. I found modern society and modern science (drugs/surgery) does not have a monopoly on healing. God loved his children in those ages just like he loves his children now and he gave them tools to heal and cure diseases just like he's given us newer tools now. If the newer tools are no longer available, you may need to learn about the older set and find out how to use them. If nothing else, you could seek in prayer knowledge as to whether the other sets of tools would be of aid to you and worth even looking into right?

In looking at the picture (which isn't very clear) the only possible thing I could see him referring to is her neck line. From BYU Honor Code: The portion I think he would refer to would be the 'revealing' verbage. I definitely don't think her neck line would cover a temple garment. I know the world has different standards but I too would find her neck line immodest for someone trying to live LDS modesty standards and the BYU Honor code.

Knowing the importance of proxy work, I can see the temptation to do the work for family members even if their living relatives don't give their permission. We can easily envision that so and so who passed away is eagerly awaiting for the work to be done so they can accept and move forward. The thought of such an individual having to wait for an undetermined period of time is... unpleasant. Yet perhaps this analogy will help. Say you met Sam who is 16 years old. He wants to get baptized and tells the missionaries that he has his parents permission yet you know for certain that his parents are vehemently opposed to him getting baptized. Would it be dishonest for you to stay silent? What if you knew his parents will but were the missionary. Would it be dishonest to baptize him anyways? If you answered the way I did, then how would that be any different from baptizing others against the wishes of their closest living relatives?

I agree that there is a promise in that verse. By this verse I also show that I agree with the rest of what Pam says as well. I've personally proved Alma 13:28's promise and experienced the results of both obedience and disobedience to it. We surrender portions of our agency each time we commit sin. These are cumulative and you can reach a point where you loose your agency and capacity to resist temptation in regards to a given thing. At such a point only the Atonement accessed via repentance can allow the Lord to free you and restore your agency unto you. I speak from personal experience. I believe that the only way someone can become subject to temptations beyond their capacity to endure/resist is if they are not keeping the commandment listed in verse 28. That being said, there are a host of reasons why someone doesn't do so. Some are ignorant and others are apathetic. You even have some who are rebellious or simply careless. No matter what the reason, he's only bound when we do what he commands.

Sometimes there are individuals who simply push our buttons and know how to really get us worked up and frustrated. I expect that one of the reasons why this upsets you and makes you so frustrated is because although you know what you would do if she were your mother or your child, she's not and so you have no rights of stewardship. This means while you can give advice to those in charge, you have no authority to enact them. You've done the right thing by bringing your concerns to the priesthood authority. At this point it's in their court and out of your hands. Sometimes you simply have to ask the lord to take away the burden of frustration and grant you grace to endure the less than favorable situation. I've had such experiences in the past and received such aid so I know you can too. It makes a huge difference. So ultimately my advice? Pray for grace =)

Haven't really been following this thread since I last spoke on it but I recently found this quote that I felt was of significance. Found in chapter 6 of the Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual published by the Church I found the following: ■ “The Lord made it known to Moses (See Book of Moses Chap. 3 .) and also to Abraham ( Abraham Ch. 3 ) and it is expressed in several revelations, that man was in the beginning with God. In that day, however, man was a spirit unembodied. The beginning was when the councils met and the decision was made to create this earth that the spirits who were intended for this earth, should come here and partake of the mortal conditions and receive bodies of flesh and bones. The doctrine has prevailed that matter was created out of nothing, but the Lord declares that the elements are eternal. Matter always did and, therefore, always will exist, and the spirits of men as well as their bodies were created out of matter. We discover in this revelation that the intelligent part of man was not created, but always existed. There has been some speculation and articles have been written attempting to explain just what these ‘intelligences’ are, or this ‘intelligence’ is, but it is futile for us to speculate upon it. We do know that intelligence was not created or made and cannot be because the Lord has said it. There are some truths it is well to leave until the Lord sees fit to reveal the fulness” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, 1:401).

The short answer? Because he's God =). No seriously though, there are somethings we simply do not yet know and which have not been revealed. Actually it's a rather large extensive list truth be told. Your real question above would be how can one who has only one form do all these things right? Well I understand one part of the answer which is the principal of divine investiture. Divine investiture is where Heavenly Father gives another authority to go and act and speak in his name and with his power. Think of our Savior Jesus Christ for example. We're taught that it was Christ at the command of his father who created this world and many others right? In short, God does not have to be in all places at all times in order to have his will carried out. He doesn't have to be in all places at all times to be omnipresent. He has hosts and legions of angels to carry out his will. Not only these but matter itself obey's his will when commanded to do so (Abraham 2:7). I guess my question to you would then be what leads you to feel or believe that Heavenly Father needs any other form than that which he has? While not speaking directly of Heavenly Father, I found the following teachings regarding the Holy Ghost shed some additional light and supported my understanding. From the Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual which is an official publication of the Church used to teach doctrine, the following can be found: Hope some of this will help answer your questions or at least lead you on to more and more of them =)

I absolutely agree! And no you don't sound impertinent. I'm fairly sure that most if not all of us are in absolute agreement with what you just said.

I've appreciated your willing spirit and your insight as to what those coming from other faiths can believe. While I don't agree with his methods, personally I agree with his conclusion and I'll try to explain why. Perhaps it will help =) First off, from D&C 130:22 we learn that the Father has a body of flesh and bone. One day we too will have a glorified resurrected body of flesh and bone. At that point, rather than the body being quickened by blood as it is now, it will be quickened by the spirit instead. One reason I believe as your teacher does can be found in Hebrews 1:1-3 Jesus Christ is the express image or likeness of Heavenly Father meaning he looks exactly like him the same way that Seth looked exactly like his father Adam (D&C 107:43). Since I don't see Jesus Christ as ever ceasing to be the express image of his father, logic tells me that Heavenly Father doesn't change his physical shape or appearance. Another reason I agree with your teacher as to our Heavenly Father's physical appearance can be found in the following scriptures; Alma 31:17, Mormon 9:9, D&C 35:1, 1 Nephi 10:18, 2 Nephi 27:23. Basically these scriptures all say the same thing of: Can you reconcile a belief that Heavenly Father could change in physical appearance and likeness with the above scripture? Personally I can not. Therefore, having a knowledge of these and other scriptures, I conclude that Heavenly Father does not take on any other shape. Why would he being perfect, have any need or desire to do so? How could he and yet remain without variableness or shadow of changing? Did this help?

Wow... I wasn't expecting so many responses in such little time. I didn't even have a chance to be included in on the conversation at all! Before I continue I want to thank everyone for their participation. Thanks =). One issue I see here is in regards to forbidding/informing. James12 shared the following quote: I would state that this applies not only to the Bishopric but to members as well. We are not to prevent nonmembers from taking the sacrament. That being said, we're not inviting or encouraging them to do so either. Still, It's not counter to this counsel to advise them politely and respectfully not to though. Right? Or would it be wrong for a Bishop to stand up and say, "We take the Sacrament to renew sacred covenants we've made with the Lord through Baptism. We don't forbid you, but do ask kindly that if you are over the age of 8 and have not made these covenants by becoming a baptized member of this church, that you don't take the sacrament." Would that be doing something to prevent nonmembers from taking the sacrament?One could say that counseling someone is not the same as preventing someone. You didn't prevent them or force them not to. They could still choose to accept if they choose to do so. Another could say that if you counsel someone and they follow that counsel, you've done something that prevents them from partaking and that since we are to do nothing which would prevent them then counseling is contrary to the guidance given. It seems it depends on how you view it. Thoughts? Another issue I see discussed here is presentation. We definitely don't want to offend someone who is investigating and have them never come back yet at the same time we don't want to have them eat or drink damnation to their souls for consuming prior to entering into those covenants. Nor do we want to be placed under condemnation if it was our task to warn them and we didn't. I can see how being told, "Don't take the sacrament because you're unworthy to do so" would offend someone. It's harder for me to see how someone could be offended if we say "We take the sacrament to renew our baptismal covenants. Since you haven't made these covenants we politely ask that you don't partake" and then leaving it at that. Tact should indeed be used. If we are indeed accountable to warn our nonmember friend before hand, would be not also be accountable if we drove someone away on account of being rude? Another issue is children taking the sacrament. To be honest I didn't realize it was an issue. I'd read that which answered this question for me long ago. I tried to find it and found something that will clarify the issue. From Elder Haight's April 1988 Ensign article "Remembering the Savior's Atonement": and an alternate wording of The way I read this is that the first part is telling us that we are not to advise someone to take the sacrament who shouldn't be doing so. If a Bishop know's someone is unworthy to partake of the sacrament he is not to suffer it to be done or advice them to do so. It is in the last part that I see the instruction that while we are to tell these same individuals, tactfully and politely, that they should not partake, we are not to prevent them from doing so. Our job is to explain and warn but not to force or prevent. Right? Wrong?

So I was reading through this scripture recently and was pondering it and it's meaning. I discussed it with my parents who expressed significantly different understandings as to it's meaning. Alright, so it's clear to me that those who partake of the sacrament unworthily are damning themselves in the process. It's also clear to me that individuals past the age of accountability who are not yet baptized are among those who are unworthy to partake the sacrament. The question I asked was how this commandment applied to me. And... this is where the differences arose. One point of view is that this commandment was spoken to the 12 Apostles who had the keys of stewardship and that this means it only applies to the Bishop of a ward now a days. One point of view is that this commandment was given to those who had priesthood authority to administer the sacrament and that this means it would also apply to the priesthood members administering and passing the sacrament. One point of view is that this applies to every member. The reason why I desire to understand and know how this commandment is applicable in my life is due to the following verse which reads: At least for myself I can say that I very much want to make sure that I'm not living in condemnation. It doesn't seem to be an issue one can simply ignore or live blindly but rather one I need to know that I am living it correctly. So as part of seeking out and studying it out in my own mind preparatory to personal revelation, I'd like to query those here as well. What is your understanding regarding the application of forbidding someone to partake and how far does it go? Personally the way I see it is this: I feel that if I bring anyone who have not been baptized then it is my duty to inform (verbally forbid) them that they should not partake of the sacrament since they have not made those covenants. I believe that should I do less than this I myself would come under condemnation. If feel that if I know a member is unworthy to take the sacrament, so long as I report it to the Bishop, I have fulfilled my duty but that otherwise I myself would come under condemnation. I feel that in regards to forbidding someone to partake, that it should be verbal yet tactful command but that it should not be physically enforced. By this I mean that a priesthood holder shouldn't intentionally pass someone by and members sitting in a row shouldn't intentionally bypass someone sitting next to them. I feel that if it's a member and they've been told by the Bishop not to partake of the Sacrament, then it's up to him to notice if they disobey and then discipline them. If however I know that they've been forbidden by the Bishop and they take, I feel it's still my responsibility to notify the Bishop in case he didn't notice. Other's I've spoken with feel that this commandment is no longer in force and non-members who partake are not eating and drinking damnation to their souls. They feel that they should not tell such individuals not to partake because they might offend or drive them away by doing so. What exactly is my duty in regards to this commandment? Does anyone have anything that would shed further light?

After reading dove's response, I discussed this with my family. They brought up some interesting points. Let's say it was a single mother whose child was severely ill and needed full time attention, in this case I could indeed see the Lord giving guidance to a mother to stay home for a while to look after her child and to lean upon her Bishop for support from the Church. I found myself agreeing with this scenario as definitely being a possible situation in which such advice could be given. Doesn't mean it was, but it doesn't mean it couldn't be. That being said, if one exception to the general agreement can be found, who is to say that another might not be as well? I agree with others though that in such situations the Bishop would receive such revelation as well. Aren't you glad sometimes that you don't have the responsibilities that a Bishop has and that those calls are according to the Lord's will? Who here would want to serve in such a position without his aid? Who here could? Whew...

As to her revelation, do I doubt she received it? No. That being said, there is no doubt in my mind as to where that revelation came from. If I could find the exact quote from the prophets I'm thinking of I'd probably want to share it with them but I expect the best thing to do would be to go meet with their bishop and explain the situation. In talking with him I'd probably share with him this so as to better express the reason why I feel my concern is valid.

Talk it out between you two with the Bishop as a referee? That's an fabulous idea! I'm going to remember that because it simply makes so much sense to me. Good luck!

Yay for moderators! yad b yppah!

I can understand what you mean anne =). Those I posted what I did, sometimes you forget what you planned to do and do something completely different. I hope that doesn't happen to me in the future. Once I was being bullied by a classmate in the locker room. One day I basically told him not to get close to me and when he started pushing, I grabbed my shoes by the shoelaces and started whizzing them around and around like a pair of maces. A whack or two to show I was serious about him not entering my personal space and I don't remember ever having an issue with him after that. Then there was a mean (though cute, why does my memory tell me she was cute?) tomboy girl who was always up in the mix during pe and flag football. There really was no contest in regards to who had more physical prowess between her and me nor between her and quite a few other guys in our class. For some reason she kept picking and taunting me (don't remember how or what) and one day I pushed her back. She shoved me to the ground and holding me down and it looked like she was about to punch me. I grabbed her arm, and in a very surprising seemingly miraculous (I don't know how I did it and I'm not sure who was more surprised her me or my classmates) I somehow in a single flip reversed our positions and was in the threatening position. I don't remember if I punched her in retaliation or not but I might have. If I d id I expect it was pitiful. Yet all the same I hope I didn't because it makes a better story without it and society frowns on little boys punching little girls regardless of the events that lead up to it. Either way she didn't bother me after that =). Plausible possible scenario: "But... she was bigger than me!" "I don't care if she was bigger than you... you don't hit girls!" "But... she was picking on me!" Sullenly mumbled under breath, "She started it." "No excuses!" Woah... what strange memories can come flooding back to us. Haven't recalled these two memories in years and years.

I really enjoyed and agreed with the responses and advice given here while feeling sorry for your current situation. When it first became apparent to me that there is an issue, I would clearly and succinctly write down the whole of the matter to this point and then seek a meeting where I could sit down with the other individual, explain my case and seek a resolution. Should that fail I would then hand it my bishop. In addition to asking if he would talk to the other individual, I would ask him for his advice and ask how he expects me to react in return and then make sure to do it. Should that not solve the issue I would return to my Bishop. I'd explain the issue still persists and ask him to escalate it to the Stake President via forwarding the letter. My question to the Stake President would then be whether or not he planned or felt to step into the matter or whether this issue was to remain with the Bishop. Having done all that, should nothing else be of aid, I would apply D&C 98 all while applying 3 Nephi 12:43-45 and asking for personal revelation as to anything else I could do to remedy the situation. Perhaps not much more advice than what everyone else has said... but perhaps you'll find some applicable answers in D&C 98-

President Spencer W. Kimball gave us this counsel regarding home storage: “We reaffirm the previous counsel the Church has always given, to acquire and maintain a year’s supply—a year’s supply of the basic commodities for us. … “We encourage families to have on hand this year’s supply; and we say it over and over and over and repeat over and over the scripture of the Lord where He says, ‘Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?’ [Luke 6:46]” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1976, 171; or Ensign, May 1976, 125). Basically one of the reasons we do this is because we've been commanded to by the Lord. Do you think the Lord would ask us to do something unwise? You're right Wyoming that they wouldn't want to just watch you starve and as long as their was extra they would give it to others. Yet you assume that there will be extra. If you only had enough for yourself and your own family and a beggar came to your door, even though it would be with tears in your eyes you'd probably say, "I'm sorry, I have nothing to give". I recently acquired the minimum amount of food to sustain my life for one year. I did it out of obedience. May I ever need it? We can always hope not right? Either way, I can testify that the Lord let me know he was pleased that I had obeyed and that's good enough for me. I feel it's a lot like the tithing concern where individuals state they could do a lot more with that 10% than the Lord. My faith is that the Lord can do a lot more with you in blessing your life and keeping you safe if you obey his commandment in this than you could ever do with the money you'd use elsewhere. Ultimately it comes down to this: Do you trust the Lord enough to obey?