> Volume 10 #5
> Sept. / Oct., 2004
>
> Ephraim's Forum
>
>
>
> Honor & Power (cont.)
>
> We are told in the scriptures to: Honor thy father and thy mother.  Honor
> being that which can be neither given, nor taken; excepting upon the basis
> of one's worthiness; it is also something that cannot be comprehended
solely
> through the use of words.  Honor must be experienced in order to be
> understood.  This being true, in order for a child to give honor to its
> parents, the parents must first give honor to the child, to each other,
and
> to those they come in contact with.
>             This is an important issue because beginning as an infant the
> child observes its parents and begins to comprehend itself as an extension
> of these all important people.  It is in their value and respect for
> themselves, and others, that the child learns to value and respect itself.
> Parents who honor each other are inadvertently teaching their children the
> greatest lesson that life has to offer any of us; and with it bestowing,
to
> the best of their ability, the greatest power possible upon their
children;
> the greatest power possible for any of us to attain.
>
> D&C 84:38 says, "And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father's
> kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him."  I
> think it is safe to say that God desires to honor us, but he can only do
so
> based upon our worthiness of that honor.  If this is true, then, as honor
> seems to be a reflection of that deepest and most important aspect of God,
> love, love also must be based upon conditions.  This of course brings us
> into conflict with the concept of God's unconditional love.  What I am
> proposing is that love and honor, in essence, exist in a duality of both
> conditional, and unconditional.
>
> Eric Fromm in his book The Art of Loving  states: "I am loved for what I
am,
> or perhaps more accurately, I am loved because I am.  There is nothing I
> have to do in order to be loved - mother's love is unconditional. All I
have
> to do is be . it need not be deserved.  .  Fatherly love is conditional
> love.  Its principle is, "I love you because." . Since his love is
> conditioned, I can do something to acquire it, I can work for it; his love
> is not outside of my control as motherly love is."
>
> First, there is an unconditional love and honor to which everyone is due.
> As individuals, "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights,"
> we are entitled to be honored in those unalienable rights.  It is in these
> rights that we begin to define who and what we are.  I say this because we
> begin honoring people when we honor their rights; as such our rights are
our
> inheritance from God, and the beginning of who we are.  We begin as a
child
> of our father and mother, and of God, and in all of this there should be
> honor enough to teach us to love and care for ourselves simply because we
> have that right as a child.
>
> Second, there is the honor that is acquired based upon conditions of
> worthiness.  Though one may be worthy of honor via virtuous acts and noble
> deeds others are not required to honor that which is honorable.  What one
> acquires by merit, rather than divine right, falls within the category of
> privileges.  Privileges are that which can be sought for and obtained,
they
> are conditional just as love and honor are conditional. The law of our
land
> stands as a vanguard to protect our rights, but there is no law to protect
> privileges.  In fact there exists in our laws a law that prohibits "titles
> of nobility" whereby one may obtain privileges above others.
>
> The reason for this is that while God will only honor that which is
> wholesome and good, men will honor whatever seems best to them at the
time.
> While God will only honor true nobility, governments will issue "titles of
> nobility" requiring everyone to honor that which may not be honorable.  It
> is in this area of conditional honor that we must be free in order to
> determine who and what we are.  As we obtain honor and as we give honor we
> are establishing our identity.  The large and small choices we make
> determine who we are.  It is our responsibility to determine who should
> receive privileges and who should not.
>
> Civil Rights stand in direct opposition to this principle.  Although it is
> true that men should not be judged by his religion or the color of his
skin
> if laws are passed requiring everyone to grant others privileges, it by
> nature violates the mandate of the Constitution whereby the government
shall
> not grant titles of nobility.  Not every man of any color is noble, and to
> pass laws whereby a man must do business carte blanche with every man of a
> certain color is coercive in its nature and destructive of the divine or
> natural rights of men.  If men desire to engage in business with others
that
> is their right; if others are willing to grant, by their right, that
> privilege, and visa versa. as long as the other man allows him that
> privilege.  People are free in their rights to do as they please, but they
> are bound by the rights of others.  We all have the right to grant
> privileges (i.e. "titles of nobility") to others when they desire to have
> interaction with us in business or whatever.  Nobility is the issue upon
> which privilege should be granted, and nobility should be based upon
honor,
> and that business of determining who is worthy of honor is every man's
> business.
>
>
>
> How Young is too Young?
>
> (off the internet)
>
> I'm not sure how anyone can reasonably defend the sexual abuse of young
> girls.  These are children we're talking about.  I continue to be
disgusted
> with that segment of society that feels it's ok to take advantage of
> children in this way.
>
> My 3rd great grandma, Sarah Lucretia Holbrook Tolman spent almost 11 of
her
> 37 years pregnant with the 14 children she bore.  She was only 14 years
old
> when her father married her off.  She died from jaundice during protracted
> labor and was buried with her last child who lived only three hours longer
> than her mother.  They are buried together.
>
> Sarah did not have a chance to finish her own childhood before she began
> having children of her own.  The life forced on her robbed her of the
chance
> to see her own children grow up.  The youngest ones never got the chance
to
> know their own mother.  The MEN who spoke at her funeral blathered on
about
> her great spirit and sacrifice but never mentioned the avoidable tragedy
> foisted on her that cut her time so short.  I doubt these men (Joseph
> Holbrook, John Telford and Anson Call) spent much time concerned with the
> suffering of the women they kept in serial pregnancy from such an early
age.
>
> What happened is done.  If we can't learn from our own ancestors' lives we
> are doomed to repeat their mistakes and perpetuate this cycle of child
abuse
> and rape.  It sickens me to even think about it.  I am left wondering what
> Sarah would have done if she had ever been given a real choice.  I doubt
her
> choice would have been to spend two thirds of her short life pregnant,
> nursing or both and then die in agony.
>
> I was dismayed that there is no legal answer possible.
>
>   Shame. Regards, Geoffrey
>
>
>
> Geoffrey,
>          There certainly is truth in much of what you say; and "choice" is
> the issue.  Unfortunately we cannot paint a black picture or a white
picture
> and have either one be true.  There are women who would choose to marry at
> 14, or younger, and who would feel that they had done that which pleased
God
> in bearing umpteen children; and found pleasure and happiness in doing the
> same.  But I am in total agreement with you when it comes to the mental
and
> moral coercion that takes "choice" away from individuals.
>
>         Males are not exempt from having their freedom taken from them in
> this way as well.  Nor is the question an easy one.  I say this because
when
> children are offered condoms at government training camps called schools
> their agency or power of "choice" is being meddled with in the same way.
> Whenever anyone finds they are surrounded by people who are doing "it"
> whatever "it" is, there is a coercion to go along and be part of the
crowd.
> How many 14 and younger girls end up pregnant and or diseased while their
> parents worked valiantly trying to keep them from having sex? Yet even if
I
> simply teach my children that they should not have sex before marriage,
and
> to choose someone to marry after prayer and deep thought am I not also in
> some way exercising coercion and taking away "choice?"
>
> The answer in a way is easy, but in another way the answer can never be
> easy... not if one is to become their own person... and perhaps a GOD.
>
> Conflict
>
> "Nature uses conflict as its primary motivator for change, creating
> beautiful beaches, canyons, mountains, and pearls" "It's not whether you
> have conflict in your life. It's what you do with that conflict that makes
a
> difference.
From:
> His Needs / Her Needs
>
>
>
> The Concept of Simplicity
>
> On pages 118-119 of  Myrna Byth's book Spin Sisters says, ".we want a
simple
> explanation. .  A very simple explanation.  . many articles. [are] fair
and
> honest.  . But there is always the temptation to . simplify and
dramatize."
> The book is about how we are manipulated by the media, and how that media
is
> biased by an overwhelmingly liberal, or left-of-center press.  I think she
> makes her points exceedingly well and that her book is an excellent expose
> of what we as a society are bombarded with every day.  Unfortunately I
> believe that the concept of simplicity that she speaks of is a concept
that
> is used by conservatives or right-of-center media as well.
>
> In fact I think it is a nearly universal tool of the trade of all who seek
> to make their point.  Why?  I believe the answer is found in the fact that
> for most people thinking is difficult work that they will avoid if
possible.
> We all want "it" to be simple, and we do need to keep it as simple as
> possible, but the reality is that life, and the problems of life are
rarely
> simple.  Life is given to us of God and according to my memory it was
Joseph
> Smith who said something to the effect that, "the things of God are of
deep
> import and only time and experience and long and solemn and ponderous
> thoughts can find them out."  In order for a people to be free they must
be
> responsible, and the ability and desire to think things out and to
> understand them for one's self is an essential characteristic of that
> responsibility.
>
> As cattle do not think as they are bought and sold, without their
knowledge
> or consent, so also are we.  We might do well to weep as we look at
> ourselves and see that for all the profession of freedom, for all the
> flowery words, for all the façade, we are not free.
>
> People want to follow and be obedient to Pastors, Professors, Presidents,
> and in reality anyone with an aura of authority, expressed or implied,
real
> or supposed.  The ease with which one can follow someone endowed with
> credentials as of one having "power and authority" rather than to struggle
> for one's self to gain understanding and knowledge for one's self  is the
> difference of the steer penned and fed waiting to be slaughtered to the
deer
> whose freedom continues until death.
>
> In Isaiah it says that all have gone astray save a few, and they stray, in
> many instances, because of the precepts of men.  Plural Marriage and The
Law
> of Consecration are two Celestial Laws that must be lived if one believes
in
> the Mormonism that Joseph Smith Preached.  I believe these two are so
> important because the only way to live these two laws successfully is by
> living the essence of all the laws.  If there were those living these laws
> they would have the understanding and wisdom to rectify and resolve all
the
> social and other problems of society.  I do not have that understanding
and
> wisdom.  I agree in part with the scientific and or liberal community, and
I
> agree in part with the traditional conservative community, but I cannot
find
> complete agreement with either.  The scriptures give great understanding,
> but they lack when it comes to the subtleties of application.  Science has
> much to offer, but lacking the solid reality of God and His scriptures
there
> is much trial an error as theories are established that may mask symptoms
> rather than give true healing.  And in all the hoopala there resides the
> hope of converts as simplicity is sold to the unwary and unwise.
>
> If honesty could be the standard by which all sought to establish and
> increase their cause; if instead of twisting things to make things fit
> preconceived notions people would simply say, "This evidence goes against
> our theory or belief and we acknowledge that."   If this was the common
> fodder fed to us as people we would find ourselves forced to be honest
with
> ourselves and put thought into subjects or acknowledge that we do not care
> to think.
>
> The United States was not established on the basis of everyone having the
> power of government (the vote), nor should it be so now.  When it is clear
> that only those who think, and think deep have the true characteristic of
> responsibility; and that only those who are responsible are truly free;
then
> it is only reasonable that only with them should freedom be entrusted.
>
> In ending I think of the question, "Will Iraq be able to handle
democracy?"
> Their culture and world view is so foreign to our own that the chance of
> them creating a democratic republic is at best most uncertain.  Looking at
> the model they have to guide them . it would be a miracle; which is what
we
> are going to need to regain our own.
>
>
>
> Gay Marriages
>
> Homosexuality was a capital crime in the Old Testament, but seeing the
trend
> I would expect Gay marriages to become as socially acceptable as
> inter-marriage with the Negro.  It too was violently opposed.  It too was,
> and is, forbidden in the Bible.  But what I'm waiting for is for some anal
> opening to wander into a courtroom somewhere with a barnyard animal and
say,
> "We're in love, and we want to get married."  God forbid anyone should
speak
> out against love, especially where it might hurt the emotional feelings of
a
> poor dumb animal!  Let's face it!  Whatever God has told us not to do is
> exactly what is being foisted upon us.
>
>  "Do you Bossy promise to take this pervert to be your husband...  Moooo
do.
> and do you.."
>