Elphaba

Or, what they believe is exactly what they say they believe.Elphaba

What was the mark?Elphaba

Thanks, everyone, for your responses. Unfortunately, I was so verbose in my OP that my actual questions were buried in it. To clarify, I understand that my mother will not be forced to stay sealed to my father if she does not want to be. I also understand the concept that no one will be forced to be in a relationship against their will. My questions were strictly procedural: 1) Assuming my father is worthy to be sealed to my mother, if she refused to accept his to call her from her grave, would her refusal cancel his sealings to his children, even if he and his children wished them to remain in effect? and 2) Can children have the sealing to their parent(s) cancelled? MOE, I am asking about the mechanism in question #2, and though you said you didn't know it, I'm hoping I've clarified it such that now you do. If not, that's okay. You're response about a continuous line of sealings was helpful, though it raised more questions in my mind (that do not relate to my OP, but, what the heck.) 1) Does the continuous line of sealings include people in the lower kingdoms? and 2) What if no one wants to be sealed to a particular person? Is it just considered a given that everyone will have someone who wants to be sealed to him/her? I really did think I understood this stuff, but obviously, I don't. Thanks again, everyone, Elphaba

Though we can't know to what degree, Joseph Smith knew of, and was influenced by, Swedenborg. A number of Swedenborg's theological claims resemble Joseph's, and thus, the Church's. These include his belief in different kingdom's, a rejection of the Trinity, and the need for works. However, Swedenborg made other theological claims that are vastly different from, and contradict, the Church's. Some of them were that both the Last Judgment, and the return of Christ, had already occurred. (I knew of these similarities and contradictions from research I'd done at least a decade ago; however, I did not remember the details and so looked Swedenborg up on Wiki.) I admit I bring this up because I don't know how a believing Mormon can be inspired by Swedenborg, given so much of what he claimed directly contradicts Mormon doctrine. If his visions were really given to him by God, then God told him one thing, and Joseph another. But, again, there are remarkable similarities. (ETA: I do not doubt you were inspired, nor am I dismissing that. It just doesn't make sense to me, because 1) of the differences I mentioned above, and 2) I've never experienced it myself.) Regarding whether or not Swedenborg actually had visions: As an atheist I obviously don't believe he did. However, I have no doubt, whatsoever, that he believed, to his very core, that he did. I feel the same way about Joseph. As an atheist, I don't believe in a god, and thus, I don't believe a god spoke to him; however, I have no doubt whatsoever that Joseph believed the visions he saw were real manifestations by God. I think the anti-Mormon canard that he knowingly made it all up is absurd. Elphaba

Wow. Gaddafi murders numerous innocent people, including Americans, so we should seek revenge. Any military action on our part will, despite careful planning, kill numerous innocent people. But that's okay, because we will have our vengeance? That's absurd.My political views are usually in line with TDB, though it's not a publication I read regularly. But I find Taylor's stance appalling. Vengeance should never be a reason to take a military action, primarily because innocent people will be killed. But even if it were possible to ensure not one innocent person were killed, I would still find the suggestion petty and juvenile. I do understand the rationale of there being consequences to murderous acts. But justice and vengeance are not the same thing. I feel like you're confusing Taylor's opinion with the stated goals of the nation, as represented by Obama. (Yes, I'm aware a significant portion of the nation disagrees with him, and thus is not represented by him in this particular issue.)Of all the reasons I've seen Obama state, none of them had anything to do with vengeance, in any shape or form, and thus, the nation has not fallen down that particular slope. Elphaba

My mother told me today that she is going to be sealed by proxy to my deceased father. At first I was a bit shocked, because she feels no love for this man. He was extremely abusive to both her and her children, and any feelings she does have are negative ones. But when she explained why, I understood. She wants to be sealed to her children, and apparently the only way she can do that is if she is sealed to him. She discussed it with her stake president, and he told her she still had the choice as to whether to accept his call when he calls her name from the grave during the resurrection. I thought I understood this doctrine, but it turns out I really don't. For example, if she doesn't accept his call, does that nullify her sealing to him? And if so, would both his and her sealings to their children remain in effect? Or, would his be cancelled because she refused to accept his call? What if he still wanted to be sealed to his children, despite her refusal? The only similar situation I could think of is if a temple-married/sealed couple divorces, are the children still sealed to both parents? I really don't know the answer to that. Also, what if a child does not want to be sealed to his/her parent? I understand that, according to LDS beliefs, my father is probably a better person than he was while on earth (though not necessarily). But my brother was really taken aback by what my mother is going to do, though he has agreed to be the one to stand in for my father. He actually despises my father, so I was wondering, what if, after everything is said and done, he doesn't want to be sealed to my father? Is there a mechanism, similar to the one that ensures eternal marriage issues will be worked out by God in the hereafter, for eternal parent/child issues? Elphaba

Not that this is proof of anything, but I have known two people who took pain medication as prescribed by a pain clinic who were both told by their respective bishops to stop or they would not be given a temple recommend. I only know what happened to one of them beyond that. She stopped taking the pain meds for a while but was in constant agony, and finally started taking them again. A subsequent bishop imposed no restrictions on her.My point is, I don't think it's a given that a bishop will allow someone to take addictive drugs, even when properly prescribed, regardless of what they are. Elphaba

If you're crying all the time you might be clinically depressed. It would explain why something seemingly insignificant, i.e., the lack of furniture, makes you feel like a failure. Most people don't understand how stressful leaving an abusive situation is. They think that the leaving is the hardest part, and that the ensuing freedom is a time of relief and happiness. Sometimes that's true, but often it's not. Starting a brand new life when you're still broken is terribly hard, and depression is common. If your crying continues, I would talk to your bishop and ask for some mental health help. Sometimes depression abates on its own, but sometimes it doesn't, and when it doesn't, seeking help can be a lifeline. Good luck to you! Elphaba

The only drug that has been effective for me, though far from consistently, is Seroquel, which is technically an anti-psychotic. Unfortunately, the side effects are significant, including hallucinations and restless leg syndrome. Otherwise, nothing works for me, not even Ambien or any of the other strong prescription meds. I regularly stay awake all night long one to three nights per week. I'm disabled and don't work, so while I feel horrible until I do sleep again, at least I do not work, nor am I responsible for caring for anyone else, on those days following the sleepless night(s). But constant sleep deprivation has taken its toll. Elphaba

You ought to ask this over at the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion board. A regular contributor, Daniel Peterson, is a BYU professor specializing in Arab/Islamic studies.Elphaba

What do you mean by "lifestyle changes"? What information do you have other than Quinn's?IIRC, he said he was excommunicated not for his writings about the Church's history, but because he refused to stop publishing them when he was instructed to do so by Church authorities. Writings, I will add, that while at the time were somewhat shocking, do not raise an eyebrow today. It's been a long time since I've read his account of the excommunication, so maybe I'm wrong, and he did say it was because of the history he wrote about. But I've never seen any evidence that his excommunication had anything to do with his lifestyle, changed or otherwise. Elphaba

I can't wait for the movie.Elphaba

I also left the Church because I prayed as fervently, honestly, soulfully, broken-heartedly, and every other "ly," out there, as anyone possibly could, and received no answers. I've met quite a few others online over the years who received no response either. You're certainly not alone, though you're not going to get much support here. It is, after all, a LDS board. You're also not going to find much respect for having read Dawkins, and his "ilk." I would note that the two people I've known in my personal life who used perjoratives like that about Dawkins turned out to not have actually read him. Also, when I finally read him I was shocked to see how even-handed he was, because I'd heard so many negative things, including how caustic he was. He wasn't any such thing. He just doesn't couch his words in niceties so as to make them palatable for those who disagree with him. I think it's obvious why you were discouraged from reading him--what he says can cast doubt, and people within the Church feel very strongly about doing and saying things that encourage testimonies, not destroy them. I think that's perfectly reasonable, and see nothing wrong with it. Elphaba

No one would go ballistic. There's a difference between saying a prayer in a religious manner and saying one in an educational manner. The first, a violation of the Establishment Clause, is prohibited. The second, which would be your object lesson, is allowed.Elphaba

Okay, this isn't about LDS movies, but I thought it would be the most appropriate place for it. Are any of you out there Bollywood fans? I have recently discoverd it, and to my surprise, I am hooked. I say "surprise" because I have never been interested in Indian culture whatsoever, and so to find myself enjoying these is really a change. One of the things I find fascinating is that while Bollywood movies are always in Hindi, every ten or sentences, they will suddenly start talking in English--but only a few words. Then they revert back to Hindi. At first it really confused me, because I kept expecting there to be a reason for the shift, but there never was on. I finally looked it up on Wiki, and that's just a common thing they do. Another thing, and I think this is true for all Indian movies (not just Bollywood), is that they never kiss, so they will do other interesting things in its place, sometimes things that are more risque than actual kissing. There's a certain naivete' in the movies, a sort of innocence, that I actually find a bit refreshing. I'm not one to be put off at all by sexuality in movies, but it's interesting how I got used to knowing I wasn't going to be surprised by anything like that. I sort of feel like I'm watching a Disney movie. I also love how they combine modern dress with traditional. Like I said, I've never been attracted to Indian culture before, and that included the women's dress. But after having watched the movies numerous times, I find their dress to be stunning. The colors are so vibrant, and the style is very flattering to the (thin) female form. Some of the movies I've watched: Kuch Naa Kaho Bride and Prejudice (a very fun Indian take on Pride and Prejudice, all in English) Devdas Sholay Anyone else? Elph

Happy Birthday to one of the most impressive young women I know! Elph

JAG, I'm confused by this. Would you please explain it further? Elph

I am profoundly moved by how, wherever these vile people plan their vile protests, American citizens gather together to protect the funeral attendess from having to listen to their obscenities. I think it demonstrates how, in the midst of cruelty, there are so very many kind people among us.Elphaba

It seemed obvious to me because of your choice to use “some” and “few” in a sarcastic manner. I’m genuinely sorry to hear that about your mother. That sound horrific. No. In fact, statistically women are more likely to suffer from chronic pain than men, which goes to your point. My resistance, which I acknowledge has gotten lost in the conversation, was to your presumptions, which are extremely common, about what people who legitimately need MM look like. You wrote a whole post on it, including: As I explained earlier, it is entirely possible for someone to look completely healthy and yet have as legitimate a need for MM as a person in a wheelchair or a cancer patient. That really was the point I wanted to emphasize, but I got caught up in other points, so I suspect it was missed. Yes, your explanation did help. I can see why you’re so concerned. I had assumed MM was dispensed the same way my pain meds are, i.e., through a pain clinic, which is a laborious, on-going process. It is impossible for anyone to get these meds the same way you say people in CO get MM. Well, perhaps a more accurate statement would be it is impossible for as many people to get them. Obviously, people who don't really need them do get them; however, the advent of pain clinics and stricter guidelines have reduced those numbers significantly. Unfortunately, it is still a serious problem, and always will be.However, the solution is not to make pain meds illegal, which, it has been my impression throughout this discussion, is your solution to the illegitimate use of MM, but perhaps I'm wrong. Would you please clarify what you think the solution is? Elphaba

This is terrifying to me. Elphaba

Of course you are. You wrote: Again, some of these people you'd presume were getting the drug illegally, would not be. That is, blatantly, judging people on your part. Additionally, telling others to kill an afternoon by watching these same people is urging them to judge these people wrongly as well. Seventy million Americans live in debilitating chronic pain. "Some" turns into a massive number if every store in America had someone like you watching people walk through the door for legitimate pain medications. Admitting that overhwelmingly supportable observation demonstrates MM would benefit millions of Americans does not equate to insisting no one obtains the drugs illegally. I never said otherwise, though I acknowledge I didn't adress it. It wasn't my point.My point is, it's obvious you don't comprehend the massive need for safe and effective pain management drugs like MM. It's not just the "some" that you so sarcastically dismiss. The fact is, most of these Americans would benefit from MM much more than they do from other pain-management substances. For some reason, MM works better, and is safer. No, you don't deny that, but you certainly dismiss it. Your other sracastic, and trivializing description, "few," demonstrates that quite clearly. Perhaps you think I dismiss the issue of those getting it illegally? Honestly, I don't. I would never presume to say only "some" people, or a "few" people, are doing this. I just don't have any answers, or expertise, so I don't address it. But I don't dismiss it. Both issues, people getting it illegally, and providing it to the millions of people for whom it is the best medical choice, are equally as important, and should be addressed as such. And as is always the case, the answers are complicated and difficult. But in seeking those answers, all aspects of the issue should be addressed, and all people affected by those answers should be considered. Elphaba

I second all of that.Elph

That reminded me of a quote I put in a Sympathy card I once made. "Unable are the loved to die, for love is immortality." Emily Dickinson Elph

I think it would be particularly hard for you to know what to say considering your own personal experiences with grief and loss. You know what doesn't work, and what can, in fact, make it worse (like mighytnancy said). I don't have any idea what the right thing to say is, but I really liked what Wing said, and agree with her. Say what you said here. I'm so sorry, my friend. This has to touch really raw nerves. Elph

So what? I guarantee you, for most of those people, that's just a sign of how effective Medical Marijuana is, in that, without it, they DO walk bent over and in wheelchairs, but with it, they don't. That is a good thing.I take a lot of pain medication every day (not MM, I'm in Utah). With it, I walk, upright, without a wheelchair, and you'd have no idea I am in chronic pain. But that's because the drugs work, not because I don't have the disease. Without it, I'm crippled. Additionally, I guarantee you that while you are watching all these 18-45 year-old males go in for their illegal drug, not only are you judging some of them wrongly, you're missing the 50-year-old woman who is doing the same. My point is, unless you're a specialist in pain management, you really can't tell anything about a lot of people's pain by parking yourself across the street and watching them walk, upright, into the drug store. For some, the fact that they can do that demonstrates how effective MM is and why it is so important they be allowed to continue taking it. Elphaba