what makes people great: some incomplete thoughts

Truly Great People recognize that they are great because of the principles they live by, not in spite of them.

The American Revolution was fought over many principles. Among these was the Divine Right Of Kings: when God created Adam and Eve in the Garden, He gave Adam lordship over the earth. This stewardship has been misunderstood as the right to do whatsoever man would without any accountability. This coupled with the idea of Birthright is part of what brings about the ideas of 'Who's your Daddy' and being a person of renown bloodline. The Kings of Europe in particular took this to mean that they had right to rule over their fellows without accountability to them.

In truth this idea is traceable back to the principle of Pride that says "My will be done" regardless of any other idea.
Said differently the ides is who is right instead of what is right. Again this is about the principles one lives by, not something intrinsic to the individual. Go see Jesus' comments about God making children of Abraham out of paving stones when he was talking to some proud, arrogant men in his day.

Today, many decry Americans for claiming to be the best people in the world as jingoism, and arrogance. On one hand the pitfall of pride is easy to trip into and many do: but so long as it is evinced in the way the individual lives, thoughtful and observant people will recognize that it is by principles that people are elevated, not intrinsic value.

Americans are not free and great because they are the best people in the world, as the proud and arrogant would and do accuse. Americans are the best people in the world because they live by the principles of freedom. Further, all other people in the world are invited to join and become the best people in the world, by living by those same principles, wherever they may be.

Ethnicity, heritage, 'who's your daddy, and what great deeds did he do,' these are nice to brag about if the pride of 'my will be done' and who is right are among your core principles.
People who put principle before themselves, and are interested in what is right, are not going to be overly impressed by recitations of what your antecedents did.

I have a question...

This last Sunday, June 10, at Sunday School the question of fairness come up. The topic was on Welfare and Compensation, and the class was asked to put forth ideas about each subject.

For compensation one idea was put forth that I think I have touched on in some previous post, but mention again here. The idea that was brought up was said as "Getting the maximum amount of profit for the minimum amount of work."

In 1983, Prof. Hugh Nibley gave a commencement address at BYU where he addressed this issue as follows:

In my latest class, a graduating honors student in business management (who is here today) wrote this—the assignment was to compare one's self with some character in the Pearl of Great Price, and he quite seriously chose Cain:

Many times I wonder if many of my desires are too self-centered. Cain was after personal gain. He knew the impact of his decision to kill Abel. Now, I do not ignore God and make murderous pacts with Satan; however, I desire to get gain. Unfortunately, my desire to succeed in business is not necessarily to help the Lord's kingdom grow [now there's a refreshing bit of honesty]. Maybe I am pessimistic, but I feel that few businessmen have actually dedicated themselves to the furthering of the Church without first desiring personal gratification. As a business major, I wonder about the ethics of business—"charge as much as possible for a product which was made by someone else who was paid as little as possible." You live on the difference. As a businessman will I be living on someone else's industry and not my own? Will I be contributing to society or will I receive something for nothing, as did Cain? While being honest, these are difficult questions for me.

They have been made difficult by the rhetoric of our times. The Church was full of men in Paul's day teaching that gain is godliness and making others believe it. Today the black robe puts the official stamp of approval on that very proposition. But don't blame the College of Commerce! The Sophists, those shrewd business- and showmen, started that game 2,500 years ago, and you can't blame others for wanting to get in on something so profitable. The learned doctors and masters have always known which side their bread was buttered on and have taken their place in the line. Business and "Independent Studies," the latest of the late-comers, have filled the last gaps; and today, no matter what your bag, you can put in for a cap and gown. And be not alarmed that management is running the show—they always have.

I invite the reader to peruse the full text of the address through the above link.

From The Pearl of Great Price, some of the versus dealing with Cain, as revealed to Joseph Smith, the prophet in 1830.

Pearl of Great Price, Moses, Chapter 5

 22 And the Lord said unto Cain: Why art thou wroth? Why is thy countenance fallen?

 23 If thou doest well, thou shalt be ^aaccepted. And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door, and Satan ^bdesireth to have thee; and except thou shalt hearken unto my commandments, I will ^cdeliver thee up, and it shall be unto thee according to his desire. And thou shalt ^drule over him;

 24 For from this time forth thou shalt be the father of his ^alies; thou shalt be called ^bPerdition; for thou wast also ^cbefore the world.

 25 And it shall be said in time to come—That these abominations were had from ^aCain; for he rejected the greater counsel which was had from God; and this is a ^bcursing which I will put upon thee, except thou repent.

 26 And Cain was wroth, and listened not any more to the voice of the Lord, neither to Abel, his brother, who walked in holiness before the Lord.

 27 And Adam and his wife ^amourned before the Lord, because of Cain and his brethren.

 28 And it came to pass that Cain took one of his brothers’ daughters to ^awife, and they ^bloved Satan more than God.

 29 And Satan said unto Cain: ^aSwear unto me by thy throat, and if thou tell it thou shalt die; and swear thy brethren by their heads, and by the living God, that they tell it not; for if they tell it, they shall surely die; and this that thy father may not know it; and this day I will deliver thy brother Abel into thine hands.

 30 And Satan sware unto Cain that he would do according to his ^acommands. And all these things were done in secret.

 31 And Cain said: Truly I am Mahan, the master of this great ^asecret, that I may ^bmurder and get ^cgain. Wherefore Cain was called Master ^dMahan, and he gloried in his wickedness.

 32 And Cain went into the field, and Cain talked with Abel, his brother. And it came to pass that while they were in the field, Cain rose up against Abel, his brother, and slew him.

 33 And Cain ^agloried in that which he had done, saying: I am free; surely the ^bflocks of my brother falleth into my hands.

 34 And the Lord said unto Cain: Where is Abel, thy brother? And he said: I know not. Am I my brother’s ^akeeper?

 Or the source passage from Genesis 4

 6 And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

 8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

 9 ¶And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?

The Mahan Principle: that one can murder and get gain.
Or said differently: "I will eat my bread by the sweat of another brow, instead of my own."
Some will try to say that this is an idea centered in one political ideology or another. I will not. I Say it is in the ideology of selfishness, not politics.

As the discussion continued, we turned to welfare, and I spoke up mentioning a phrase out of the following passage from The Doctrine and Covenants.

Doctrine and Covenants, Section 104

 11 It is wisdom in me; therefore, a commandment I give unto you, that ye shall organize yourselves and appoint every man his ^astewardship;

 12 That every man may give an account unto me of the stewardship which is appointed unto him.

 13 For it is expedient that I, the Lord, should make every man ^aaccountable, as a ^bsteward over earthly blessings, which I have made and prepared for my creatures.

 14 I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and ^abuilt the earth, my very ^bhandiwork; and all things therein are mine.

 15 And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.

 16 But it must needs be done in mine own ^away; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the ^bpoor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.

 17 For the ^aearth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be ^bagents unto themselves.

 18 Therefore, if any man shall take of the ^aabundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the ^blaw of my gospel, unto the ^cpoor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in ^dhell, being in torment.

"...that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low."

In context I believe that 'the rich,' by whatever gauge, are those who have enough and to spare of a given noun, and by the principle of stewardship are to give of their excess in humility, whereby they are made low, unto those who do not have enough. (Whether through an organization, or individually, is not part of this discussion.)

To cite some parables and events: the Loaves and Fishes, the rich man who built a barn to keep his goods then died, and so forth.

Another person in the class balked at this, saying that he had always understood this particular saying in context of equality, as I understand his thinking, that the rich are to be made low and therefore somehow equal to the poor.

I find little in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as I comprehend it, that is interested in 'equality' or 'fairness,' SAVE FOR making and keeping all men equal before The Law. The Gospel is based on Faith in Jesus as the Savior, Repentance, and interested in Justice, Mercy, and so forth through many other principles. All men are to be equal before those. "Love god and love your neighbor, on all these hang the law and the prophets."

The only other places I find 'equality' dealt with is where God promises to make man equal to the challenges he faces, Individually. Nothing at all about making one man equal with another.

Paul comes to mind in his discussion about about the gifts of the spirit and his metaphor about the parts of the body. There is nothing about equality, but rather about each having their own abilities and challenges to overcome.

Therefore it is to my understanding, an abject waste of time to worry about whether I am equal to others by this measure or that. Yes, God created all men equal, but He also foresaw the challenges and trials of each one, and equipped each one of us with access to the best tools He could to face and overcome the challenges. None of us have the same challenges, or therefor the same abilities. Further none of us will receive the exact same rewards. We will all receive "good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over" for our works. Yes we will all receive our penny for our days hire, but God's pennies vary as much as the level of difficulty for each of us, individually.

If I am missing something, I would like to be enlightened to it. What have I moved past too quickly? What experience have you had that would shed a different understanding on the principles I have addressed, that you are willing to share? Have I even said enough to make my puzzlement plain?

In closing I diverge from my subject some to a joke that amuses me.

A group of technicians and scientists and other learned men assemble and go before The Throne of God.
"God, we challenge you to a contest. We believe we can make a better Man than you can."
1. God smiled.
2. God spoke: O.K. Find your own dirt, and we will start.

Another 'Avengers' post.

Like the rest of the world, I recently saw the Avengers.

Two things stood out that I have not seen mentioned yet.

Scene: Agent Coulson giving Loki his 'the reason you suck' speech. (from IMDB-quotes)
 
Agent Phil Coulson: You're gonna lose.
Loki: Am I?
Agent Phil Coulson: It's in your nature.
Loki: Your heroes are scattered, your floating fortress falls from the sky... where is my disadvantage?
Agent Phil Coulson: You lack conviction.
Loki: I don't think I...
[Coulson shoots Loki with his BFG, causing Loki to be blown through the wall behind him]
Agent Phil Coulson: So that's what it does

I feel that this is an accurate description of why people need to have a central morality in their lives. As portrayed Agent Coulson did, 'truth, justice, and the old fashioned American way' to borrow from another superhero. Loki's central morality 'It's all for me.' This is evident in the conversation that Thor and Loki have, through out the whole movie.
As a callback, Thor understanding about this selfishness versus selflessness idea was one of the major character development points of his movie.

People like Agent Coulson are not hard to find these days, but they are generally derided for being naive and simple, and not being thoughtful or smart enough to grasp all the nuances of modern issues. Actually, I think they are that smart, but most of them also get one other insult thrown at them by pop-culture: they get called 'conservative.'

An echo of Agent Coulson's sentiment was The Old Man in Germany, standing up to Loki. It seams that the greatest lesson of World War II is 'there will always be men like that,' and so there will always need to be people who will stand up to them. Or maybe that is just the lesson of Captain Steve Rodgers.


The second point that stood out.
In his final scene talking to the World Security Council, Nick Fury tells them in so many words then that he is not interested in pursuing the Avengers for what they did in fighting off the invading army.
One exchange I was waiting for in that conversation would be as follows:

World Security Council: They need to be held accountable. They did over three billion dollars of damage to New York City. And that number is still rising. Hundreds of civilians dead, more missing, and thousands injured...
Nick Fury: That is cheep, compared to what YOU tired to do to it.

I was once in a school presentation, the guest-presenter being an USAF Colonel, who was talking about how bombing people in to submission is not how you solve problems. I quipped under my breath, but loud enough to be heard that 'it depends on the bomb.' The Colonel stomped on that. I am not an advocate for using 'the biggest stick,' but I have enough insight to understand that escalation is a real principle, and sometimes the enemy will push until only the nuclear option is viable. A moral and upright people will seek to use every other option first, but will not hesitate long to use the worst if it is necessary. Of course this is why such an array of weapons is had today: peace through strength is moral people having enough intermediate options available to bring the enemy to the realization of the untenable position of force of arms.
For a good example of this, the local Law Enforcement Officers carry a variety of force-options: Talking, pepper spray, a baton, a tazer, and a fire-arm. Most also carry a knife, and have hand-combat training, but the knife is used as a tool, not a weapon, preferring distance and their firearms to the close quarters of a knife fight.
Moral and upright people are not afraid of seeing armed men and women among them. The thoughtful recognize the various levels of force are a mercy against the villains, allowing the villains a place and time to repent, they just need to be smart enough to yield.

Back to the movie, the Avengers were a better force-option than the nuclear one. As the movie bears out, the nuclear weapon was the right tool for stopping the invasion, but not in the way it was initially intended. Boots on the ground proved that out.

I see a whole lot of the current issues of the day echoed through out this movie. The question is: which real world people do the individuals watching line up with which hero-world characters?