Be one of the first people in St. Louis to purchase a pre-publication copy. Share it with others. It will make a great Father's Day present.

Modern research proves that prayer is effective in helping people heal. But there is a catch. If you pray for the person who is sick, they get better faster than if they were not prayed for. But if you pray for that persons diagnosed condition, there is no benefit. Why?

I had an experience a short time ago. I share this with reservation. To me it was a sacred experience. In sharing it I make it common. Nothing sacred should ever be made common nor considered as common. So I ask you to respect it as sacred to me and honor it as such. After the shocking events of the tsunami in the Far East, I received an email that I understood to encourage that we pray for the water in the areas hardest hit by the Tsunami. The pooling stagnant water was a prime breeding ground for a secondary disaster of ensuing diseases at epidemic proportions. I felt this was a good idea and in accordance the next morning in my prayer time, I prayed to heal the waters in that area so secondary diseases would not occur. Early in my prayer I received an abrupt and dawning insight. It was not my place to try and heal the water in their area of the world. I could pray for them and seek higher good for them, but I was not to try and influence that which was theirs to influence. It was not my place nor right. The water around them was theirs to command and heal. I could not remove that right from them. I could pray for them and they must heal the waters themselves. Why?

If I sought to heal the water under them without their assent, I was in essence trying to manipulate them and their experience. I had decided that I knew better than they did what was good for them. Some could call that fanatical. A fanatic is a person who does what God would do, if God had all facts.

I was saying that it would be too painful for me to see them suffer. I needed them to not suffer so I could feel comfortable. My comfort was my issue, not theirs. I rightly could pray for them to have strength, faith, love and peace. They then choose whether to accept that or not. With that received power they would then heal the water in their area if they had the heart and soul to do so.

In my first intention, I was being manipulative. I was trying to impose my will on another. That intention is neither desirable nor noble. Paul further stated that, "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." (Romans 8:28 KJV)

As a result instead of manipulating events, we should seek to pray virtue to those around us. If we can love God purely as God would have us love Him, we will gain from every experience we can come to. Instead of seeking to change our experience or that of others, we should instead seek to prayerfully send them love and be loving ourselves.

So is there such a thing as right and wrong? Yes, I certainly believe so. Is it contained in an action as much as in an intention? I believe that the intention is what holds the key to right and wrong.  If I give a great gift with the intention of manipulating the person who receives it, is it a good gift? If I give a compliment with a purely selfish motive is it a kindness? The motive behind the gift carries great impact on the giver and at least some effect on the receiver. A man cannot give a good gift with a bad intention. As you sow so shall you reap. The law of the harvest demands that a poisonous seed will grow a noxious fruit. A good gift is a gift given of pure intention. Let me share a story for you. "The day was not even close to Christmas. It was a summer day. My mother died in the early afternoon. My father, my brother, and I had gone from the hospital to our family home. We fixed ourselves a snack; then we talked with visitors. It grew late, dusk fell, and I remember we still had not turned on the lights.

Dad answered the doorbell. It was Aunt Catherine and Uncle Bill. I could see that Uncle Bill was holding a bottle of cherries. I can still see the deep red, almost purple, cherries and the shiny gold cap on the jar. He said, "You might enjoy these. You probably haven't had dessert."

We hadn't. The three of us sat around the kitchen table, put some cherries in bowls, and ate them as Uncle Bill and Aunt Catherine cleared some dishes. Uncle Bill asked, "Are there people you haven't had time to call? Just give me some names and I'll do it." We mentioned a few relatives who would want to know of mother's death. And then Aunt Catherine and Uncle Bill were gone. They could not have been with us more than 20 minutes.

Now, we can understand my theory best if we focus on one gift: the bottle of cherries. And let's explain the theory from the point of view of the person who received the gift: me. That's crucial, because what matters in what the giver does is what the receiver feels. As nearly as I can tell, the giving and receiving of a great gift always has three parts. Here they are, illustrated by that gift on a summer evening.

First, I knew that Uncle Bill and Aunt Catherine had felt what I was feeling and had been touched. I'm not over the thrill of that yet. They must have felt we'd be too tired to fix much food. They must have felt that a bowl of home-canned cherries would make us feel, for a moment, like a family again. Just knowing that someone had understood what I felt meant far more to me than the cherries themselves. I can't remember the taste of the cherries, but I remember that someone knew my heart and cared.

Second, I felt that the gift was free. I knew Uncle Bill and Aunt Catherine had chosen freely to bring a gift. They weren't doing it to compel a response from me; the gift seemed to provide them joy in the giving.

And third, there was an element of sacrifice. Someone might say, "But how could they give for the joy of it and yet make a sacrifice?" Well, I could see the sacrifice. I knew that Aunt Catherine had canned those cherries for her family. They must have liked cherries. But she took that possible pleasure from them and gave it to me. That's sacrifice. But I have realized since then this marvelous fact: It must have seemed to Uncle Bill and Aunt Catherine that they would have more pleasure if I had the cherries than if they did. There was sacrifice, but it was made for a greater return to them-my happiness. Anyone can let the person who gets a gift know of the giver's sacrifice. But only an expert can let you sense that sacrifice brings joy to the giver because it blesses the receiver.

Well, there is my theory. Great gift-giving involves three things: you feel what the other feels, you give freely, and you count sacrifice a bargain. (Henry B. Eyring) The intention must be clean. Stay tuned for part two where you will discover the criteria for healing with intention.

A recent study of sickle cell patients that found those who attended church weekly had the lowest pain scores.

Without a doubt prayer works. There are now many studies to document that. The science is very solid in peer-reviewed publications. The science is so solid, that it is negligent for physicians not to recommend it.

Prayer is one of the most cost-effective treatments, In fact, there is no cost to prayer except for time. Take advantage of this powerful healing remedy and feel the benefits of the power of prayer. Prayer accompanied with the right intention is powerful beyond measure.

Many people aren't getting enough vitamin D. It's hard to do from food and fortified milk alone, and supplements are problematic. So the thinking is this: Even if too much sun leads to skin cancer, which is rarely deadly, too little sun may be worse. No one is suggesting that people fry on a beach. But many scientists believe that "safe sun" - 15 minutes or so a few times a week without sunscreen - is not only possible but helpful to health. Supplements contain the nutrient, but most use an old form - D-2 - that is far less potent than the more desirable D-3. Multivitamins typically contain only small amounts of D-2 and include vitamin A, which offsets many of D's benefits. As a result, pills might not raise vitamin D levels much at all. Government advisers can't even agree on an RDA, or recommended daily allowance for vitamin D. Instead, they say "adequate intake" is 200 international units a day up to age 50, 400 IUs for ages 50 to 70, and 600 IUs for people over 70. Many scientists think adults need 1,000 IUs a day. Giovannucci's research suggests 1,500 IUs might be needed to significantly curb cancer.

Several studies observing large groups of people found that those with higher vitamin D levels also had lower rates of cancer. For some of these studies, doctors had blood samples to measure vitamin D, making the findings particularly strong. Even so, these studies aren't the gold standard of medical research - a comparison over many years of a large group of people who were given the vitamin with a large group who didn't take it. In the past, the best research has deflated health claims involving other nutrients, including vitamin E and beta carotene. Lab and animal studies show that vitamin D stifles abnormal cell growth, helps cells die when they are supposed to, and curbs formation of blood vessels that feed tumors. Cancer is more common in the elderly, and the skin makes less vitamin D as people age. Blacks have higher rates of cancer than whites and more pigment in their skin, which prevents them from making much vitamin D. Vitamin D gets trapped in fat, so obese people have lower blood levels of D. They also have higher rates of cancer. Diabetics, too, are prone to cancer, and their damaged kidneys have trouble converting vitamin D into a form the body can use. People in the northeastern United States and northerly regions of the globe like Scandinavia have higher cancer rates than those who get more sunshine year-round.

Conclusion: Nature will always serve us if we use wisdom. The very idea that a life giving essence like the sun is bad for you is a flawed idea from the beginning. Follow the guidelines given here and you should be way ahead in the healthy life contest.