Will the Supreme Court Change the Meaning of “Subject to the Jurisdiction”?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns birthright citizenship. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today on a case challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship. The court will most likely hand down their decision before the end of June. No one yet knows the decision, but the justices’ questions sound like the Trump administration will lose this case.

There are numerous articles about oral arguments today. One article was written by Lauren Irwin (reporting from outside the Supreme Court) and Emma Pitts (reporting from Salt Lake City) and published at the Deseret News. 

The Trump administration gave two main arguments for doing away with birthright citizenship or at least seeing substantial changes. The first argument is that “the citizenship clause in the 14^th Amendment has been misinterpreted for decades, asserting that just because a baby is born on U.S. soil should not automatically guarantee citizenship.

The administration’s second main argument was that “other countries do not allow birthright citizenship. Trump said that we are “the only country in the Word STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” There are plenty of countries that restrict birthright citizenship, but at least thirty-five countries have unrestricted birthright citizenship.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer began his argument by quoting the Fourteenth Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” He stated that the argued that “the federal government’s interpretation of ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ means lawful, permanent allegiance to the U.S.” Under this meaning, “children born to temporary visitors or immigrants living illegally on U.S. soil” would not be granted automatic U.S. citizenship.

Sauer and Chief Justice John Roberts did a little jousting. Sauer said, “We’re in a new world now … where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who is a U.S. citizen” – something that the framers of the 14^th Amendment could not have imagined. Roberts responded, “It’s a new world, [but] It’s the same Constitution.”

Cecillia Wang, national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argued inside the court, while protesters rallied outside to oppose any changes to birthright citizenship.

Both sides cited a Supreme Court decision from 127 years ago, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, a decision “in which the court confirmed and clarified the 14^th Amendment.” Wang accused Sauer of trying to overturn the Wong ruling. Sauer responded that he was not trying to overturn the decision but to “reinterpret it or narrow it down so that it does not control the outcome of the justices’ current decision.”

Questions from the justices over the government’s current interpretation of the Wong case showed skepticism of the administration’s argument. Justice Neil Gorsuch went as far as to say that Sauer shouldn’t be invoking it in his argument.

If Wong has been understood for over 100 years to mean broad birthright citizenship, then narrowing it now seems functionally equivalent to overturning it, the justices said. Sauer disagreed….

Justice Samuel Alito was arguably the most aggressive when questioning ACLU’s interpretation of the Wong Kim Ark case.

“We’ve heard a lot of talk about Wong Kim Ark, and you dismiss the use of the word domicile in it,” Alito said. “It appears in the opinion 20 different times – including in the question presented and in the actual legal holding – and the government doesn’t want it to be overruled because it relies on, willing to rely on that particular fact … isn’t it at least something to be concerned about?”

Wang acknowledged the word but said that domicile was just one of the facts of the case, not the legal rule. The actual rule, she said, states that citizenship does not depend on domicile at all.

Alito did not seem satisfied with her response. “I might agree with you if domicile had simply been sprinkled in the opinion,” he said.

The justices are expected to issue a decision on the case by June. It’s unclear how the justices will ultimately rule, but after arguments Wednesday, they appeared to show skepticism of the administration’s argument for changing the interpretation of the Constitution.

President Trump made history on Wednesday as he sat in the courtroom’s public gallery to listen to arguments in the case. Trump arrived with U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and stayed in the courtroom for an hour before leaving.

 

Can We Win Iran War Militarily and Lose It Politically?

 Everyone has an opinion of what President Donald Trump should do in Iran – or what he should not have done. Everyone should understand the first important fact: Democrats and Leftists oppose everything that Donald Trump does, not because it is bad policy but because it is Trump doing it. Therefore, the opinions of Democrats and Leftists do not really count for anything.

In his article titled “Trump Has the Law and Military Strategy on His Side in US-Iran War” and published at The Daily Signal, Victor Davis Hanson gives his opinion on some of the issues of the war. 

Issue one: The Left believes that President Trump “does not have authorization from Congress” to go to war. However, that claim is not true.

… the 1973 War Powers Act says that a president must notify Congress of his intention. And [Secretary of State] Marco Rubio has done that. And then he has 60 to 90 days to conduct a war without notifying Congress. And we’re now in one month. 30 days.

Issue two: Barack Obama, a constitution lawyer, has criticized Trump’s attack on Iran. However, he must have conveniently forgotten bombing Libya in 2011.

Remember that the [Moammar] Gadhafi regime had given up all of its nuclear proliferation sites. We had Americans on the ground, stealthily, so that we were dismantling them.

I was there in Libya in 2007, and I saw the country, and it was under massive transformation as Libyans were starting to be accrued to the idea that their children, the next generation of dictators, were going to liberalize the country. And Libya was terrified of the United States after its threats to denuclearize countries that had started bomb programs. So, it had given up its elements of it.

But the point I’m making is Obama then went in, in 2011, when there was a civil war, along with some NATO countries. It was the idea of Samantha Power, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, all keen critics of the current war, who demanded that we bomb.

And we bombed not for 30 days, not for 60 days, not for 90 days. We bombed for seven months. And we didn’t have 10,000 sorties. We had 26,000 sorties, and no one said a word. No one said a word, because the media was left. And they supported whatever Obama did.

Same thing with the most disastrous misadventure we’ve had in recent military history in Afghanistan. When we left, skedaddled out of Afghanistan, we left contractors, loyal Afghans behind.

We took unaudited Afghans with us, with, you know, a bustle completely unaudited, and many of them have turned up to be criminals or dependent on welfare.

And then, in addition, we lost 13 Marines. We’ve lost that many in 30 days of war, but Joe Biden lost that in one day. And then we left, I don’t know how many, record estimates, statistics say $30 to $50 billion of military architecture and weapons. A billion-dollar embassy. $300 million refitted Air Force base at Bagram. No one said a word.

There was hardly any criticism. So, take that with a grain of salt. The war is legal, and the hysteria about it is media-driven, as a part of the Left’s ability to weaken the presidency.

Issue three: The reasons that President Trump went to war – the aims of the war.

… Donald Trump listed four or five aims. He did on March 1. He did on March 20. We know what they were. [No. 1], We wanted to end their nuclear program … Stop their ability to make a bomb. [Almost there.]

No. 2, we wanted to end their missile program, their ballistic missiles. And we’re making progress. And we wanted to stop the ability of them to recreate them. Their industry. Israel’s going after that.

And we can’t really stop the resupply, if the Russians are sending new missiles across the Caspian Sea, as some reports suggest, but we’re trying to do our best. So, the war is not lost at all. And the aims have been systematically achieved.

[No. 3] was stop the money going to Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas. And they are all desperate. That was very unpopular with the Iranian people to give precious billions of dollars, while they were near starvation, and arm Arab terrorists. They were not in favor of that.

[No. 4] was to stop the killing of Americans. Over the last 47 years, no terrorist entity or cadre has killed more Americans in barracks, embassies, during the Iraq and Afghan wars, with shaped charges, than Iran has. It tried to kill Donald Trump. It tried to kill John Bolton, had tried to kill Mike Pompeo, had tried to kill [former U.S. Special Representative for Iran] Brian Hook, tried to kill the Saudi ambassador. So, we’re gonna try to stop that.

[No. 5 was to protect the Gulf states. Iran attacked “Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabis, all of these countries that are the main exporters of oil and the competitors of Iran.” Also to stop Iran’s intimidation of the Gulf states.]

[No. 6] regime change was not explicitly listed. That would be the optimum result. You want the regime out. Because whatever damage you do, and it will [be] considerable, in three or four or five, 10 years, it will be resupplied by the Chinese and the Russians.

But that was not an explicit agenda item. Donald Trump said help is on the way. He mused about getting rid of these theocrats. We’ve decimated their military and theocratic chain of command. But we never explicitly said we’re going to Iran to get rid of the government….

Issue four: “The war is lost!”

… All we can do is compare history. And as I said earlier, if you look at the first Gulf War, 42 days of bombing and some four days of ground troops. And as far as the air power, we lost 63 aircraft. Sixty-three.

We’ve only lost one major plane. We lost 63 helicopters and aircraft and 20 airmen dead. And in the Serbian campaign, it went on for 72 days. We had all our NATO allies behind us. And Serbia was a paper tiger compared to Iran.

So, in comparison to these types of operations, it’s been very successful.

Hanson explained that there is a political side and a military side to every war, and they cannot be mixed. “Militarily, this is a clear victory, and it will have political dividends or ill effects depending in a cost-benefit analysis, what the American people adjudicate.”

In other words, when they look at this war and they say it was not an existential war immediately, but it was necessary to stop this Iranian threat, of 47 years. Was it conducted in a way that the pluses outweighed the minuses? And then they will make a political calculation.

If the war is still going on and they feel that it wasn’t, then they will pressure Donald Trump through their representatives and the media to stop it, even though militarily it’s successful. Militarily successful operations are not always politically successful. We’ve learned that in Vietnam, where we didn’t lose a single conventional battle. We didn’t lose a single conventional battle in Iraq or Afghanistan. And we lost the war politically. Politically.

We won amazing victories in 1952 and 1953 in Korea. And politically, it was a stalemate. So, let’s not confuse the two. You can have a militarily brilliant campaign, as we’re having, and you can lose this war politically.

We haven’t yet. But something to watch for.

Hanson knows history. He also knows that history can be repeated if something does not change. The Vietnam War was the war of my generation, and several friends fought in Vietnam. The Left, including the media, were not supportive. Jane Fonda went to Vietnam and did nothing for the prisoners of war. The prisoners never forgot what she did.

What I remember most is the daily reciting of the number of Americans killed in the war. Each day the media reported how many American military had died that day and then gave the total number: 2,500, 3,000, 30, 000, 45,000, etc. The number kept growing. The official total of U.S. military personnel who died in Vietnam is 58,220, but that number does not include those men who came home and killed themselves – such as one of my husband’s friends.

When the soldiers arrived in their first airport in the United States, they changed out of their uniforms into civilian clothing. Otherwise, people who were opposed to the war spit on them, threw things at them, called them murderers, and said and did other things to them. My friends said that it was terrible to come home to such treatment.

I also remember that the Vietnam War affected presidential politics. President Lyndon B. Johnson recognized that he would lose the election because of the politics of the war, so he did not run for reelection to his second full term in office.

Democrats and Leftists are determined to stop Donald Trump in any way that they can. This shows in how left-leaning media report on the Iran war. It also shows in how Democrats refuse to fund Homeland Security in a time of war. They act the same way that they did during the war in Vietnam. Hopefully, the Iran war will be won both militarily and politically.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Should Birthright Citizenship Change or Remain as It Is?

 Birthright citizenship has long been a topic discussed on this blog. It is a topic that will soon be heard at the U.S. Supreme Court because President Donald Trump, on the first day of his second term, signed an Executive Order ending the long-established interpretation of birthright citizenship. Lawsuits were immediately filed. They were consolidated, and the Supreme Court will hear the arguments tomorrow.

In her article filed at the Deseret News, Lauren Irwin, national politics reporter, discussed what Americans should know before the Supreme Court hears the arguments. 

Trump was seeking to reinterpret the constitutional language giving citizenship to almost every child who is born in the United States, regardless of their parents’ legal status. The president doesn’t want citizenship granted to children born to parents who are in the United States either illegally or temporarily.

The order sparked concern among expecting mothers, immigration advocates and constitutionalists. It was also unclear what the order could mean for those who had already been granted citizenship under the long-standing constitutional right.

The case before the Supreme Court was partially presented to the justices during last year’s term, but the high court ultimately ruled on the matter of nationwide injunctions, declining to take up the birthright issue itself. This week, the justices will hear the Trump administration’s appeal of a lower-court ruling that blocked his executive order….

Trump administration argument

Trump’s order challenged the interpretation of the 14^th Amendment, saying that babies born to parents unlawfully in the U.S. or in the country on a temporary visa cannot be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the country, or granted automatic citizenship.

The administration is likely going to lean on its argument that in the language of the amendment, it states that all people born in the U.S. are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The 14^th Amendment reads, in part: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The administration argues that the language was not meant to cover everyone born on U.S. soil and should apply only to those who pledge allegiance to the country, not those who want to come to the U.S. to give birth to their children and have a through-line to citizenship that way.

[This intent could be shown by the use of commas setting off “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The use of commas has determined previous court decisions.]

The 14^th Amendment was adopted in the aftermath of the Civil War.

In 1857, the Supreme Court held that the U.S. Constitution did not extend citizenship to enslaved Black people in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case. In 1868, the 14^th Amendment was added to the Constitution, guaranteeing citizenship, due process and equal protection to those born in or naturalized in the country. In 1898, the Supreme Court confirmed and clarified the amendment in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case.

Wong Kim Ark was a child born in San Francisco to parents who were Chinese citizens at the time, before later becoming U.S. citizens. The boy was denied reentry to the U.S. after a trip abroad and the legal battle over his citizenship reached the Supreme Court. This was the first case on the status of children born to immigrants and created a precedent in the court’s interpretation of the 14^th Amendment going forward.

But the administration argues that Trump’s order “restores the original meaning” of the Citizenship Clause, and that the text was intended to provide citizenship to enslaved peoples and permanent residents.

The administration argues that the respondents in the current case who say that Wong Kim Ark’s case proves citizenship should be extended to all immigrant children miss that in 1898, at the time of the ruling, the boy’s parents were of “lawful ‘permanent domicil and residence’ here.” However, the ACLU and respondents say that the court’s decision in the case includes “all immigrants,” proving that “even temporary visitors” should be subject to the jurisdiction and the rights provided by the amendment.

Opposing Trump’s order

Several lawsuits challenged the constitutionality of Trump’s order. The lawsuits were filed by expectant mothers, immigrant rights groups and several states. They were consolidated into one case for the Supreme Court to review.

The groups challenging Trump’s order, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, point to the historical precedent that courts, Congress and previous presidents have all understood and accepted regarding the language of the amendment. The ACLU says that birthright citizenship is “central to who we are as a country” and that “no president has the power to rewrite the Constitution.”

The respondents in their brief to the court, like the administration, are leaning heavily on the text of the amendment. They argue that “all persons born here” should apply to “all” and “not just some.” They noted that the Framers included the text to be “All persons born here” so it’s broadly interpreted to include many, not just a few.

[Framers is a term used to designate the people who wrote the Constitution in the late 1700s. The 14^th Amendment was written after the Civil War that ended in 1864.]

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argues in the administration’s brief that birthright citizenship has been taken advantage of by women who come to the country to give birth solely so their children receive U.S. citizenship.

The respondents pushed back on this argument, saying that even if the pathway to citizenship was being abused through “birth tourism,” it was “marginal” and there were other ways to deal with the issue if it is a problem….

[These are some of the same people who claimed that the border was closed and that no election fraud took place.]

Respondents want to continue with the practice as it has been done, while the Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to take a fresh look at the problem and not simply rely on text that is decades old.

The 14^th Amendment was meant to give citizenship to the babies of slaves. In the 1860s, people were not traveling like they are today. The amendment was not meant for rich people who can afford to live in a foreign land long enough to have a baby or for people desperate to have a child who is a citizen of the United States.

Although many experts believe that Trump’s executive order was unlawful, there are others who believe otherwise.

Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, said “birth tourism” is an example of “the absurdity” that birthright citizenship has brought to the U.S.

“The 14^th Amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to the children of foreigners,” he said online. “Its current application is a gross exploitation that must end if American citizenship is to mean anything at all.”

A decision on the case is expected by the end of the current term, which ends in June.

 

 

 

 

 

Who Is JD Vance?

My VIP for this week is JD Vance, Republican Vice President of the United States. He recently won a straw poll taken at CPAC in Grapevine, Texas, in which he polled “53% of the more than 1,600 attendees who participated in the survey. However, all is not good for Vance because Secretary of State received 35% of the CPAC votes to succeed President Donald Trump. Vance received 61% of the vote in last year’s CPAC straw poll.

According to Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell in her article at The Daily Signal, CPAC Chairman Matt Schlapp has some ideas about who will succeed Trump. 

For anyone who wants to succeed President Trump, they’re going to have to work for it, and they’re going to have to earn it…. That’s how President Trump was elected as an outsider…. He showed up on every stage, and he made everyone else look implausible.

Vance and Rubio are the only two potential candidates to receive more than 2% of the vote. Other potential contenders in the straw vote were Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), War Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Donald Trump Jr.

Vance has called Rubio his “closest friend in the administration,” and Rubio has said that he would support Vance for president. “If JD Vance runs for president, he’s going to be our nominee, and I’ll be one of the first people to support him.”

 

Should Illegal Aliens Be Held Without Bond Pending Removal Proceedings?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the rights of illegal aliens in the U.S. court system. A recent court decision may clear up many questions. In their article published at The Daily Signal, Cully Stimson and John Osorio shed more light on the case. 

Earlier this week, a federal appeals court held that the Department of Homeland Security could detain an illegal alien without bond pending his removal proceedings after he was arrested in Minneapolis in 2025. In journeyman fashion, the 8^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted the applicable immigration laws as written and applied common sense to reach its decision.

That law, 8 U.S.C. § 1225, a nearly three-decade-old statute, requires detention without bond for “an alien who is an applicant for admission if … an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.” This case could be a gamechanger in the administration’s efforts to hold illegal aliens pending their removal hearings.

Joaquin Herrera Avila is a Mexican national. He was arrested last August in Minneapolis and admitted he was in the country illegally. Avila had illegally entered the U.S. twice; once in 2006 and again in 2016. When he was caught in 2025, Avila was held without bond, and DHS initiated removal proceedings for lacking valid entry documentation.

Avila requested a bond redetermination before the immigration judge, who denied his request. Avila’s attorney then filed a habeas petition in federal district court seeking his immediate release or a bond hearing. Avila argued that since he was not “seeking admission” while in the U.S., the statute simply didn’t apply to him.

Avila’s argument goes like this: As long as an illegal alien in the U.S. just sits back and does nothing to adjust his status in the country, such as seek asylum, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) did not apply to him.

The district court ruled in favor of Avila, claiming the statute did not apply because he had lived in the country for years without “seeking admission” to the U.S. But the text of the statute itself, as the 8^th Circuit noted in its de novo review of the law, is unambiguous. You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand it.

Section 1225(a)(1) is clear as a bell: “An alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States … shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.”

So, whether you actively apply for admission while you’re illegally in the country, or pull an Avila and do nothing, you’re still considered an “applicant for admission.” No further legal reasoning is required beyond the text of the statute itself….

The dissent’s first sentence raised our eyebrows: “Except for a single DUI, for nearly 20 years, Joaquin Herrera Avila had bene living a law-abiding life in the United States.”

Law abiding? Apparently the two times Avila entered the country illegally did not count. No doubt, that’s why the majority cited 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) at the beginning of their opinion.

That statute makes it illegal to “enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers” and carries a term of imprisonment of up to six months for the first offense and up to two years for subsequent offenses….

This issue has been litigated across the country in federal courts. As more circuit courts split on this issue, it’s only a matter of time before this issue finds its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

What Are Your Sacred Times and Sacred Spaces?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to Exodus 1-6 in a lesson titled “I Have Remembered My Covenant.” The lesson was introduced by the following information. 

The invitation to live in Egypt saved Jacob’s family. But after hundreds of years, their descendants were enslaved and terrorized by a new pharaoh who “knew not Joseph” (Exodus 1:8). It would have been natural for the Israelites to wonder why God allowed this to happen to them, His covenant people. Did He remember the covenant He had made with them? Were they still His people? Could He see how much they were suffering?

There may be times when you’ve felt like asking similar questions. You might wonder, “Does God know what I’m going through? Can He hear my pleas for help?” Israel’s deliverance from Egypt answers such questions clearly: God does not forget His people. He remembers His covenants with us and will fulfill them in His own time and way. “I will redeem you with a stretched out arm,” He declares. “I am the Lord your God, which bringeth you out from under [your] burdens” (Exodus 6:6-7).

The scripture block contains numerous principles, including (1) God can work through me to fulfill His purposes (Exodus 1-2); (2) Jesus Christ is my Deliverer (Exodus 1-3); (3) I can show reverence for holy things and places (Exodus 3:1-6); (4) God gives power to people He calls to do His work (Exodus 3-4); (5) The Lord’s purposes will be fulfilled in His own time (Exodus 5-6). All of the principles are worthy of discussion, but I feel prompted to discuss principle #3 about showing reverence for holy things and places. The scripture verses that are applicable for this principle are as follow: Exodus 3:1-6.

1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.

2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.

4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.

6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

Have you ever experienced an awe-inspiring experience? How did you react when feeling awe and wonder? Could you describe the emotions you felt?

Moses first wondered why a bush would burn without being consumed, so he climbed the mountain to look closer. Once he arrived, God spoke to him out of the burning bush and told him that the ground where he stood was holy ground. After the Lord introduced himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Moses responded by hiding his face because he was afraid to look upon God. What connections do you see between his actions and reverence for sacred things?

While reading these verses, think about the holy things and holy places in your life. Why are they sacred to you? How do you treat them differently from things that are common?

In his October 2017 General Conference talk titled “Exceeding Great and Precious Promises” (Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2017, 91-93), Elder David A. Bednar taught the following information about sacred things and sacred places in the section of his talk “Remembering the Promises.” 

President Lorenzo Snow warned, “We are too apt to forget the great object of life, the motive of our Heavenly Father in sending us here to put on mortality, as well as the holy calling with which we have been called; and hence, instead of rising above the little transitory things … , we too often allow ourselves to come down to the level of the world without availing ourselves of the divine help which God has instituted, which alone can enable us to overcome [those transitory things].”

The Sabbath day and the holy temple are two specific sources of divine help instituted by God to assist us in rising above the level and corruption of the world. We initially may think that the overarching purposes of keeping the Sabbath day holy and attending the temple are related but distinctive. I believe, however, that those two purposes are precisely the same and work together to strengthen us spiritually as individuals and in our homes.

The Sabbath

After God created all things, He rested on the seventh day and commanded that one day each week be a time of rest to help people remember Him. The Sabbath is God’s time, a sacred time specifically set apart for worshipping Him and for receiving and remembering His great and precious promises.

The Lord has directed in this dispensation:

“That thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day;

“For verily this is a day appointed unto you to rest from your labors, and to pay thy devotions unto the Most High.”

Thus, on the Sabbath we worship the Father in the name of the Son by participating in ordinances and learning about, receiving, remembering, and renewing covenants. On His holy day, our thoughts, actions, and demeanor are signs we give to God and an indicator of our love for Him.

An additional purpose of the Sabbath is to elevate our vision from the things of the world to the blessings of eternity. Removed during this sacred time from many of the regular routines of our busy lives, we can “look to God and live” by receiving and remembering the great and precious promises whereby we become partakers of the divine nature.

The Holy Temple

The Lord always has commanded His people to build temples, holy places in which worthy Saints perform sacred gospel ceremonies and ordinances for themselves and for the dead. Temples are the most holy of all places of worship. A temple literally is the house of the Lord, a sacred space specifically set apart for worshipping God and for receiving and remembering His great and precious promises.

The Lord has directed in this dispensation, “Organize yourselves; prepare every needful thing; and establish a house, even a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a house of God.” The principal focus of temple worship is participating in ordinances and learning about, receiving, and remembering covenants. We think, act, and dress differently in the temple than in other spaces that we may frequent.

A principal purpose of the temple is to elevate our vision from the things of the world to the blessings of eternity. Removed for a short time from the worldly settings with which we are familiar, we can “look to God and live” by receiving and remembering the great and precious promises whereby we become partakers of the divine nature.

Please note that the Sabbath day and the temple, respectively, are a sacred time and a sacred space specifically set apart for worshipping God and for receiving and remembering His exceeding great and precious promises to His children. As instituted by God, the principal purposes of these two divine sources of help are exactly the same: to powerfully and repeatedly focus our attention upon our Heavenly Father, His Only Begotten Son, the Holy Ghost, and the promises associated with the ordinances and covenants of the Savior’s restored gospel.

Our Homes

Importantly, a home should be the ultimate combination of time and space wherein individuals and families remember most effectively God’s great and precious promises. Leaving our homes to spend time in Sunday meetings and to enter the sacred space of a temple is vital but insufficient. Only as we bring the spirit and strength derived from those holy activities back with us into our homes can we sustain our focus upon the great purposes of mortal life and overcome the corruption that is in the world. Our Sabbath and temple experiences should be spiritual catalysts that imbue individuals and families and our homes with continual reminders of key lessons learned, with the presence and power of the Holy Ghost, with ongoing and deepening conversion to the Lord Jesus Christ, and with “a perfect brightness of hope” in God’s eternal promises.

The Sabbath and the temple can help us to establish in our homes “a more excellent way” as we “gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him.” What we do in our homes with His sacred time and with what we learn in His sacred space is pivotal to becoming partakers of the divine nature.

 

Why Do Men Need Work and Family to Prosper?

Families are stronger when men and women work to help the family prosper, and strong families strengthen communities, states, and nations. There is trouble in our society, and it is showing up in young men.

In an article published at The Deseret News, Brad Wilcox and Maria Baer discuss the importance of work. They wrote that cultural elites have downplayed the role of breadwinners in our society, saying that the idea hurts men, women, children, marriages, relationships, and mental health. However, the elites do not tell the whole story. 

But there is data that tells a different story. A sobering new report on young men in America makes it plain: Men without work, purpose or a family to provide for tend to flounder. And when men flounder, they don’t suffer alone. The women in their lives suffer. Their communities suffer. The wreckage is shared.

In other words, being a breadwinner is not the problem. But not having that privilege and responsibility might be.

The nation has already witnessed the devastating toll that deindustrialization has taken on men, their families and communities across middle America, in communities like Lordstown, Ohio, once a major hub of car manufacturing.

The Lordstown Assembly plant manufactured cars for General Motors for more than 50 years, employing up to 10,000 workers at its peak in the 1990s. Now the plant has become a sad metaphor: GM left Lordstown in 2019, laying off thousands. For years, the building sat empty and it’s now slated to become an AI data center, employing just a few hundred people.

According to researchers at the Economic Innovation Group, the disappearance of working-class jobs in communities like Lordstown in northeastern Ohio is one big reason that rates of violent crime, drug use, broken families, and childhood poverty in the region are higher than the national average. It’s a cautionary tale: When men aren’t working, society suffers.

The new report from the Institute for Family Studies, “America’s Demoralized Men,” shows that this problem of male unemployment and underemployment has spread beyond the deindustrialized heartland. In 1980, only 25% of young men (ages 18-29, not in school) were not working full time. Today, that number has risen to 33%.

The problem is even bigger than it seems.

That’s because young men still view work as a key indicator of their successful entrance into adulthood, and so it follows that their inability to find or hold down a full-time job would cause embarrassment or despair.

That’s what we found. A stunning 42% of respondents either somewhat or strongly agree that they are “failures.” This is especially true for young men who aren’t working at all.

Why are young men demoralized?

[Authors tell of a 25-year-old man who applied for “more than 900 jobs” but was still “unemployed and living at home” with not “enough money to date.” He wants to “be an adult” but feels “stunted.” He is trying but feels like his “best isn’t good enough.”]

The tenor of [the man’s] words tells us that out-of-work men don’t just suffer financially, but emotionally and socially. We already know that today’s men are between two and three times as likely as women to suffer “deaths of despair” – death by alcohol, drug use or suicide, and such deaths are more common among men who are unemployed or underemployed. And a lack of full-time work hinders yet other traditional markers of adulthood: dating and marriage.

This matters because most young men still want to get married. But fully 59% of our survey’s 18- to 29-year-old respondents are not married and not dating anyone seriously. Indeed, in a world where dating has become much more daunting and difficult, especially for men who are not working at decent-paying jobs, it’s getting harder for men to find their way to the altar.

Why being a breadwinner matters

All this matters because men are more likely to flourish when they see themselves as providers. Men do better when they feel needed – and being a reliable breadwinner makes them feel needed….

And, as Wilcox found when writing his book “Get Married,” it’s not just men who flourish when they see themselves as providers. The data tells us that wives are happier when they view their husbands as good providers.

Having a full-time job is also a traditional marker of being an adult – and many of today’s young men don’t consider themselves adults even after they’ve turned 21.

As the report says, “the feeling of having reached full adulthood is … highly correlated with the old benchmarks: being married and a parent, working full time, and completing college or trade school. Hence, even among men ages 24-29, less than half (41%) report ‘definitely’ feeling like adults.”

Moreover, a majority of young men say that it is extremely or very important to be financially independent from their parents (81%) and to be able to provide for others (72%). Breadwinning matters – and makes a difference in how young men feel about themselves.

Good public policy can help

That’s why it’s crucial that public policy efforts aimed at easing the struggles of today’s young men – and protecting communities from the family and social pathologies that follow idle men – don’t unintentionally rob them of their ability to provide.

Too often, government assistance programs do just that. They disincentivize the achievements of work (and marriage) by pushing people off a “benefits cliff” when they achieve them.

Ohio Sen. Jon Husted recently introduced a bill meant to tackle that problem. The Upward Mobility Act would create a pilot program in five states that will pool welfare resources into one financial stream and then slowly taper benefits as recipients get married and find either higher-paying jobs or more hours of work….

Anthropologist Margaret Mead once memorably quipped that every healthy nation must “define the male role satisfactorily enough” – it must have a place and a purpose for its men. Those nations which don’t, she warned, are destined for trouble, because idle men make unstable communities.

… America needs working men, and America’s men need and want to work. The government should do everything it can to foster a healthy marketplace for them – even when that means getting out of the way.