How Are You Preparing for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to Isaiah 58-66 in a lesson titled “The Redeemer Shall Come to Zion.” The following information introduced the lesson. 

Early in His ministry, Jesus Christ visited a synagogue in Nazareth, where He was raised. He stood there to read from the scriptures, opened the book of Isaiah, and read what we now know as Isaiah 61:1-2. He then announced, “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.” This was one of the Savior’s most straightforward declarations that He was the Anointed One, who would “heal the brokenhearted” and “preach deliverance to the captives” (see Luke 4:16-21). This scripture was indeed fulfilled on that day. And, like many other prophecies of Isaiah, it is also being fulfilled in our day. The Savior continues to heal the brokenhearted who come unto Him. There are still many captives who need deliverance. And there is a glorious future to prepare for – a time when the Lord will “create new heavens and a new earth” (Isaiah 65:17) and “cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all the nations” (Isaiah 61:11). Reading Isaiah opens our eyes to what the Lord has already done, what He is doing, and what He will yet do for His people.

The scripture block teaches several principles, including the following: (1) Fasting builds spiritual power and blesses people in need (Isaiah 58:3-12). (2) Honoring the Lord on the Sabbath brings joy (Isaiah 58:13-14). (3) Jesus Christ is my Savior and Redeemer (Isaiah 59:9-21; 61:1-3; 63:7-9). (4) “The Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light” (Isaiah 60; 62). (5) Christ will reign on earth during the Millennium (Isaiah 64:1-5; 65:17-25; 66). This essay will discuss principle #5 about Christ reigning during the Millennium.

Isaiah spoke of a day when “the former troubles are forgotten” (Isaiah 65:16). While this prophecy has several fulfillments, in its fullest sense, that day is yet to come – when Jesus Christ will return. Isaiah described this future day in Isaiah 64:1-5; 65:17-25; 66. Isaiah often used words like “rejoice” and “rejoicing.” The Savior’s return will be a day of rejoicing for those who are prepared for His coming.

President Russell M. Nelson spoke about preparing the world for the Second Coming of the Savior in the April 2020 General Conference (“The Future of the Church: Preparing the World for the Savior’s Second Coming,” Ensign, April 2020, 13-17). 

The choice to come unto Christ is not a matter of physical location; it is a matter of individual commitment. All members of the Church have access to the doctrine, ordinances, priesthood keys, and blessings of the gospel, regardless of their location. People can be “brought to the knowledge of the Lord” (3 Nephi 20:13) without leaving their homelands.

True, in the early days of the Church, conversion often meant emigration as well. But now the gathering takes place in each nation. The Lord has decreed the establishment of Zion (see Doctrine and Covenants 6:6; 11:6) in each realm where He has given His Saints their birth and nationality…. Zion is “the pure in heart” (Doctrine and Covenants 97:21). It is wherever righteous Saints are. Spiritual security will always depend upon how one lives, not where one lives. I promise that if we will do our best to exercise faith in Jesus Christ and access the power of His Atonement through repentance, we will have the knowledge and power of God to help us take the blessings of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people and to prepare the world for the Second Coming of the Lord….

Do whatever it takes to strengthen your faith in Jesus Christ by increasing your understanding of the doctrine taught in His restored Church and by relentlessly seeking truth. Anchored in pure doctrine, you will be able to step forward with faith and dogged persistence and cheerfully do all that lies in your power to fulfill the purposes of the Lord.

Which Is More Important – Quality Time or Quantity Time – in a Family?

Families are strengthened by investing in both quality time and quantity time together. Wise parents recognize that family time matters, and “elements of both quality and quantity time” are essential to create a strong family. An article from Focus on the Family shares these important ideas.

If you’re asking us whether family time really matters, we’d have to say yes. In fact, family time is so important that it shouldn’t be reduced to an either-or proposition. It has to incorporate elements of both quality and quantity.

Quantity time creates a safe environment where youngsters can feel accepted and valued for who they are. It communicates availability and fosters a sense of security. It establishes a solid home base from which children can launch out into the world with confidence and strength.

Quality time, on the other hand, is essential to the process of family bonding. It’s the stuff of which relationships are made. It’s the polished gem that caring parents fashion from the raw material of moments, hours, and days spent together. The thing to note is that it’s difficult to have one without the other. The more family time we create, the more opportunities we have to touch each other’s lives in profound ways. You can’t seize [this] if you’re not there to do the seizing. It isn’t always possible to cram meaningful memories and life-changing conversations into a few minutes of contrived quality time.

None of this happens automatically, of course. It’s entirely possible for a family to spend lots of time together and come away the worse for it. This is especially true if their interactions are marred by constant strife, anxiety, or abuse. The key to success is intentionality. That means making up your mind to be present in the moments and to make the most of every circumstance.

Contemporary marriages and families lack time – quality and quantity – for a number of reasons. An endless pursuit of material things requires increasing amounts of money. This translates into more hours at work. Busyness creates fatigue and deflects attention from pressing relational issues. Couples “grow apart” as their lives travel down separate but parallel tracks. Moms and dads model a task-oriented mentality that communicates an unmistakable message to their kids: take care of your duties and obligations first. Then feel free to retreat into your own (electronic) stimulation, recreation, or leisure-time activity (read: “isolation in your own room”).

If you want to escape this numbing pattern, you may need to revamp your schedule. We suggest you engage in some serious lifestyle planning. Go back to Square One. Revisit your basic values and priorities. Resolve to make some countercultural choices and decisions if necessary. Take steps to reduce your outside commitments and block out weekly family time on the calendar.

In particular, don’t worry about how it looks to “other people” if you limit yourselves to one or two selections from a long list of worthwhile church activities. Resist the temptation to sign your kids up for numerous sports teams, music and dance lessons, social clubs, and all kinds of community organizations. One activity per season per child [may be] more than enough. Carve out spaces and create margins. Don’t be afraid of “voids.” Agree to turn off all communications devices at certain times of the day or on certain days of the week. Instead of watching TV, read together, play board games, take a walk to a local park, or sit and talk. Get into your kids’ space. Hang out with them and find out what excites them. This is all part of the process of turning quantity into quality time.

Meanwhile, don’t forget to take full advantage of simple everyday interactions. Drive time, mealtime, meal preparation, bath time, bedtime – all can become opportunities for shared discoveries and precious, unforeseen, and unique conversations between parent and child. It’s a matter of learning to savor life’s ordinary moments. Most children find just as much, or even more, joy in the little things as they do in life’s big events. Activities like eating a special breakfast of chocolate-chip pancakes, picking out the perfect backpack for the first day of school, or singing silly songs in the car could turn out to be some of the most memorable highlights of your kids’ childhood years.

Will Democrat Party Reject Islamic Terrorism and Socialism?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the increasing numbers of Americans who are embracing Islamic terrorism and socialism. Trump Derangement Syndrome, “Democrats’ hatred for President Donald Trump,” and “an effort to defeat Republicans in November” are leading the increase.

Justin Murphy, the Republican nominee for New Jersey’s Senate seat, explained the situation in his interview with the Daily Signal. 

“Their [Democrats] hate for Donald Trump is the only thing that is informing their decision making,” Justin Murphy told the Daily Signal. “Their hate for Donald Trump is more important to them than their love of this country, if they even have it.”

“It’s more important for them to make sure they do not … appear to their base that they’re working with President Trump, because that’s absolutely forbidden,” he continued.

Murphy said that hatred of the president is “keeping them isolated from the American people” and is “the only thing they are campaigning on.”

The candidate’s remarks come after Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called his party a “big tent” that welcomes all voters.

Additionally, at least five members of the Democratic Socialists of America, a progressive organization that aims to dissolve constitutionally designated institutions such as the Senate, could be sworn into Congress in January.

“The Democrat Party today is no longer the party of FDR – the World War II, Depression-era Democrat. They’re no longer the party of JFK. It’s now the party of the DSA, and they’re no longer the party of the kind of little guy, the blue-collar worker, the northeastern Catholic voter,” Murphy added.

Murphy, using the example of the Republican Party’s rejection of David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard who tried to run for president as a Republican in the 1990s, contrasted his party’s handling of radical antisemites and extremists to that of the Democrats.

“We zipped up our tent, shut the door, threw him out of the party, and told him you get no name from the Republican Party and get no recognition. He was not allowed to run in our primaries, and we tossed him out of the party,” he said.

Murphy argued that if the Democratic Party was the party of “tolerance and civility” as is sometimes claimed, Democrat leaders would “do the same” toward their radical members.

Murphy’s opponent, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., has not yet condemned his party’s radical candidates. 

Articles of Faith: What Do Latter-day Saints Believe About the Atonement of Jesus Christ? 6

                                                                     Article of Faith 3

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved,

by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

This is the sixth essay about the Atonement of Jesus Christ as stated in the third Article of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The first week, I discussed the importance of understanding how the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, as the third pillar of eternity, is essential to Heavenly Father’s plan for the eternal happiness of His children. The second week, the discussion was about the Atonement of Jesus Christ and the nature of the atonement. The third week, the discussion concerned the Atonement of Jesus Christ as a vicarious sacrifice. The fourth week, the discussion was about Christ’s sacrifice being voluntary and love inspired. Last week, the discussion was about the Atonement being foreordained and foretold. The discussion for this week will use the words of Elder James E. Talmage to discuss the extent of the Atonement (Articles of Faith [1913], 85-87).

The Extent of the Atonement is universal, applying alike to all descendants of Adam. Even the unbeliever, the heathen, and the child who dies before reaching the years of discretion, all are redeemed by the Savior’s self-sacrifice from the individual consequences of the fall. It is proved by scripture that the resurrection of the body is one of the victories achieved by Christ through His atoning sacrifice. He Himself proclaimed the eternal truth: “I am the resurrection, and the life”; and He was the first of all men to rise from the grave to immortality – “the firstfruits of them that slept.” The scriptures leave no room for doubt concerning the fact that the resurrection will be universal. The Savior announced to His apostles the beginning of this work of deliverance from the tomb; hear His words: “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation” or, as the latter part of the declaration has bene rendered through inspiration in the present day, “They who have done good in the resurrection of the just, and they who have done evil in the resurrection of the unjust.”

Paul preached the doctrine of a universal resurrection: “That there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.” On another occasion he wrote: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” John the Revelator testifies of his vision concerning futurity: “And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them.” Thus it is plain that the effect of the atonement, so far as it applies to the victory over temporal or bodily death, includes the entire race. It is equally clear that the release from spiritual death, or banishment from the presence of God, is offered to all; so that if any man lose salvation such loss will be due to himself, and in no way be the inescapable effect of Adam’s transgression. That the gift of redemption through Christ is free to all men was specifically taught by the apostles of old. Thus Paul says: “Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” And further: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all.” John spoke of the Redeemer’s sacrifice, saying: “And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

The same truths were taught among the Nephites. Benjamin, the righteous king, preached of “the atonement which was prepared from the foundation of the world for all mankind, which ever were since the fall of Adam, or who are, or who ever shall be, even unto the end of the world.” In revelation of the present day we read of Christ’s having come into the world, to suffer and to die: “That through him all might be saved whom the Father into his power and made by him.”

But besides this universal application of the atonement, whereby all men are redeemed from the effects of Adam’s transgression both with respect to the death of the body and inherited sin, there is application of the same great sacrifice as a means of propitiation for individual sins through the faith and good works of the sinner. This twofold effect of the atonement is implied in the article of our faith now under consideration. The first effect is to secure to all mankind alike, exemption from the penalty of the fall, thus providing a plan of General Salvation. The second effect is to open a way for Individual Salvation whereby mankind may secure remission of personal sins. As these sins are the result of individual acts it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements – “obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.”

  

Will Americans Accept Socialism

Socialism is raising its ugly head in the United States. Democratic Socialists of America are being elected as members of Congress. Rep. Warren Davidson is raising a warning voice. He “witnessed life in East Germany just weeks after the Berlin Wall fell in 1989.” It is entirely possible that he could find himself serving Congress with “Democrats who embrace an ideology millions of Eastern Europeans rejected when they tore the wall down.”

In his article published in The Daily Signal, Robert B. Bluey shares the information that he learned in his interview with Davidson. 

Ideas once associated with the Left’s fringe are increasingly entering the American political landscape. Several members of Congress already proudly identify as democratic socialists, and a new crop of candidates aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America could soon join them. For Davidson, an Ohio Republican and constitutional conservative, that’s a difficult reality to accept.

After graduating from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Davidson enlisted in the U.S. Army as an infantryman. While stationed in Germany in 1989, he made the trek to see how East Germans were reacting to the collapse of communism.

“The people in East Germany found it out the truth. They tore their own wall down,” Davidson told the Daily Signal. “You go from that experience where I’m seeing firsthand how failed these ideas are, to I’m serving in Congress with people that describe themselves as socialists.”

Voters Focused on Affordability, Immigration

Davidson has spent recent weeks back home in Ohio’s 8^th District meeting with constituents ahead of Election Day. While national political debates often dominate Washington, he said voters remain focused on issues much closer to home.

“Affordability still is a big issue,” Davidson said on the Daily Signal’s “Midterm Report” podcase. “People are talking a lot about affordability. Gas prices is one of the big things.” He said concerns about government corruption and border security also frequently arise in conversations with constituents….

Manufacturing, China, and the Surveillance State

Before his election to Congress in 2016, Davidson worked in manufacturing for about 15 years. He argues that decades of trade policy weakened America’s industrial base and harmed working-class communities.

“Ross Perot said that if you do these trade deals with China and Mexico, you’re going to hear a giant sucking sound of our jobs leaving America,” Davidson said. “With the benefit of hindsight, he was right.”

Davidson contends that China’s government has gained an unfair advantage through subsidies and market manipulation….

The congressman has also been vocal about privacy and government surveillance. As a co-sponsor of legislation aimed at limiting Chinese access to vehicle data, he said Americans should have greater control over their personal information….

A Lesson From East Germany

Davidson’s concerns about socialism are rooted in personal experience.

While serving in the U.S. Army, he was stationed in Germany during the final years of the Cold War. Just weeks after Germans demolished the Berlin Wall, Davidson saw firsthand what life under socialism and communism had produced.

“They were like, ‘Is it like this everywhere?’” Davidson recalled. “there was fresh milk and everyone could go buy things.”

Many East Germans had been taught that life in the West was worse than life behind the Iron Curtain.

“They were told that we were more poor than them,” Davidson said. “I’m like, ‘Well, buddy, obviously you’ve been lied to.’”

The experience left an enduring impression on the future congressman.

Socialism’s Return

Today, many younger Americans don’t think the same way as Davidson. Socialism is growing in popularity – 43% have a positive view, according to Gallup’s polling in September.

Among those between the ages of 18 and 34, socialism’s popularity is 57%, Gallup reported. By comparison, 43% of that age group views capitalism positively.

“A lot of young people weren’t around for the Cold War,” Davison surmised.

Davidson worries that many Americans lack an understanding, of socialism’s historical failures. He pointed to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani as a socialist leader who has inspired followers.

“People are copying his platform and getting support from the political Left in the United States,” Davidson said.

Quoting President Ronald Reagan, Davidson added, “Freedom’s never more than one generation away from extinction.”

           As more candidates openly embrace socialism, Davidson hopes Americans will look to history               before embracing ideas that millions of people once rejected at great personal cost.

Who Is Columbus?

My VIP for this week is Christopher Columbus because October 12, 2026, is Columbus Day. Today marks the 534^th anniversary since Columbus made landfall in the Americas on October 12, 1492. Columbus’s fleet, consisting of the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria had sailed from Palos, Spain, more than a month earlier.

A lookout aboard the Pinta sighted land on the night of October 11, 1492, and shouted “Land” early in the morning on October 12. That morning, Columbus and his crew landed on a small island known to Lucayan Taino people as Guanahani, which he renamed San Salvador. This is the first known contact from Europe with the Americas, and it led to sustained exploration and colonization of the Caribbean by Europeans. This landfall initiated the Age of Discovery.

For many years, Americans celebrated Columbus Day on October 12 annually. It became a federal holiday in 1937. Since the Uniform Monday Holiday Act became law in 1971, Americans celebrate Columbus Day annually on the second Monday in October. It is one of eleven federal holidays. Federal offices, courts, and the U.S. Postal Service close, while most banks also close. Numerous federal employees take Friday off to make a four-day weekend.

Many states, cities, and school districts observe the day as Indigenous Peoples’ Day as a day to honor Native American history, culture, and contributions.

Should President Be Able to Fire Agency Heads?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns what might be “the Supreme Court’s biggest decision” and possibly its least popular. According to Alan Hurst, a Marquette Law School poll shows “only 49% of Americans approve of Trump v. Slaughter, the court’s ruling that presidents can fire the heads of independent executive agencies.” 

After discussing all thirteen Supreme Court decisions in the Marquette poll, Hurst explained why he thinks “it’s good that the president can fire the heads of executive agencies, regardless of whether I like the president?”

To answer, let’s consider a “who cares if you’re angry” theory of government, in which we place government institutions into one of three general categories – reviewed here in order from the least to the most democratic.

Category 3: An intentionally insulated judiciary

If you’re angry about a federal court’s decision, does anyone in the judiciary care?

Not particularly. They don’t answer to you.

I don’t mean to suggest judges are heartless or immune to outside influence. You’re free to criticize their decisions publicly, engineer lawsuits to move the law in your direction, or file amicus briefs and try to be persuasive.

But if you’re hoping to do more than persuade – if you’re hoping to pressure them to do something they’re not inclined to do – then you’re unlikely to succeed. The whole point of life tenure is not to let you do that, because justice by public opinion is no justice at all.

Category 2: A president who responds to his coalition (but not necessarily anyone else)

If you’re angry about a decision by an executive agency – say, the FDA or the EPA – does anyone at the agency care?

Unlike Supreme Court justices, the heads of the FDA and the EPA can be fired by the president, which means their goals and priorities can’t stray too far from the president’s goals and priorities.

And while the president doesn’t care about you individually, there are people he does care about: key senators, senior advisers, media figures he respects, or allies and interest groups whose support he depends on to pursue his goals and win the next election (either for himself or for his party).

And what that means, practically speaking, is that there are people you can lobby. It’s a ladder-climbing exercise: You find somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody. Maybe you know a state legislator who can introduce you to someone in your state attorney general’s inner circle, who can then put your issue in front of the attorney general’s official contact at the White House.

Or maybe someone can introduce you to a popular blogger or columnist who can publish your story and try to put it on the radar at a big media himself.

But at every rung, the person you’re hoping will help is going to be asking, “Is the guy above me going to think this was worth bringing to his attention? Is it an issue he cares about, or is it coming from a constituency he cares about?”

And if the answer is no – as it usually will be if you’re in the wrong political party – then your attempt to influence the agency democratically will never get off the ground.

Category 1: Intentionally vulnerable representatives

In the final category, if you’re angry about a decision anywhere in government, will your member of Congress care? And here the answer is “very probably.”

Thanks to gerrymandering, social media, hyper partisanship, and so on, Congress isn’t what it used to be – to keep their seats, congresspeople have had to fall in line more often and get more ideological.

But to this day, senators and representatives maintain staff for “constituent services,” i.e., they employ people whose job responsibilities include hearing your complaints and trying to do something about them. And what’s more, when it comes to helping constituents deal with federal agencies and such, ethics rules require them to provide their help without regard to a constituent’s political affiliation.

There’s no guarantee you’ll get the answer you like – nothing stops your legislator from just disagreeing with you. But even if she does, you’ll probably still get a personal response and an explanation of why she’s saying no.

Why the president should be able to fire agency heads

So what does this “who cares if you’re angry” theory have to do with letting presidents fire the heads of independent agencies?

In a nutshell, the decision tries to move independent agencies from Category 3 to Category 2 – from “intentionally insulated against public opinion” to “susceptible to public pressure through the White House.”

It’s an improvement, but it’s not ideal – ideally you want to move most of the power not to Category 2 but to Category 1, where a normal person can raise an issue as directly as possible with someone who wants his vote.

And on this point, I encourage you to read Justice Neil Gorsuch’s Slaughter concurrence, in which he lays out the basic problem: a trend beginning in the early 20^th century to undo the separation of powers and turn the work of government over to supposedly impartial experts….

While Slaughter fixes part of the damage, the larger work still depends on future cases (and future legislation by Congress) that can return powers to Congress that it foolishly turned over to the executive.

            I’ll give the last word to Gorsuch: “From here, the only sure path is to finish the journey we start             today and restore legislative and judicial powers to where they belong: in Congress and the                    courts. We have tolerated adventurous theories long enough. It is time to return, all the way, to                the Constitution.”