Constitutional Ammendment for Parental Rights...

[Stephen]

Watch the video...

http://www.parentalrights.org/action/downloads/video

With the recent hub-bub with the FLDS...and the encroachment of government on parental rights....such an ammendment sound like a good idea. Your thoughts?

[Mark]

There is a scripture in the Bible that states basically that the Lords people can perish because of a lack of knowledge. I remember Pres. Packer saying some years ago in a forum of some sort that the 3 greatest threats to the church from outside organizations and influences came from the radicalized womens movement, the gay and lesbian powerful lobby, and political correctness run rampant in our society. I was reading something from another source sent to me recently that really illustrates in a powerful way what consequences have come from ignoring words of wisdom that have come from our prophets over the past decades. The chickens are coming home to roost so to speak and society will pay a price for this disobedience to prophetic guidance. This goes for members and non members alike. Why do you think the prophets keep hammering on the dangers to the family in society and the need to teach our children in light and truth. DUH!!! The fruits of Gramsci's undertaking years ago to break down western society thru decadence and deceptive messages coming from entertainment and public education etc etc are showing its ultimate successes in a big way. Should that come as a surprise to anyone whose head is not buried in the ground?

As far as the Gadiantons go, and missing things that are right in front of our noses, i have a few thoughts. I agree with the person that mentioned that they might not be 'hidden' , but might be right in front of our face and just not recognized. I taught a lesson a few weeks ago about flaxen cords. How the adversary grabs us with teeny tiny cords that are barely perceptible until there are enough of them to drag us down to hell. He also uses the shades of grey concept. Someone that is offered a clearly filthy choice will not often choose it, but offer them a slightly less clean choice and they often times will grab a hold of it - especially if there is some truth too it. The most dangerous lie is the one with the most truth in it.
I dont want to offend anyone, but I would like to use what I think is a great flaxen cord illustration of what can happen when lies with lots of truth are bought by the public. (Disclaimer: Not all schools fit this category, but there are so many that do)

You have a country that is starting out, many of the greatest men ever are in charge. They have mostly been taught by their mothers, and the apprentice/mentor method of learning. They have been taught to not only read, write, but to think and be upstanding citizens as well. Most families consist of a mother, and a father. The mother is the one who oversees the running of the household. Having been trained by her mother, she has confidence in raising her children. She knows what needs to be done, and does it. She is not fearful, or uncertain, and if she is, she turns to her mother, or good friend who has many children for advice. She knows it is her responsilbility to make sure her children are educated. They may pool together with a few neighbors to hire a teacher that boards with them. They make sure he is a man (or woman) with beliefs that match thiers. They would never allow thier children to spend hours every day with a person that would not train thier children the way that they want them trained. They also buy the books that they want thier children to be tuaght out of. They know whats in them, they know exactly what their children are being taught, and the teacher follows the instruction of the parents. Then the flaxen cords start popping up. (at the end I will detail why each one is a cord and seperate out the lie from the truth)
Along the way, (and this is not exactly the right order, but bear with me as it all plays together), two things happen. One, is family unity starts to drift apart with the womens movement. Women are constantly baraged with messages of breaking free of the shackles of home life. To be more.(flaxen cord #1) Also, some childrens parents cant afford a teacher, and so free schools start popping up. (flaxen cord #2). Out in Utah, Church leaders advise very strongly against sending children to the government 'free' schools. The saints ignore the leaders and send the kids. They cant see anything wrong with taking advantage of these schools. (cord 3). As free schools begin to gain popularity, more and more people take advantage of them. Some states start making it mandatory to send children to the schools (cord 4). Mothers now removed from the day in day out teaching of thier children, start to feel restless during the day. They are offered the chance to work during the wars, and after being at home all day long with no children around, a lot of them decide not to go back home. (cords getting more noticeable now). As this is going on, the womens lib movement is picking up speed, birth control is starting to become popular, and childbirth has been completely removed from the home as well, further eroding womens confidence in themselves. (Brigham Young also warned about depending on doctors too much, and turning over childbearing to them, he was a strong advocate of midwifery). Formula is becoming popular, and a switch over to 'experts' is coming fast.
We have now gone from a country built on families that worked, taught, and played side by side, self reliant and just desiring freedom to pursue to course of thier own lives, to a country that is starting to fracture on the familiy side. Schools are for the most part still quality places that are educating the children fairly well, most of the teachers are still ones you might have chosen yourself. However, the children are now out of the home for 8 hours a day. There are less children in the home. What does mother do all day? She gets bored, restless, told that she is a 'victim' of the Patriachy, that she serves no real purpose. She is afraid of childbirth, she feeds the baby bottles, which any one can do, she then spends hours and hours alone every day. It is no wonder that soon she is drawn out of the home in large numbers.
Fast forward a little while. Most women are now in the workforce. They are no longer trained by thier mothers on how to run an independent home. How to be a cook, teacher, doctor, etc. She has a child or two, she is frustrated, and lost, she doesnt have any one to turn to except the experts. She has no confidence in herself. Children are now turning ever more towards peers for a 'family' , and the schools are starting to slide. Single motherhood explodes as men are no longer needed, ( I could go back and interweave this slippery slope as well, but this is probably long enough already). Now you have a situation where the children 'have' to attend school. The mothers are either working, or have absolutely no confidence in themselves to take upon them such tasks. They cannot possible imagine how they (just mothers) can possible educate thier children. Not only that, but they are starting to believe that they need experts at younger and younger ages. School that used to start when kids were nine, is now deemed a necessity for kids as young as 3. This then leads to even less confidence and more fracturing of the family. Families are not islands anymore of people depending on each other for survival, but rather just a bunch of people living parrelel lives in the same house. There kids, the few they have, are out the door when they are three - or three monthsin some houses. They are seen by now as a burden, and people count down the days till they go to school.
Now that everyone is hooked into the whole school, mom working lifestyle, the schools start to go south. Prayer has already been banished, as have the scriptures. Education takes a huge hit quality wise as they introduce 'new' ways of teaching. This has the desired effect of reinforcing just how 'hard' it is to teach children - if the 'experts' have a hard time, how could mere mortals do it? The schools sink lower and lower. Character is not taught anymore. Self esteem is (cord). Inspiring stories of founding fathers relying on the Lord to help founf the country are obliterated, the founders instead are vilified. Patriotism is discouraged. Political correctness runs amok, children are nowbeing taught in elementary school that some kids have two moms. Parents dont really know what is in all the books at school as they have no say in the curriculum. Parents are now judged by schools and given homework, rather than the schools being run by the parents. People get upset and demand change, but none really happens as most parents are trapped. Many moms have to work, so they cannot just pull thier child outof school. Many moms who are at home, have no confidence in thier ability to teach thier own children. The flaxen cords are now strong ropes, and even at that - people still cant see it for what it is.
How many moms would have fell victim to working outside the home if they still had 6 kids at home all day that looked to her for all thier needs? How many moms would have allowed thier kids to spend one week with a teacher that taught thier kids disrespect for our country and secularized everything? How many parents would have paid a teacher who coulnt properly educate thier child? And what mom, running a house full of children, independent, well trained by her mother, knowledgeable, skillful, and confident would turn over a three year old to someone else?? Hardly any would be my guess - but now we are trapped. We see these things going on and we shake our heads - either grateful our school isnt like that (we hope), or that there is nothing we can do anyways.
So how could we have avoided the flaxen cords?
Flaxen cord 1 - I kind of covered this throughout the email. As the womens movement rolled forward it not only wanted women to be treated with respect, but it seperated women from thier families. There is definitely truth in it that women should be treated with respect and have equal protection under the law, but the lies were in convincing women that thier roles were meaningless, and true happiness was found in the mans world.
Flaxen cord 2 - Free schools. When it became apparent that some parents wanted to send thier children to school, but couldnt afford it. The town on a local level should have raised funds for the families through charities. IF the town government had to get involved they shouuld have done so buy providing the families with the funds to pay for thier children in the schools, not taken over it. This distanced the parents from running the schools, having a say in what thier child learned, and made the teachers unnacountable to the parents. Leading to the situation we have today.
Flaxen cord 3 - Church issues repeated warnings against the free schools. Saints ignore them. Eventually seminary is started as the 'lesser'law. Saints all wonder why the Church doesnt offer church schools for teh kids the way other churches do - the answer is they used to and the Saints all walked away from it. Now we are all stuck with the schools the government has to offer.
Flaxen cord 4 - Goevernment mandating school attendance. I dont think I even need to describe why this is bad. Government was able to make a huge inroad into teh private lives of citizens with this step. Now they have eyes and ears into your homes via your kids at school. This in not a good thinkg. DSS has flourished into a very powerful agency - which started on the premise of 'helping' - theres a whole bunch of flazen cords in that evolution as well. Once the governnment decides that they dont like your religion, they can use the power of DSS to just take your kids. No search warrants, no hearings before hand to establish credible evidence, no innocent till proven guilty - your kids are just taken.
Other Flaxen cords - Self esteem. Children who are no longer needed (and wanted in some cases) at home and trained in usefull things are all of sudden feeling useless. Instead of getting them out from ehind desks and teaching them rreal skills that will build thier confidence they are built up with pride in themselves and how special they are - not a 'You are a child of God and that makes you special" but a fake honey sweet kind of all you do is perfect kind of way. You cant discipline anymore becuase you might hurt your childs 'feelings'. This lack of parenting just leads to more depression, rebellion, etc.

Education is important, womens rights are important, healthcare is important, but not at the expense of our freedom. Government has used all these issues at one time or another to take away our freedoms, our agency, and our money. Until people, especially members realize that thier are alway ulterior motives at play, nobody is going to wake up sufficiently to the dangers we are facing. The people involved may not have these motives, but Satan does, and he has been plotting for a long time. Government can not do good. People do. We need to start walking away from the government in all forms and become a self reliant people. Healthcare too much - why cant a member who is a doctor treat fellow LDS in exchange for one of them teaching his kids, growing a garden, etc. We need to rely on each other more, not as a an offiial church program, but just as a way of life. When we start to do that, and really become a seperate, peculiar people., united in all things, then I think we will be sufficienlty strong enough to bring in the gathering and the Millenium.
Sorry if I got carreid away, I was not condemneing anyone, just trying to use an example everyone can relate to. I can do this same thing with healtcare, and a few other topics. I am just more familiar with this one - and it is something that is definitely right in front of our faces, that most people dont (or dont want to ) see.

[natasha]

Mark: I have a copy of a talk given by Pres. Packer that states the three items are: womans movement; Gay & Lesbian lobby, and rather than politcal correctness he says "the intellectuals". Not sure if it's the same talk but thought I would post it.

[Mark]

That sounds right Natasha. I was just going from memory. I probable threw in political correctness because I hate it so much.

[natasha]

Well, we could always ADD political correctness and just be sure to say we added it. I would be very curious to hear what the posters here think he meant by "the intellectuals"? Personally, I have seen/heard some people take a principle/doctrine and intellectualize it until I no longer even recognize the principle involved. I wonder if sometimes a lot of us do that, when...in reality...the Gospel is pretty simple. But I would be interested in hearing other's opinions.

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

"intellectuals" make me think that it is someone that thinks that they know better then God... All these thinking movements going on...

[Bridgey]

I think intellectuals are people who say the world is over-populated, not enough food, Man Made global warming enthusiast, evolutionist and people who jusify sin as good.

[citizensoldier]

A constitutional amendment for parental rights is irrelevant and will not affect anything. Neither the U.S. nor the States have any authority to be involved in family matters unless the mother and father have entered into a contractual relation with either of those entities giving such authority. Unfortunately, most people have done so by including the State in their marriage contract (i.e. civil marriage). By applying for a marriage license, people include the State as a party to the contract thus giving the State rights over the product of marriage, which can only be children.
If people do not want the State to be a party, do not involve it in marriage.

[jnjnelson]

If people do not want the State to be a party, do not involve it in marriage.

Consider this: I want my marriage to be "legally and lawfully" recognized. If the State has no part in the marriage, how can I be "legally and lawfully married" and still maintain all my rights as they pertain to my children?

Are there any rights pertaining to children that should be retained by, or be under the stewardship of, the State, or should all parents retain every right that pertains to their respective children? If the State has no stewardship whatsoever over children, I'm not seeing how the State can protect the rights of children. Help me out here; I believe strongly in protecting an individual parent's unalienable rights, but I also see a need for the State to have some level of stewardship as it pertains to protecting the unalienable rights of children.

The State's main responsibility should include protecting every individual's unalienable rights, is that correct? What happens when a parent infringes on the unalienable rights of his or her child? What should the State's limits be in this case? If we can clearly define the limits of the State's responsibilities in the realm of parental rights, vs. responsibilities in the realm of child rights, we can be more able to legally defend against those who would infringe on parental rights in the name of protecting a child's rights.

(Clarification: I'm not making an argument for or against marriage licenses, I am simply asking sincere questions about parental rights; so, please, don't take my questions as a challenge to your opinion.)

[Darren]

A constitutional amendment for parental rights is irrelevant and will not affect anything. Neither the U.S. nor the States have any authority to be involved in family matters unless the mother and father have entered into a contractual relation with either of those entities giving such authority. Unfortunately, most people have done so by including the State in their marriage contract (i.e. civil marriage). By applying for a marriage license, people include the State as a party to the contract thus giving the State rights over the product of marriage, which can only be children.
If people do not want the State to be a party, do not involve it in marriage.

Well said citizensoldier. If we can no longer defend our God given rights (and those of our children) by our God given jury courts, and local Sheriffs, and instead we have to contract with the state by license for privileges then we are doomed to have the state enforce its policy by the police power.

citizensoldier, I would change your name if I were you.

cit•i•zen –noun
1. a ... member of a state ... who owes allegiance to its government 2. an inhabitant of a city ... one entitled to its privileges ... 4. a civilian ...

[Origin: ... city + -ain -an; ...]

sol•dier –noun
sol –noun,
1. a gold coin of ancient Rome, ...

[Origin: ... LL solidus (nummus) a solid (coin), a gold (coin)]

So it could be said that a citizensoldier is someone who is under the control of a city's politician and who does the bidding of that politician for a solid (money).

How about changing your name to Yeoman. Someone who volentarly defends his and his people's rights and freedoms.

God Bless,
Darren

[Darren]

The State's main responsibility should include protecting every individual's unalienable rights, is that correct? What happens when a parent infringes on the unalienable rights of his or her child? What should the State's limits be in this case? If we can clearly define the limits of the State's responsibilities in the realm of parental rights, vs. responsibilities in the realm of child rights, we can be more able to legally defend against those who would infringe on parental rights in the name of protecting a child's rights.

"The State" is a political creation or monster; it is an entity for top-down control. We don't want the state involved in anything, unless we are too stupid to govern ourselves, but that doesn't make sense either.

Civil rights are only privileges from this top-down system.

Gospel Rights are what we need to get back to; you know the stuff in the bible. Juries know how to keep the Law current, let’s leave it to juries to enthrone Gospel Rights as what we live by.

The way that the uniform, identical, ancient, ancestral Law of the Germanic Peoples operated among the Three Germanic Tribes of the Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes, who established England, is summarized in the first volume of Winston S. Churchill’s, “A History of the English-speaking Peoples.” That first volume is entitled, “The Birth of Britain.” The second chapter in that volume is entitled, “The English Common Law.” That Chapter ends with these words:

“The Liberties of Englishmen rested not upon any enactment of the State, but upon immemorial, slow-growing Custom, declared by Juries of Free Men, as they gave their Verdicts case by case in open court.”

This uniform, identical, ancient, ancestral Law of the Germanic Peoples was declared by the Twelve-man Juries of the Germanic Peoples, as they met to try people in relation to their Rights, throughout all of Germanic Europe.

Our system of Government is so screwed up, thanks to the Politicians who want to rule us by logic. I'll take the truth of the Holy Ghost over logic any day.

God Bless,
Darren

[Bircher]

A constitutional amendment for parental rights is irrelevant and will not affect anything. Neither the U.S. nor the States have any authority to be involved in family matters unless the mother and father have entered into a contractual relation with either of those entities giving such authority. Unfortunately, most people have done so by including the State in their marriage contract (i.e. civil marriage). By applying for a marriage license, people include the State as a party to the contract thus giving the State rights over the product of marriage, which can only be children.
If people do not want the State to be a party, do not involve it in marriage.

How do you get married in the Temple without a marriage license?

[citizensoldier]

If people do not want the State to be a party, do not involve it in marriage.

Consider this: I want my marriage to be "legally and lawfully" recognized. If the State has no part in the marriage, how can I be "legally and lawfully married" and still maintain all my rights as they pertain to my children?

Why would a marriage without license be unlawful? In law, a license is defined as a permission granted by competent authority to engage in a business or occupation or in an activity otherwise unlawful. Can anyone reasonably argue that entering into marriage would be unlawful without state permission? The Bible is foundational law in this nation. Does not the Bible reveal to Man that marriage is an institution of God? Does not God command Man to multiple, replenish, and subdue the earth? Does not God reveal to Man that marriage is a requirement for procreation under His law? Does not God reveal that He bestowed Man with the gift of free agency (a.k.a Liberty)?

The Bible shows the requirements of marriage to be:

1. Consent of the bride and groom
2. Consent of the bride's father

I have not seen any state or federal cases failing to recognize a marriage without license provided the above conditions were met.

Are there any rights pertaining to children that should be retained by, or be under the stewardship of, the State, or should all parents retain every right that pertains to their respective children? If the State has no stewardship whatsoever over children, I'm not seeing how the State can protect the rights of children. Help me out here; I believe strongly in protecting an individual parent's unalienable rights, but I also see a need for the State to have some level of stewardship as it pertains to protecting the unalienable rights of children.

A state has no rights - it only has privileges (powers) given to it by its creator, the People. Since the People delegated a limited set of their powers to the states for their benefit as a society, it is clear that a state cannot enjoy a power that the People do not have. God has not given Man any authority over their fellow Man - to the contrary, God has specifically commanded Man to not infringe on any of their fellow Man's rights. Therefore, neither I nor any other person has the authority to require you to obtain our permission to marry, so neither do we have the power to cloth the state with such authority.

For example, I have a right to protect my life and my stewardship as well as the life of my fellow Man unto bloodshed. However, I do not have a right to tell my fellow Man how to raise their children nor dictate their morality or beliefs. Therefore, the state has the power to protect my life and my stewardship as well as the life of my fellow Man unto bloodshed. Like me, it does not have the right to tell me or my fellow Man how to raise our children nor dictate morality or beliefs.

The State's main responsibility should include protecting every individual's unalienable rights, is that correct? What happens when a parent infringes on the unalienable rights of his or her child? What should the State's limits be in this case? If we can clearly define the limits of the State's responsibilities in the realm of parental rights, vs. responsibilities in the realm of child rights, we can be more able to legally defend against those who would infringe on parental rights in the name of protecting a child's rights.

A state only enjoys the powers given it under its constitutional authority given by the People. Now, a child does not enjoy full use of their rights because of the necessity of the parents to fulfill their duties as stewards of the children. For example, a child does not enjoy freedom of liberty to the extent an adult - such as, parents can dictate when and where a child can go, what to eat, what to read, etc... A parent cannot commit a crime against a child any more than they can commit a crime against another adult. Other than that, a parent can do whatever they want concerning their children. Of course, they will be responsible unto God for their actions as stewards of their children.

[citizensoldier]

Well said citizensoldier. If we can no longer defend our God given rights (and those of our children) by our God given jury courts, and local Sheriffs, and instead we have to contract with the state by license for privileges then we are doomed to have the state enforce its policy by the police power.

citizensoldier, I would change your name if I were you.

cit•i•zen –noun
1. a ... member of a state ... who owes allegiance to its government 2. an inhabitant of a city ... one entitled to its privileges ... 4. a civilian ...

God Bless,
Darren

Why would I want to change the name - it is an accurate description
I am a citizen and soldier of the Kingdom of Isreal. I think you may have assumed it pertained to being a citizen or soldier to Corp US or its States.

[citizensoldier]

How do you get married in the Temple without a marriage license?

Did Joseph Smith have a marriage license? Did Abraham? Did Adam? Did George Washington? Did John Adams?

As I stated above, the courts recognize the lawfulness of unlicensed marriage, so why wouldn't the LDS church?

[Bircher]

How do you get married in the Temple without a marriage license?

Did Joseph Smith have a marriage license? Did Abraham? Did Adam? Did George Washington? Did John Adams?

As I stated above, the courts recognize the lawfulness of unlicensed marriage, so why wouldn't the LDS church?

Didn't answer my question. The Handbook of Instructions says you must have a marriage license shown at the Temple to get married. I remember we needed it before they would even think about taking us into the sealing room.

[citizensoldier]

I have not married in the Temple, so I wouldn't know; however, I do know LDS members that do not have a marriage license and have temple marriages. It seems like a good question to take up with officials in the church.

My wife and I do not have a marriage license, yet our marriage is recognized by everyone.

[jbalm]

Just a guess, but I would assume that the Church will allow temple sealing in jurisdictions that recognize common law marriages.

[citizensoldier]

Just a guess, but I would assume that the Church will allow temple sealing in jurisdictions that recognize common law marriages.

Neither the states nor the United States can aborgate the common law nor can they violate the equal protection clause of the constitution of the United States - they all must recognize common law marriage as a matter of law.

The Supreme Court stated: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

The LDS church, on the other hand, is not bound by the constitution; however, I am left wondering how it can adopt an official policy that fails to recognize marriage as defined by the Scriptures or to unequally treat its members depending on their residence. I mean, the church actually requires its members to move to a different state in order to be eligilible for temple marriage? Is that not an absurd result? Furthermore, how does that support free agency? To deny the right of a man or woman to a temple marriage without getting permission from a state would be unjust.

[natasha]

I'm not sure about all of this....but what about missionaries who come across a couple that are living together? It is my understanding that as they teach them the gospel, they eventually tell them that they need to separate...then be baptized....then marry. At least...that has been my understanding. Also, someone asked if Joseph Smith had a marriage license. Didn't he marry Emma first by whatever laws existed where he was living at the time?

[Darren]

How do you get married in the Temple without a marriage license?

Did Joseph Smith have a marriage license? Did Abraham? Did Adam? Did George Washington? Did John Adams?

As I stated above, the courts recognize the lawfulness of unlicensed marriage, so why wouldn't the LDS church?

Didn't answer my question. The Handbook of Instructions says you must have a marriage license shown at the Temple to get married. I remember we needed it before they would even think about taking us into the sealing room.

One major reason that The Handbook of Instructions says you must have a marriage license shown at the Temple to get married, is because the Church is a Corporation with oversight by the Government. The same reason our leaders keep telling us to pay homage to the Great Abominable Church by paying our IRS Tax (Babylonian Tithing). To do otherwise would risk getting the Church as a 501 3(c) Corporation dissolved or taken over by the Government. And not just the US Government but also the hundreds of Governments we operate in, as a “Church” world wide.

When in Babylon do as the Babylonians do. “An enemy hath done this …” Welcome to the Matrix of your control.

God Bless,
Darren

[natasha]

Somehow I think that the reason the Church requires a marriage license at the Temple is much more than having to do with their tax exempt status.

[citizensoldier]

I'm not sure about all of this....but what about missionaries who come across a couple that are living together? It is my understanding that as they teach them the gospel, they eventually tell them that they need to separate...then be baptized....then marry. At least...that has been my understanding. Also, someone asked if Joseph Smith had a marriage license. Didn't he marry Emma first by whatever laws existed where he was living at the time?

Law does not change, so the law during his time is the same as today. No free person married by license before the Civil War. People do so today because they are ignorant of the law.

If you really want to use Joseph Smith as an example, how do you reconcile polygamy?

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

Many of my ancestors have marriage certificates, that were filled out and signed by their religious leaders.

This marriage license bit has always bugged me.

But so does any license. License to have a business, license to drive/travel... doesn't really make sense to me to pay for the ability to do what I am supposed to be FREE to do.

[jbalm]

they all must recognize common law marriage as a matter of law.

Wrongo.