How Does an Individual Obtain Heaven?

My Come Follow Me Studies for this week took me to Genesis 6-11 and Moses 8 in a lesson titled “Noah Found Grace in the Eyes of the Lord.” The lesson was introduced by the following information. 

Living in the latter days, we have special reason to pay attention to the story of the Flood. When Jesus Christ taught how we should watch for His Second Coming, He said, “As it was in the days of Noah, so it shall be also at the coming of the Son of Man” (Joseph Smith—Matthew 1:41). In addition, words that describe Noah’s day, like “corrupt” and “filled with violence,” could just as easily describe our time (Genesis 6:12-13; Moses 8:28). The story of the Tower of Babel also feels applicable to our day, with its description of pride followed by confusion and then division.

These ancient accounts are valuable not just because they show us that wickedness repeats itself throughout history. More important, they teach us what to do about it. Noah “found grace in the eyes of the Lord” (Moses 8:27). And the families of Jared and his brother turned to the Lord and were protected from the confusion and division in Babel (see Ether 1:33-43). If we wonder how to keep ourselves and our families safe during corruption and violence, the stories in these chapters have much to teach us.

This lesson taught numerous principles, including (1) There is spiritual safety in following the Lord’s prophet, (2) The Flood was an act of God’s mercy (Genesis 6:5-13), (3) Tokens or symbols help me remember my covenants with the Lord (Genesis 9:8-17), and (4) Following Jesus Christ is the only way to Heavenly Father (Genesis 11:1-9).

There is much that I could write about each of the principles, but I feel prompted to discuss principle #4 about Christ being the only way back to Heavenly Father. Let’s first look at the scripture block for this principle (Genesis 11:1-9).

1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar.

4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

This scripture block tells us that the people all spoke one language and were of one speech. It also tells us that the people had apostatized from the gospel of Jesus Christ. The account of the people of Babel building a tower provides an interesting contrast to the account of Enoch and his people building Zion. Both groups of people were trying to reach heaven but in different ways.

One group thought that they could reach heaven by building a tall enough tower, while the other group sought to become pure and holy people.

Verse 4 tells us that the people wanted a name that would save them. There is only one name under heaven that will save us. That name is Jesus Christ. Salvation and exaltation come through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. We activate the Atonement of Christ in our lives by making and keeping covenants with God, just as the people of Enoch did.

Here is a summary from the internet about the Tower of Bael from a Latter-day Saint point of view. 

In LDS teachings, the Tower of Babel was a historical event demonstrating human pride, the consequences of disobedience, and the Lord’s power to confound language and scatter people, with the Book of Mormon providing a second witness through the Jaredite account.

Historical and Scriptural Context

According to LDS scripture, the Tower of Babel was built in Shinar (Mesopotamia) by people who sought to make a name for themselves and avoid being scattered, using advanced technology like baked bricks and bitumen for mortar (Genesis 11:3-4). The builders’ intent was not merely architectural but spiritual – they attempted to construct a counterfeit temple to reach heaven without God’s authority, reflecting pride and rebellion (Helaman 6:28). The Lord confounded their language, causing miscommunication and scattering them across the earth (Genesis 1:9; Mosiah 28:17; Ether 1:33).

Connection to the Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon presents the Tower of Babel as a literal historical event. The Jaredites, led by Jared and his brother, were preserved from the confounding of language because of their faith and prayers, allowing them to retain the Adamic language and migrate to the Americas (Ether 1:34-35). This account underscores the LDS belief that God intervenes to protect His covenant people and that temple authority and divine guidance are essential for true spiritual work.

Symbolic and Theological Lessons

LDS teachings emphasize that the Tower of Babel illustrates the dangers of human pride and reliance on worldly power instead of God. The story teaches that no human project, no matter how technologically advanced, can replace God’s authority or bring ultimate happiness (Proverbs 3:5; Jeremiah 17:5). The confounding of language also symbolizes the importance of communication and unity under God, showing that disobedience leads to division and scattering.

Language and the Adamic Tongue

LDS interpretations highlight that the Jaredite language was preserved as the Adamic language, considered perfect and divinely taught to Adam and Eve. The confounding at Babel did not alter the language of the faithful Jaredites, demonstrating God’s mercy and the principle that righteousness preserves knowledge and understanding (Ether 1:34-35).

Summary

For Latter-day Saints, the Tower of Babel is both a historical and spiritual lesson: it shows the consequences of pride, the necessity of divine authority for temple work, and the Lord’s power to guide and protect His people. The Book of Mormon corroborates the biblical the biblical account, providing additional insight into the preservation of the righteous and the Adamic language, reinforcing the LDS perspective on God’s ongoing involvement in human affairs.

 

 

 

 

 

How Can You Help Single Young Adults to Develop Dating Skills?

Strong families start with strong marriages, and strong marriages start with purposeful dating. However, dating itself is going through a drought period.

According to an opinion piece written by Alan Hawkins, Brian Willoughby, Jason Carroll,and Brad Wilcox and published in the Deseret News, there is a dating recession. 

There is good news about marriage that everyone can cheer: Marriages are becoming more stable today than they were four or five decades ago. Granted, much of this stability bonus is a result of who is marrying.

Couples with riskier profiles for marital breakup have become a decreasing proportion of all marrying couples, so couples who marry today are more likely to have a set of characteristics that lend themselves to more stable marriages. For instance, these marrying couples today are more likely to be better educated, more financially stable, more religious and less likely to marry as teens.

Regardless of its causes, greater marital stability is something to celebrate because of the known benefits that stable, healthy marriages give to children, adults and their communities. Hidden in this encouraging trend, however, is a paradox: Increasing marital stability exists alongside a strong trend of fewer adults getting married.

Rates of first marriages have fallen by more than 10% over the past two decades, continuing a steady descent since the 1970s. Demographers now estimate that as many as a third of young adults born in the early decades of the 21^st century may never marry.

It is hard to celebrate stronger marriages when fewer and fewer young people are entering into them. This is concerning news.

Numerous scholars are exploring why fewer young adults are marrying. Increased focus on post-secondary education and careers during young adulthood, along with a declining cultural emphasis on the need to be married, are commonly cited factors.

But one straightforward reason for the decline in marriage rates that has not received much attention is the dating system. If you listen to young adults, many of them will tell you that the dating system is badly broken. They are frustrated by the current dating landscape. They grumble about dating apps that present an abundance of options a mere swipe away, while also promoting an attitude of relational consumerism. And the repetitive cycle of matching, messaging and meeting that ends in disappointment is leading to significant dating fatigue and a growing cynicism about the whole process. Similarly, most young adults say they dislike the casual hook-up culture that pervades dating and its emphasis on uncommitted, one-off sexual activity over building meaningful relationships.

If the on ramps to our marital highways are bumpy, broken or blocked, it is no mystery why many young adults are struggling to reach their desired marriage destinations.

To use another analogy, the contemporary dating economy is struggling and perhaps in a recession.

The article continues by saying that there is “a healthy majority of young people today” – despite the problems with the dating system – “still desire a future that includes marriage.”

The authors analyzed “findings from our 2025 National Dating Landscape Survey, a nationally representative sample in the U.S. of 5,275 unmarried young adults in their prime dating years (ages 22-35).” Here is what they learned by focusing “mostly on the dating experiences of those single young adults who expect to marry someday (86%; N = 4,539)….”

·         Only about 1 in 3 young adults report actively dating – dating at least once a month.

·         Young adults lack confidence in their dating skills and their ability to initiate a promising romantic relationship.

·         Young adults desire a dating culture aimed at forming serious relationships.

·         Money worries, self-confidence and past bad dating experiences are big barriers in the modern dating landscape.

·         Dating resilience is low among young adults.

·         There is a dating-marriage-skills gap.

The authors continued to share the “primary, straightforward implication of the findings from our study”:

Accordingly, a primary, straightforward implication of the findings from our study is that young adults could use some basic help in building dating skills. Few are regularly dating. They report feeling unprepared and having a low sense of dating efficacy. They lack experience and social and emotional confidence, and they need to stretch their basic social skills. They struggle to know how to express their interest in a potential dating partner and to communicate effectively on a date. Also, they are discouraged by the cost of dating.

These are hardly insurmountable barriers. We have no doubt that motivated young adults can learn the dating skills they need to form healthy relationships that eventually lead to marriage.

This ideally starts with those closest to them. Parents, grandparents and close family members can take an active role in mentoring and helping young people develop the social skills, virtues and personal confidence to date. Collectively, we need to prioritize the social and relationship development of children, teens and young adults in much the same way we rigorously promote their academic or athletic development….

We are not suggesting that dating culture alone explains our current declines in marriage. Clearly, there are other influences involved, ranging from excessive screen time to the deforming effects of pervasive pornography, as well as changing attitudes toward religious practice and the much-discussed impact of political hostilities on young men and women…. 

Will the Senate Pass the SAVE America Act?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns election integrity. Republicans are attempting to make elections more secure, while Democrats fight against photo identification requirements to vote.

The SAVE America Act is one step closer to becoming law. The House of Representatives voted 218-213 to PASS the SAVE America Act on Wednesday. This “bill would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and photo identification to vote in federal elections.”

The original SAVE Act passed by a vote of 220-208 in April 2025. The SAVE America Act is a modified version of the SAVE Act to include new photo identification requirements.

Only one Democrat voted for the SAVE America Act – Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas. One Republican and one Democrat did not vote, and the remaining Democrats voted against requiring identification to vote.

George Caldwell shared the following details about the vote in his article published at The Daily Signal. 

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who introduced the bill in the House, said of the bill before its passage, “This is commonsense legislation. It will require citizenship to register to vote, and it will require voter ID at the polls. This is an issue that polls at something like 80%.”

The bill has faced generalized Democrat resistance, especially in the Senate, where Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has said it would impose “Jim Crow-style restrictions on voting.”

House Republican leaders backed the bill, with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., and House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., signing on as co-sponsors. The bill had zero Democrat co-sponsors.

Multiple Democrats who backed the original SAVE Act did not support the SAVE America Act….

House Republicans have in recent days launched a pressure campaign on Senate Republicans to force what is known as a “talking filibuster” to help pass the bill, in order to overcome the chamber’s typical 60-vote threshold for ending debate on bills.

This would, in theory, entail Senate Republicans refusing to adjourn and enforcing a two-speech limit on Senate Democrats.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., citing the time-consuming nature of this approach, has not come out in support of it, but has indicated Senate Republicans will discuss its merits.

It would take a miracle for 60 senators to vote for the bill. In fact, there is some question if Republicans can get a simple majority, even with Vice President JD Vance being one of the votes. Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican in name only (RINO), has already said that she will not vote for it. There are several other Republican senators who might also vote against it, such as Susan Collins (R-Maine ) and Rand Paul (R-Kentucky).

Why Is Immigration Law Not a Suggestion?

Democrats and liberals have told us for decades that “the immigration system is broken” and that the laws are outdated. The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals destroyed that narrative and “treated immigration law as law, not a suggestion.” Ammon Blair explained the situation in his article published at The Blaze. 

In Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, a divided panel did something radical by modern standards: It enforced immigration law as Congress wrote it. The result ranks as one of the most consequential immigration rulings in a generation – and a direct rebuke to the legal fiction that has shielded millions of illegal aliens from mandatory detention for decades.

What the court actually said

The case turned on a simple question with enormous consequences: Do illegal aliens who entered the United States unlawfully – often years ago, without inspection or lawful admission – get discretionary bond hearings while in removal proceedings?

The Fifth Circuit answered no.

Writing for the majority, Judge Edith H. Jones, joined by Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, held that any alien present in the United States who has not been lawfully admitted is, by statute, an “applicant for admission.” Congress supplied that definition in 1996.

Under the law, applicants for admission who cannot show they are “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted” shall be detained pending removal proceedings.

“Shall” means mandatory. It leaves no room for discretionary bond hearings. It applies regardless of how long the alien has remained unlawfully in the country.

Physical presence does not confer the legal status or constitutional entitlements that accompany lawful admission, much less citizenship….

No other federal appellate court has squarely held that mandatory detention applies not only to recent border crossers but also to long-term illegal aliens living in the interior who entered without inspection years – even decades – ago.

Long-delayed enforcement

Nothing in the Fifth Circuit’s decision turns on novel statutory interpretation. Congress enacted this framework in 1996 to eliminate incentives for evading inspection and remaining unlawfully in the United States.

What changed was not the law but the willingness to enforce it.

After the Board of Immigration Appeals acknowledged the plain meaning of the disputed section in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, DHS implemented a policy treating illegal entrants as Congress defined them: applicants for admission subject to mandatory detention.

The response was immediate and predictable. District courts across the country rushed to block the policy, issuing a wave of rulings restoring bond eligibility.

The Fifth Circuit is the first appellate court to say what should have been obvious all along: Courts do not get to rewrite immigration statutes because enforcement is politically uncomfortable.

Asylum is not a loophole

One of the most persistent myths in immigration discourse claims that filing for asylum legalizes illegal entry. It does not.

Congress made illegal entry a federal misdemeanor. The statute contains no asylum exception. Illegal entry remains a crime even for those who later request asylum.

Asylum also does not create a “right to remain.” It is discretionary relief from removal.

Federal law allows an alien to apply for asylum after illegal entry. That provision does not cure inadmissibility, erase criminal violations, or entitle the applicant to release from custody….

Aliens who enter without valid documents remain inadmissible and subject to detention or removal.

Mandatory detention applies to many asylum seekers. Under the statute:

·         Illegal entrants go into expedited removal unless they establish a credible fear.

·         When an alien claims credible fear, the alien remains detained pending final adjudication.

·         Release runs through limited DHS parole authority, not judicial bond hearings.

The Supreme Court confirmed this framework in Jennings v. Rodriguez (2018), holding that the statute mandates detention and does not allow courts to invent bond hearings where Congress declined to authorize them.

Law on the books vs. law in practice

The detention statute does not suffer from ambiguity. The conflict lies elsewhere.

Congress criminalized unlawful entry without exception. Congress also enacted the asylum provision through the Refugee Act of 1980, permitting any alien “physically present” in the United States or arriving at the border to apply for asylum regardless of manner of entry. That provision does not exempt such individuals from prosecution, detention, or removal. It does not repeal the detention mandate….

Over time, however, executive agencies – and sometimes courts – expanded a limited non-penalization principle into a broader immunity regime. Officials treated asylum eligibility as a basis to avoid detention, delay removal, and suspend enforcement mandates Congress never repealed….

Why this ruling matters

By enforcing the law as written, the Fifth Circuit restored a foundational principle of sovereignty: Illegal entry does not generate superior legal rights.

The dissent warns that enforcing the statute could produce large-scale detention. That warning is not a legal argument….

This ruling binds only Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi – for now. Other circuits have signaled resistance. A split is coming. Supreme Court review seems likely.

When that moment arrives, the court will face a question it has avoided for years: Does immigration law mean what it says – or only what politics permits?

The Fifth Circuit has answered. For the first time in decades, a federal court treated immigration law as law, not a suggestion. 

How Often Do You Show Your Identification?

The SAVE Act and the SAVE America Act require photo identification to vote in federal elections. Americans show identification at lots of separate locations and for various purposes. The last time that I showed my identification was to pick up a new prescription of pain pills. Showing identification to show who we are is an everyday experience; yet Democrats do not agree that identification should be shown to vote for their governmental representatives. A n article by the Blaze TV Staff discussed this strange phenomenon. 

In a recent poll from Pew Research Center, a whopping 76% of Democrats said they favored requiring photo ID to vote – a shocking departure from what Democrats like Chuck Schumer appear to believe.

“We’ve got to get this done and we’ve got to get it done very quickly. The SAVE Act is an abomination. It’s Jim Crow 2.0 across the country. We are going to do everything we can to stop it,” Schumer told reporters.

“How is it Jim Crow to ask for ID, a picture ID? That’s what the SAVE Act is. That you’d be required to have picture ID to go in and vote or to register to vote and then to vote. OK, that is not unreasonable,” Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck explains.

“You need a photo ID to get a driver’s license to drive a car, or to renew your driver’s license, or replace your lost license, get a learner’s permit. You need a photo ID to rend a car, to pick up a rental car, even if you prepaid it, to buy car insurance, to file auto insurance claims, to register your vehicle, transfer your vehicle’s title,” he continues.

But that’s not all, as Glenn also points out that you need a photo ID to get a parking permit, use car sharing apps, buy an airline ticket in person, board a commercial flight, and enter the TSA pre-check.

“Is it Jim Crow to ask for photo ID as they scan your eye? Is it racist to ask for photo ID when you check a bag at the airport or when you rent a U-Haul truck or a moving truck, buy a bus or a train ticket in person? Is that really ‘no blacks’?” Glenn asks.

“No blacks can ever go on the bus or the train or an airplane. Really? Really? No, it’s just too hard for them to get a photo ID,” he says, joking, “What a racist.”

Beck continued with his list of reasons why one would need a photo ID: open a bank account, withdraw large amount of cash, cash a check, rent an apartment. I could add a few more reasons: get a mammogram, pick up a prescription of controlled medication, rent a postal box, get a medical operation, transfer money between bank accounts or withdraw cash, open or change a utility account, enter a federal building (like Social Security), and many others.

No one claims racism or Jim Crow for any of those reasons. Yet racism is always claimed when Republicans attempt to make picture identification a requirement for federal elections.

Who Is Melania Trump?

My VIP for this week is Melania Trump – First Lady of the United States and wife of President Donald Trump. She is also a former model and a recent movie star in a documentary titled “Melania.” Virginia Grace McKinnon explained the message of the documentary in her article published at The Daily Signal. 

‘Melania’ sets the stage for the golden age of political storytelling.

If “the medium is the message,” the documentary giving audiences an inside look at the first lady’s life in the 20 days leading up to the 47^th presidential inauguration hists the mark on both.

The film grossed over $7 million in it’s opening weekend, making it the highest grossing, non-music, documentary in a decade.

Melania’s Philosophy

The first lady takes the audience to a variety of design meetings including the making of her Oscar de la Renta inauguration gown, and the infamous flat brim hat showing us her friendship with the designer Hervé Pierre.

But ‘Melania’ gives viewers more than the moment Trump says yes to the dress. The first lady goes into detail about her education and experience in architecture, the textile industry, modeling, and design.

“Melania’ gives you a taste of the philosophy of visual aesthetics the first lady puts to use when decorating the White House or design choices for official events.

That philosophy – sleek, graceful, bold but polite – also inspires her philanthropy….

A Behind-the-Scenes Experience

The film also offers some personal moments.

Trump sings her favorite Michael Jackson song, “Billie Jean,” in the car. She takes us o a trip to Mar-a-Lago which she describes as “more than a home” it is full of “warmth, sunshine, family, and friends.”

Then, after all the inaugural balls, we see President Donald Trump and the first lady come back to the White House in the early morning hours. Melania invites the camera into the kitchen where Trump appears to get a Diet Coke from the fridge before getting straight to work….

“I will continue to live with purpose and of course style,” Melania says proudly closing the film.

Melanie Trump and President Trump make a good pair. He is obviously proud of her, and she claims to be his biggest fan. One thing in her favor is that she does not appear to have any desire to run the country. She lives her life with purpose and style and serves the nation within her own sphere of influence.

Will Congress Pass the SAVE America Act?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is election security. Anna Paulina Luna, Republican Representative for Florida, has been outspoken about the need to “show proof of citizenship and photo identification to vote in federal elections.” She is an ardent supporter of the SAVE America Act that would require both. George Caldwell at The Daily Signal explained what the SAVE America Act is and why it should be passed. How Luna Says GOP Can Force a National ID Requirement to Vote

“The Senate has now sat on this for over 300 days,” Luna, R-Fla., told Punchbowl News in an interview published Thursday. “Something that … many members of Congress are tired of is ‘messaging bills’ … It doesn’t actually feel like we’re doing much of anything.”

“Messaging bills” are pieces of legislation with little possibility of becoming law that members support to amplify their political messaging.

Next week, the House will vote on the SAVE America Act. A previous version of the bill, the SAVE Act, passed by a 220-208 vote in April 2025.

The new bill, if signed into law, would enforce a national requirement of photo identification in order to vote in federal elections, in addition to requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration.

It would also, as in the original SAVE Act, require states to clear voter rolls of individuals who cannot prove their citizenship for federal elections.

By words and actions, most Republicans show that they want secure elections and only Americans to vote in the elections. Some Democrats, on the other hand, tend to vote against any bills that would secure elections. Mackenzie Web at Patriot Fetch shared the following information. NEW: 84% Of Americans Demand Nationwide Voter ID Requirements With SAVE Act

Recent polling [February 2026] reveals a significant shift in public sentiment surrounding voter identification laws. With 84% of Americans backing the SAVE Act, which proposes mandatory photographic identification for voting in national elections, the issue is gaining increased traction. This overwhelming support places pressure on Congressional Republicans to act decisively on a key promise to bolster election integrity.

The SAVE Act, championed by Rep. Chip Roy and Sen. Mike Lee, stipulates that voters must present valid proof of citizenship and government-issued photo ID to participate in federal elections. This aligns with a broad public desire for confidence in electoral processes. A prominent statement from House Administration Committee Chair Bryan Steil underscores this viewpoint: “Americans should be confident their elections are being run with integrity.” His comments highlight the urgent push among supporters for transparent and secure elections, especially given concerns about mail-in ballots and voter registration practices.

Bipartisan support for voter ID measures has been consistently high. Data from surveys, including those from Gallup and Pew Research, indicates that a majority across political lines advocates for some form of voter ID requirements. This is evident from a 2021 Monmouth poll, which showed that 80% of respondents favored ID requirements, cutting across party affiliations.

Supporters frame the SAVE Act as a solution to public fears regarding electoral fraud, even though such fraud is rarely documented. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna’s strong stance on the matter emphasizes this urgency….

In stark contrast, Democratic leaders have voiced strong opposition. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries criticized the legislation as a thinly veiled attempt to limit voter access, suggesting it could disenfranchise millions. This tension reveals a stark ideological divide, with Democrats asserting that voter fraud is not a prevalent issue and that restrictions disproportionately affect vulnerable groups. The concern about disenfranchisement highlights the complexities of the debate surrounding election integrity.

Despite the partisan conflict, the SAVE Act remains a politically potent proposal. It taps into lingering doubts from the 2020 election and reflects a broader conservative push for electoral reform. Public skepticism regarding the legitimacy of that election persists, as highlighted by recent polling indicating that 38% of Americans question the validity of President Biden’s victory, with 69% of Republicans echoing these sentiments.