Martain

We have been commanded to forgive and that he who does not, a worse sin lies within them. Although he says that it was the second time, we don't know exactly what that means. It may mean that she cheated with him twice before he found out. A temple marriage is not something to be thrown away at the first sign of illness. It is worth everything you can put into it and then more. You would tell me Juan that there is no such thing as repentance. That the atonement is not real and that people can not change. I tell you that such thoughts are a lie. Repentance is real and the power of the atonement can change hearts. This I know as perfect knowledge. Given enough time and love, if she desires to change and seeks the Lords aid, she will.

Isn't it amazing the direction a thread might go compared to the original direction indicated? There are indeed times where the person performing an ordinance is unworthy to do so. Yet I've never run into a case where they've done so without the authority to perform them. By this I mean that were an unworthy priest to bless the sacrament, that is on his head and the ordinance is still official for you. Yet if my sisters were to get up and bless the sacrament, me taking it from them wouldn't do anything for me. As to the rest of the conversation: Say I know someone has committed serious sin. How does it harm the sinner that I bring it to their bishops attention? How does it harm me? Isn't the commandment not "judge not" but rather "judge not unrighteously"? Could we not therefore say it is a commandment to "judge rigtheously"? If sufficient proof is evident before me to allow me to judge righteously and I do not do so, would this not be a sin of omission? If someone you know commits a crime and you stay silent, are you not enabling their behavior? Isn't it possible that by speaking up to the authorities they might have stopped? If you don't speak up and they continue in crime, are you not partially accountable? If someone you know commits a serious sin and you stay silent, are you not also enabling their behavior? Isn't it possible that by speaking up to the proper authority, such as their bishop, that they might stop? If they don't stop and continue in sin, are you not also partially accountable? These are some serious questions that each of us must weigh in our hearts and determine our own answers. Lets say I know someone who is committing adultery or fornication. Perhaps they confessed it to me. Perhaps I saw them in the act. Perhaps they posted an indecent picture on their Facebook account. Now they may have spoken with the Bishop but I would have no way of knowing if they had. Yet I see them taking the sacrament or performing a sacred ordinance such as serving in the temple and I'm concerned. Are they not drinking damnation to their souls by taking the sacrament? Are they not mocking God by unworthily performing the sacred ordinances and therein incurring the condemnation and wrath of a Just God against them? Does it not become that much more difficult to repent of such sin the longer they do it? Do you want to leave them in that condition when by a few words to their bishop you might start the repentance process that much sooner? It is my civic duty to report crime to the authorities. In that same manner, is not also a duty to report serious sin as well? I discussed this topic with my family and my father did have some pertinent advice. Any sin which is predatory in nature should be reported. Predatory as in hurting or harming others. Gossip is defined as the casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true. Backbiting is defined as malicious talk about someone who is not present. No one likes being a tattletale. Yet it takes courage to step forward. Reporting something you believe or know to be true to the proper authorities is not wrong and it is neither gossip or backbiting. If I were sinning and unrepentant and by another person bringing it to my bishops attention I in the end repent, I would be profoundly grateful that someone was brave enough to speak up rather than leave me wallowing in sin. I feel we must each weigh this matter in our own heart and determine our conduct therefrom. I will not condemn someone for not reporting serious sin and I hope that they will not condemn me for reporting it.

At one point in my life I was an inactive member for a long time (see conversion story). While inactive there was a job I wanted desperately. My desire was desperate enough that I actually asked for it in prayer and promised that were I to get it I would pay tithing on the money I earned even though I wasn't willing to do anything else. I got the job and I found out that I absolutely hated it. I quite after a month and then never paid tithing. It took years but eventually I was brought to the doors of repentance. I repented and applied the atonement in my life and I can testify of it's power! As part of the repentance process, I knew I now needed to pay tithing. I remembered my promise and desired to make good. I wrote out a check for what I had promised plus an additional amount equal to 10% of the money I had paid to go to a health retreat. Yes I knew that I only needed to pay it going forward on future earnings, but I decided to apply it retroactively into a portion of the past. Within 15 minutes of writing the check, I received a call from the health retreat office indicating I had won a drawing. The amount? A few dollars greater than the money I had promised. I then paid for the last week of my stay at the health retreat which put me into debt equal to the rest of the amount I had paid as tithing. When I finally returned home, I checked my bank account and found that I was not in debt! I tracked it down to an unexpected direct deposit from my previous job which I had quit in order to stay the full 3 weeks at the health retreat. I knew that by staying I would not be employed at the payout date to receive the previous months sales bonus. Yet I had chosen to stay. To my surprise they indicated that they hadn't processed my separation in time and it was mine and I didn't even need to return it. Upon repentance, the Lord only required me to pay going forward and gave back to me what I gave to him when I tried to pay him back for the past. So yes, I have a witness regarding tithing.

Your reverse question's premise is that if we had knowledge of good and evil and the opportunity to do both, then in choosing good, and proving ourselves there, why should there be any need for further testing? Are you saying that there is such a minute difference between a physical body and a glorified celestial body that the test necessary to earn a physical body should be sufficient to earn a celestial body? Our obedience in the pre-existence was sufficient to allow us to obtain a physical body. We had not yet been tested in conjunction with the unique and very powerful features of the physical body. Therefore we needed to be retested. You're right. Yet this does not mean that we were not being measured by that scale in the pre-existence. It simply means that there were some parts of the scale that we couldn't be measure by. We couldn't be measured on the scale of good and evil to see if we would murder or not because it wasn't a capacity we had. We couldn't be measured on the scale of good and evil to see if we would be faithful in marriage or commit adultery because procreation wasn't a capacity we had. Exactly! Our obedience in Heaven could not tell us how well we would drive a physical body until we actually received one and started driving it. We said that upon receiving a physical body we would keep the commandments of God. We talked the talk in regards to the physical body and now we're here to walk the walk by showing through our actions. We could not show through our actions that we would use the physical body properly because we didn't have it. Yet that does not mean that we could not show through our actions that we would use the spirit body properly. That does not mean that there was no possible evil that could be committed in the spirit body that there would be neither good nor evil nor the knowledge thereof. The war in Heaven was a war of words and actions. We either through actions chose to follow Heavenly Father and Christ or we chose through our actions to reject Heavenly Father and Christ. If I were to teach to you that we did not have a knowledge of good and evil and that there was no sin in the pre-existence. I would be teaching you false doctrine. For in teaching you such a doctrine, we would have to say that Satan was innocent of sin in rebelling against the father. If Satan was innocent of sin then the punishment of being cast out and not obtaining a body could not justly be permanent. If it is not permanent then we are teaching that eventually Satan and his angels will be redeemed. Let us read the quote again: Therefore there is no doctrinal support of the premise that we did not have the knowledge of good and evil and the ability to sin. For if we did, by that same evidence, we would have the very same proof that the Prophet Joseph Smith said was not revealed to man, is not revealed, and never shall be revealed.

Now a man may never have been burned by fire. Yet in seeing and hearing someone else severely burned he nevertheless knows that it is painful and a very undesireable experience. Even though his knowledge of the pain of being burned is as you put it "secular" rather than "experiential", he nevertheless knows sufficently the difference between being burned and not burned to exercise his agency and choose to not jump into a bonfire. We know that Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the tree of Good and Evil. That being said, they had not committed any sin wherein to know evil by "experiential" means. Yet still they had a knowledge of Good and Evil. Therefore we can conclude that a knowledge of Good and Evil does not require "experiential" understanding of first hand experience. You do not need to commit adultery to know that it is evil. You do not even need to see or know anyone who has commited adultery to know it is evil. By your conclusion we would likewise "know about good and evil but not really know what it is like" because we have not obtained "experiential" experience. You know that murder is evil even though you lack "experiential" experience.

I know you and I disagree on this Vort, that is indeed quite clear. Yet I do feel ever so strongly about this and I feel to try to explain it once more that perhaps I might convince you. Our previous Prophet President Spencer W. Kimball spoke in conference where he quotes and validates as true the words of previous Prophet President Wilford who, in his closing years, made this statement: “I ask my Heavenly Father to pour out his spirit upon me, as his servant, that in my advanced age, and during the few days I have to spend here in the flesh, I may be led by his inspiration. I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so he will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from his oracles of God and from their duty. …” (Reference) I hope we at least agree on this point that this is official Church doctrine? Now I expect you will easily recall a former thread where it was discussed whether or not the book "The Miracle of Forgiveness" authored and published by our former President and Prophet Spencer W. Kimball can be accepted as doctrine. Can you honestly say that you could conceive a President and Prophet of this Church writing a book and publishing it as the President and Prophet of the Church without first getting approval from the Lord to do so? Do you think the Lord would approve the publication of a book that contained false doctrine? Now should anything within that book prove false. To that extent it has lead the reader astray. Therefore the Lord would have removed from his place as President of the Church this Prophet before he would have allowed him to publish such a book were it to contain error. Since he did not, I therefore can justly conclude that it contains only truth. Or to say, that it contains only true doctrine. My understanding is that in order for an item to be printed by "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", it must first pass through a specific process comprised of a review by the correlation department followed by the approval of the First Presidency. Are you saying that my understaing is incorrect? Were the First Presidency to approve of a work which contains incorrect doctrines, in so doing they would be leading the Church Astray for they are the ones accountible for the accuracy of the work. We need not suppose that they must cross-reference the entire volume to ensure accurrate representation of the quotes. Such would indeed be naive. They simply must read it and receive approval from the Lord to sanction it. That the Lord has not removed the Prophet from his place indicates that he has not lead the Church astray by approving as correct that which is false. Therefore I conclude that the Manual in question does constitute LDS doctrine. Now perhaps I have not convinced you Vort but at least I can honestly say I tried my very best to do so =).

I agree and do not see how God having the ability to see the future requires him to dwell outside of time. He can just as easily dwell within time and yet still see the future. Such doctrine as God dwelling outside of time is simply man's attempt to understand and rationalize how such a thing could actually be possible. Doctrine: God knows all. Doctrine: God knows the future and can see it. Not Doctrine: God must therefore dwell outside of time.

This manual has been published directly by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be taught as doctrine to latter-day saints in institute classes. It has passed through a rigorous internal correlation department and then been approved of by the first presidency as part of that review process. This correlation process is specifically to ensure that the doctrines inside said publication are in strict accordance with the revealed doctrines of the Church. Are you saying that the First Presidency, the entire correlation department of the church put forth manual material without verifying it's accuracy and with the intent that some may be doctrine and some may not and we will teach it to them and it be on their heads to determine every point whether it be true or not? You are free to believe that it does not constitute LDS doctrine, yet I can not but conclude that it does.

I find it hard to understand how he could know good and evil and also not know it. In my mind he either knew it, or he did not. Lucifer was in a position of great authority. He knew the results of other worlds which had accepted the Plan of Salvation and knew not all would be saved. His intentions were originally nobel. He wanted to create a plan where all would be saved. After proposing his plan and having it be rejected in favor of Heavenly Father's plan with Jesus Christ as our savior, had Satan accepted this, he would not have been cast out. If there was no Evil then there was no Righteousness. If there was no Righteousness then God was not. God was and therefore so was evil. Both are therefore eternal having no beginning of days or end of days. Lucifer was not the first to fall just as our Heavenly Father was not the first to obtain Godhood. Satan is a title or a position. Others have held it before and others will hold it in the future. In no way did Lucifer invent evil. We could indeed conclude as you have that without Satan there could be no possibility of opposites and without such opposites there could be no agency. What of our pre-existance? It was not until Lucifer was cast out of the heavens to earth that he assumed the title of Satan. He does not act in this position over those who are still in the spirit world. By your logic, since there was no Satan, we had no agency. Perhaps you would state that agency began when Lucifer rebelled. Yet such would conclude that Lucifer had no agnecy to not rebel. We know we had agency there. It was through Agency that Lucifer fell and assumed the role of Satan over those who would come to earth. Therefore your conclusion must be flawed or incomplete. I see two possible explinations to resolve this discrepancy. The first would be the requirement of a being filling the role of Satan throughout the entire duration of our pre-mortal existance. We have already concluded that Lucifer could not be this individual. Have we knowledge or revelation of such a being? No. Even it were true, what bearing would it have upon us? None that I can conceive. I don't believe in such a doctrine. The second explination would be that agency and the possibility of opposites exists even in the absense of anyone acting in the role of Satan. Such an explination makes sense. For this would explain why our obedience in the pre-mortal world was insufficent inso that another test was necessary. We could therefore say that one primary difference between our pre-mortal and mortal experiences is that the first had an active influence for Good, our Heavenly Father and his hosts, and the other has the additional active influence for Evil, Lucifer filling the role of Satan and his hosts. Thus the reason why Satan is necessary for our mortal test, is not that because without him here there would be no agency, but simply that without him here, while we would retain the possibility of doing evil, we would not have an equal enticement to do evil as we do to do good. Yet even after logically concluding all that I have, I too still have a hard time understanding and accepting that I had a fullness of opportunity to exercise my agency in the pre-mortal world with it's lack of a Satan as I do here in the mortal world. Yet I can not conclude that I did not have such fullness of opportunity to exercise my agency there as I do here either. It seems there must be more to this story than has been currently revealed. Well... I'm not sure what others will get out of this but if nothin else, thank you Jayanna for a wonderful opportunity to exercise my mind =)

While there are a plethora of opinions on the matter, I'd like to try and explain further the logic I use to make my conclusions. Let us refer to Adam in the garden of Eden for it has bearing on this subject. Did Adam and Eve have a knowledge of good and evil when they transgressed the commandment given by God? No. Therefore, could an endless punishment of an eternal physical death be therefore just? No. Thus God had prepared the provision of the atonement. Now did Satan and his angels have a knowledge of good and evil? If they did not, then their punishment was for transgressing a law and not sin. If it was not sin could an everlasting and eternal, as in without end, punishment be just? No. We could in such an event expect that, like adam, some provision would eventually be put into place so that the devil and his angels could be restored. Since we can not expect that, like Adam, some provision would eventually be put into place so that the devil and his angels could be restored; we can also not expect or conclude that the devil and his angels did not have a knowledge of good and evil. This does not prove that they did have such a knowledge but means we can not conclude or prove that they did not have such knowledge. For were the Lord to reveal such, it would in turn reveal that which the Prophet Joseph Smith said would not be.

Who is to say for certain that the 10 virgins were all female eh? Eh? Food Storage and a garden are part of being self-reliant and each provide a drop of oil. Each righteous act provides such a drop and the oil is accumulated throughout your life. “In our lives the oil of preparedness is accumulated drop by drop in righteous living. Attendance at sacrament meetings adds oil to our lamps, drop by drop over the years. Fasting, family prayer, home teaching, control of bodily appetites, preaching the gospel, studying the scriptures—each act of dedication and obedience is a drop added to our store. Deeds of kindness, payment of offerings and tithes, chaste thoughts and actions, marriage in the covenant for eternity—these, too, contribute importantly to the oil with which we can at midnight refuel our exhausted lamps” (Faith Precedes the Miracle, p. 256) (also used as a quote in multiple LDS Manuals as well as a conference talk).

You'll find some useful information under section 87 in the D&C Institute Manual

Oh I expect it's both. But yes, definitely an evil spirit as in a being. I don't know that she's is letting them posess her mind or body but she is unknowingly inviting them back into the house and into her presence. I don't know how easy it would be to separate the two either but I can recall one occasion in particular where the words and ideas and thoughts she started vocalizing could have come from no other source than external lies being whispered to her.

I agree with Ruthiechan. Outside of direct revelation, I will not risk loosing everything by marrying a non-member. I can also relate to your surprise Ruthie =) I would have been very surprised as well!

I feel for you. While I can not make such a decision for you, I can relate how I would feel in your situation. Knowing as I know the blessings that come from a marriage in the temple, I find it almost inconceivable to marry outside it. The thought of intentionally jeopardizing my eternal salvation by marrying outside the covenant is painful. I would rather never marry or have children in this life then have them in this life and loose them forever in the next. Having learned personally the blessings that come from being born under the covenant, I would never deny any of my children such blessings. For me, having such blessings was the difference between spiritual life and spiritual death. At least in my case they would have the power of the priesthood in the home. In your case, they would grow up without the priesthood and the blessings it provides. I feel a prophet of God can explain it better than I can. I found the talk I wanted to refer to and I really hope you'll read it because it will indeed help you understand the importance of the decisions you are making. The Importance of a Celestial Marriage

Personally I've been bound by addictions in my own life. I know the power of the Atonement is real. These addictions that I hated and could not break myself no matter how much willpower I threw at it, were mercifully lifted completely from me through repentance to where the desire was completely gone. He changed my heart! This too is the power she needs. Yet no one else can find it for her. From what she says, it sounds like she is still committing adultery with him in her mind. I hope this is not the case but if it is, she has need to repent and until she does, I do not see her becoming free of the chains by which she is bound. You are limited in what you can do to help her because her repentance is primarily between her and the Lord. Yet ask anyways. Ask the Lord if there is anything else you can do to help her that you're not already doing. You love her and I know that if there is, you'll do it. If nothing else, seek out a knowledge from the spirit that you're doing all you can for this will comfort you and give you great strength. There is power in fasting. Lend the power of your faith to her via fasting. Ask the bishop if it would be acceptable to ask the ward to fast for her too. The adversary is still very much assaulting her via this opening and the more aid you can send her way, the better. Know that I feel for you John. This is painful stuff and I applaud your efforts and diligence in such trying circumstances. I expect the Lord is very proud of you right now. He knows what you're going through and as you seek his comfort, he will help bear you up.

I may be totally off base with this but I wonder something. What happened to her first marriage? It seems to me that something in regards to that is holding her back. Something unresolved. Depending on what happened, councilmen might be helpful for her to allow her to move forward. YOU want to marry this girl is what is clear to me. Well, perhaps it time to learn the power of fasting. While I do not know how much you can help her overcome what ever is holding her back, you can indeed fast for her and lend her strength and divine aid via this means. Just a thought. Welcome to the Church brother =)

You indicate that you know she is not who she used to be. I expect that she indicates this as well. Should you listen and hear something you do not want to hear, your next question would be, did they really repent of what they did. Have they really changed. This is something that you would then struggle with the Lord in confirming whether or not they've really repented and changed. Why not seek out such a confirmation first? Heavenly Father? She wants to share her past with me and I don't really want to hear it. She says she's repented and changed and I believe her. She's telling me the truth right? Armed with a confirmation that she has indeed repented and is clean before the Lord, then although it might not be enjoyable hearing the past, it won't hurt you or damage your trust as it otherwise could. Just a thought.

A married man sending pictures of himself to single women and posing as a single man. Some if not most of the pictures would not be exchanged unless there had previously been flirting. I can see some of the questions this must have evoked in your own mind. I can also see how much this would have hurt you. You indicate your husband has said that he has changed and that he isn't doing that anymore. Either he speaks truth or he does not. If it's true, can you not ask the Spirit to confirm it? When you share with him how much this has damaged your trust, bring up the point that he says he has changed and isn't doing it anymore and your desire to believe him. Indicate however that because he's already done this once, the adversary knows that it is one of his weaknesses and will tempt and attack him via this opening in future. Then express that you want to help protect him against future temptations and that you would like to install a filter to prevent accidental or intentional viewing of dating sites and pornographic material. I recommend K9 Webfilter (love it!). Set it up and never let him have the password. If he doesn't see the wisdom in this setup and resists it's implementation instead, I personally would seriously question the validity of his change of heart. For if his heart was changed, he'd desire to avoid it any way he can and do anything to prevent himself from repeating his sins.

Turn to prayer and seek guidance on this issue is what I would recommend for does this not have bearing on you getting married? Haven't the Prophets told us that who we marry, where we marry and when we marry is one of the most important decisions we'll make in this life? Aside from receiving revelation from the Lord that it would be in your best interest NOT to hear her, then I say you should allow her to explain.

What does having the Priesthood mean to me? It means I have a greater capacity to serve in God's kingdom than I did before. What do I think my most sacred duties are? A duty is something you're expected to do right? As an Elder, I'm not expected to serve or bless the sacrament, collect fast offerings or take the sacrament to shut-ins. I'm simply happy when I get the chance because it's a privaledge to be able to serve so. I guess you could say that I consider hometeaching more of a duty than anything else because it's something I'm expected to do. If you take that viewpoint, this is the only clear duty that I as a sinle Elder feel I have. Everything else I do as an exercise of the priesthood is not expected of me anymore and has become a privaledge instead. Yet even though hometeaching is intellecutally a sacred duty, it doesn't exactly feel sacred to me. Still learning how to be a good one I guess. Now if you were to say what I think my most sacred privaledges are... what exercise of the priesthood I enjoy most... that I can answer. 1. Baptisms for the dead 2. Confirming the dead 3. Blessing the Sacrament 4. Passing the Sacrament As wonderful as it is to baptize someone for the dead, to do so for the living, to me, would be a greater honor that I would value highly should I ever have the opportunity. I agree with Mormonmusic regarding blessings. To communicate God's will to someone in an inspired blessing would feel wonderful and very rewarding. Yet why would I ever want to give a blessing unless it was inspired? How would that help someone? The most recent as well as first time I gave such a blessing, unfortunately I did not succeed in giving an inspired blessing. I know because I asked the Lord afterwards how I had done and received confirmation that the words had in essence been mine. I've been hesitant to act as voice ever since for although I may feel very good at recognizing the promptings of the Spirit, I don't feel particularly good at interpretating them. What are the biggest blessings I recieve from holding the priesthood? Though it has not yet happened, I consider the right and ability to be sealed to a daughter of God in a Temple of the Lord as one of the greatest blessings I'll ever receive from holding the priesthood. Currently though, as to blessings I've received in having the priesthood that I otherwise would not have, other than increased opportunities to serve? I don't know any. Or at least is they are there I have not been able to distinguish them as being associated with me holding the priesthood. As for biggest blessings I can give others, I'd say this question is answered under priesthood privaledges. What is the neatest Priesthood related expierience I have had? I don't know that I've had any. That I've had revelatory and sacred experiences is true. But whether or not those were associated with me having the priesthood, I know not. I guess the closest would be when someone would come up to me after I blessed the sacrament and sincerely thank me for the reverence in which I spoke the prayers. That felt really good. How did I prepare to receive the priesthood? As for becoming a deacon, teacher and priest? I was not prepared. As for becoming an Elder, I read what I could about the responsibilities etc and did my best to remain clean and worthy of receiving it. As for which is most important to me? Becoming an Elder was very important to me because it meant I could enter the temple and receive my endowments as well as serve a mission should such an opportunity present it self. As for actual enjoyment of the priesthood, if I were to discount serving in the temple, I'd say to date that I've enjoyed the Aaronic priesthood more than the Melchizedek. I'm worthily holding the priesthood given to me but perhaps I simply haven't had much opportunities to use it and magnify it so far.

I finish my response and then see Whoops! I like the way Loudmouth_Mormon put it =)

I've wondered about this question too and while I do not know how doctrinal my opinions are, I'll share them with you nonetheless. Question: What is it about men that makes them 'unfit' to bear children? Why is bearing children only a female thing? Are you aware that their may be some controversy over men not being able to bear children? Think of it! What other labor is in of itself so designed and full of opportunities to sanctify yourself than those in bearing and rearing children? Opportunities to express charity, patience, long suffering? What have you left us men eh? What work can we perform that will likewise act as a refining fire to distill out of us those divine qualities you perfect through bearing and raising children? Why, it is the priesthood! And that's not the end of the story either. It seems apparent to me that we need more time to achieve the same results you do through bearing and rearing children. Hence they start men on the priesthood path at the age of 12! Likewise as to how bearing and rearing children can be considered a right and a responsibility, so too with the priesthood. Think of your Bishop as an example. Think of all the burdens he has to bear in hearing about the sins and suffering from sins that people he loves are going through. The burden of having to council and guide them according to the mind and will of God. The anguish he endures in seeing people he loves embrace sin and leave the church? Well, these are a few of my thoughts at least.

Sin and righteousness exist only in the presence of law. For without law, there could be no sin for disobeying or righteousness for obeying. Heavenly Father is a just God. He could not punish Lucifer or any others of our spirit siblings save they broke a law. Why are children not held accountable for their actions until the age of 8? Is it not because they do not properly have a knowledge and understanding of the difference between good and evil? If Lucifer did not have a proper knowledge and understanding of the difference between good and evil in the pre-mortal world, then would he not also be innocent and therefore unable to be held accountable for his actions? Therefore I conclude that Lucifer and the rest who fell with him must have had a knowledge of good and evil in order to be held accountable for breaking laws which they must have broken in order to justly be punished as they were. If they knew the difference between good and evil then I conclude that I must have too. In addition to having intelligence, I must have had understanding. I do not know about others but I can speak for myself. I know I had faith in the Spirit world and I exercised it to follow Jehovah and to accept my Heavenly Father's plan. How can I conclude otherwise? For surely God knew that Cain would rebel and become a son of perdition. Yet surely Cain did not know or he would have refused to come here. He did not know whether he would make it home and neither did we. I am convinced that I would rather have stayed a spirit forever and never obtain a body in order to stay in the presence of my heavenly parents whom I loved and love rather than obtain a body and be forever cut off from their presence. If I did not have exceedingly great faith in myself and in the plan, I would not have come. But I did come. I did have faith. I exercised it. I exercised it then in following my Savior and in coming here and I exercise it now to do the same.

I apologize Jayanna for I feel that this is my fault in that if I had explained things better you would not feel to condemn me so. I've been dealing with this for a couple of years now. My father, a righteous priesthood holder, knows what I'm going through but neither of us have been able to do much of anything against it. At one point I grew concerned that perhaps I had no right to cast evil spirits out of the room let alone the house. After all, I live here but its his home and I'm the son. Concerned I asked him and he said that I did have stewardship over my room. He also had no complaint against me casting evil spirits out of the house. I have a little sister who goes into rages of anger and he's noticed their affect on her. He's cast them out before when she is like that and then watched her relax momentarily before she invites them right back in and allows them power over her mood and feelings. So he has no complaints against me casting out evil spirits. I don't remember inviting the Bishop over to perform the dedication while my father was out of town intentionally to prevent my father from performing it himself. Simply that it was then that I learned that such a dedication was possible and didn't want to endure another week's worth of hell. Having confirmed that I had the rights of stewardship over my own room, I then dedicated it myself. Yet when that did not prove an aid, I immediately sought for one with more power and experience exercising the authority than I. I don't even remember if he dedicated anything other than my room. If that was all he dedicated then I already had permission and the right of stewardship to delegate it to him. You're right though that if the Bishop dedicated the house then I should have gotten my fathers permission first. I really haven't thought much of it becuase I know that my father would have said yes to anything which would provide even a possibility of making a difference in what I'm going through. I don't think he dedicated the home but if he did, he would have done so in accords to my fathers wishes since he wasn't home to perform it himself but your right, in such an event I could still honor him by asking. When I posted these comments I was not indicating disagreement with what you provided. I had read it after all. I have been laboring under the assumption that if my father is not home I am the presiding priesthood authority in the home and was asking if this understanding was right or wrong. It was a question Jayanna, not an attack on you. I'm sorry if it came across other than I intended. Please forgive me for not being more clear. You are right though that since I have come to live with him, my father has not dedicated the home. That is indeed another stone to turn over in attempting to do all we can. Will you forgive me?