Who Is God and Why Should We Sacrifice for Him?

My VIP for this week is God. February 18 marked the beginning of Lent, so Catholics across the world went to Mass to “receive burned ashes on their forehead in the sign of the cross.” Lent is “the holiest season of the year” and leads “to the commemoration of Jesus’ betrayal, suffering, death, and resurrection during Holy Week.

For those people, like me, who are not Catholic, an article by Tom Griffin, chair of the religion department at a Catholic high school on Long Island, can increase our understanding of our friends, the Catholics. 

Griffin quoted Martin Luther King Jr. as saying, “If a man has not discovered something that he will die for, he isn’t fit to live.” Then he asked what or who we would make the ultimate sacrifice for or “resides at the center of our lives” Catholics receive ashes on their forehead to show that they are a witness, and there are three parts to this witness.

First, it reminds us that we came from nothing and that we will deteriorate into ashes. Life is fragile and life is short. Therefore, Lent serves as a launchpad for Catholics to consider what they are really living for? …

Second, the ashes act as our first opportunity to consider how I am being called to sacrifice more for God and others in my life. The ashes on our heads were produced through the bringing of palm branches. These branches were used in the celebration of Palm Sunday the previous year. This is the commemoration of Jesus’ triumphal entrance into Jerusalem the week of his death.

The ashes on our heads are cause to consider our death, but also cause to consider the suffering, beating, and humiliation that Jesus endured for love of you and me.

In light of his sacrifice, what can I sacrifice to grow closer to him? The word sacrifice literally means to give up something good for something greater….

Finally, the ashes force us to think about our own brokenness and sinfulness.

The concept of Catholic guilt is a common understanding in our culture. The truth of Catholic guilt is that we are all sinners.

Christianity only makes sense if we admit that we are sinners in need of a savior….

The call of Lent is to be more honest with ourselves about our need for God. Yes, because we are sinners but also because we are not meant to go through life alone. Our God became one of us so that we would know that He is always with us drawing us closer to Himself. Even more so, we are invited to not only spend more time with God in prayer this Lent but to allow our time with Him to transform us to become like Him.

The Lenten season can become a transformation when we realize that God is worth everything. That He is worth dying for, yes, but even more – He is worth living for. That is why, above everything else, the ashes truly matter.

Not being Catholic, I did not receive ashes on my forehead today. However, I like the idea of the Lenten season as a time to recognize that I have been given much and that I have much to give to other people. It is also a time that I can prepare more fully to commemorate the suffering, death, and resurrection of the Savior, even Jesus Christ.

How Can Statements Like That of Billie Eilish Be Proven Dangerous?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the need for public education systems to teach correct history. For individuals to love their country, they must be taught the good parts of history, particularly in the younger grades. Older students can be taught the good, the bad, and the ugly parts of America’s history.

One example of incorrect teaching took place at this year’s Grammy Awards when pop artist Billie Eilish made her statement that “no one is illegal on stolen land.” A previous essay discussed the obvious things wrong with the statement: 

“no one is illegal” would mean that “immigration laws have no moral authority,” so we should just allow anyone and everyone into our nation.

“on stolen land” would mean returning the land to its original inhabitants: “Let’s give the Southwest back to Mexico, then back to Spain, then back to the Aztecs, and then back to the people the Aztecs slew and enslaved. Let’s give the Northeast back to the Iroquois, and then back to the Native Americans the Iroquois slew and replaced. Let’s give Florida back to the Seminoles, and then back to the people the Seminoles slew and replaced.”

The statement by Billie Eilish may become a “gift that keeps on giving” for conservatives because there are so many different ways that the message can be attacked. Paul Runko, senior director of Strategic Initiatives, K-12 Programs for Defending Education, criticized the statement from the education angle. Runko shared his thoughts about Eilish’s statement in an article published at The Daily Signal. 

This comment echoed two familiar positions of modern, progressive left-wing ideology: first, that the United States should allow unrestricted immigration and, second, that Americans are living on land illegitimately taken from Native Americans.

While it may be tempting to dismiss such rhetoric as another example of celebrity activism at an awards show, doing so would miss a more troubling reality. The idea that America is fundamentally “stolen land” is not confined to award show stages, it has become increasingly embedded into the schools that teach America’s children.

In 2024, Defending Education released a report revealing that 155 school districts, representing more than 2.7 million students, have adopted so-called land acknowledgements.

These are formal statements intended to recognize Indigenous or Native peoples as the original inhabitants or stewards of the land a school district, staff, and students occupy.

On the surface, land acknowledgments may appear benign or even respectful.

In practice, however, they function as a form of virtue signaling by institutions and leadership. Students are often asked or told to recite these statements, seeding the belief in young students’ minds that they occupy “stolen land” that is morally illegitimate and does not rightfully belong to the United States, but to Indigenous tribes.

Consider the land acknowledgment used by Frances C. Richmond Middle School in Hanover, New Hampshire: “We, the RMS community, would like to acknowledge that our school is built upon the unceded land of the Abenaki and Pennacook people. The land was stolen.”

For a young student, this is not a neutral historical observation. Imagine hearing this as an elementary or middle school student. What conclusions are they expected to draw about their families, their neighbors, or their town?

Rather than learning history, students are pushed toward a moral judgment that their community, their country, and even their family bear collective guilt simply for existing where they do.

For a child who trusts the public school system to teach facts, not an ideologically skewed version of the past, this can be deeply troubling. Instead of fostering civic understanding, these statements frame American history primarily through grievance and condemnation.

This messaging is not limited to land acknowledgments alone.

Another example comes from District of Columbia Public Schools that in 2021 sent a message to families ahead of Thanksgiving encouraging them to “Decolonize your Thanksgiving” by not “sugarcoat[ing] the past.”

They advised parent[s] to use terms like “genocide,” “ethnic cleansing,” “stolen land,” and “forced removal” when discussing the American history of the holiday.

While older students should be exposed to both the proud and the dark side of our nation’s history, language such as “stolen land” means schools have replaced education with ideological indoctrination.

The messaging extends beyond words to art and images in classrooms as well.

In one Los Angeles Unified School District high school, a poster was displayed reading, “Make Israel Palestine again and Make Amerikkka Turtle Island Again.”

Such imagery does not invite critical thinking or intellectual diversity to play out. It asserts, as fact, that nations such as the United States and Israel are illegitimate occupiers whose existence should be undone.

A student exposed to these messages repeatedly could reasonably conclude that the United States has no rightful claim to its own territory. Over time, this worldview cements students’ belief in a far-left orthodoxy where law enforcement, people who express traditional views, and eve our fundamental and treasured American institutions can no longer be allowed to exist.

Parents and other adults should understand that the words spoken by Eilish are not just the words of a pop artist receiving an award. “… they are not isolated or inconsequential.” In fact, “They reflect a broader ideological worldview that has overtaken public education….” They are part of the vast number of people and organizations who are striving to overthrow the government of the United States.

How Was Abraham a Blessing to Others Because of His Covenant with God?

My Come Follow Me Studies for this week took me to Genesis 12-17 and Abraham 1-2 in a lesson titled “To Be a Greater Follower of Righteousness.” The lesson was introduced by the following information. 

Because of the covenant God made with him, Abraham has been called “the father of the faithful” (Doctrine and Covenants 138:41) and “the Friend of God” (James 2:23). Millions today honor him as their direct ancestor, and others have been adopted into his family through conversion to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet Abraham himself came from a troubled family—his father, who had abandoned the true worship of God, tried to have Abraham sacrificed to false gods. In spite of this, Abraham’s desire was “to be a greater follower of righteousness” (Abraham 1:2), and the account of his life shows that God honored his desire. Abraham’s life stands as a testimony that no matter what a person’s family history has been, the future can be filled with hope.

The scripture block teaches numerous principles, including (1) God will bless me for my faith and righteous desires (Abraham 1:1-19); (2) God wants me to make and keep covenants with Him (Genesis 12:1-3; 13:15-16; 15:1-6; 17:1-8, 15-22; Abraham 2:6-11); (3) “Melchizedek was a man of faith” (Genesis 14:18-19; Joseph Smith Translation, Genesis 14:25-40); (4) Abraham paid tithing (Genesis 14:18-24; Joseph Smith Translation, Genesis 14:36-40), and (5) God hears me (Genesis 16). This essay will discuss making and keeping covenants with God.

God wants me – and you – to make and keep covenants with Him. It is important for us to know about the covenant God made with Abraham because God wants to make a similar covenant with you. God promised that this covenant would continue in Abraham’s posterity, or “seed,” and that “as many as receive this Gospel shall be … accounted thy seed” (see Abraham 2:10-11). In other words, the covenant continues in you – when you are baptized and more completely when you make covenants in the temple (see Galatians 3:26-29; Doctrine and Covenants 132:30-32).

For that reason, we should desire to study Abraham 2:6-11 and make a list of exactly what God promised Abraham and Sarah (see also Genesis 12:1-3; 13:15-16; 15:1-6; 17:1-8, 15-22). Consider how these blessings might apply to you.

The following ideas were part of a special section in the February Come Follow Me lessons. It is called “Thoughts to Keep in Mind: The Covenant.” 

God’s covenant with Abraham promised wonderful blessings: an inheritance of land, a large posterity, access to priesthood ordinances, and a name that would be honored for generations to come. But the focus of this covenant was not just on the blessings Abraham and his family would receive but also on the blessing they would be to the rest of God’s children. “Thou shalt be a blessing,” God declared, “and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 12:2-3).

Did this covenant give Abraham, Sarah, and their descendants a privileged status among God’s children? Only in the sense that it is a privilege to bless others. The family of Abraham were to “bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations,” sharing “the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal” (Abraham 2:9, 11). Being God’s covenant people didn’t mean they were better than others; it meant they had a duty to help others be better.

 

Why Do Children Need a Father and a Mother?

The strongest families have both a father and a mother. A single parent can create a strong family that sticks together and supports each other, but children need both a mother and a father.

Delano Squires (Director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Human Flourishing), Ellie Carson (a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation), and Jesse Castrinos (a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation) authored an article titled “Why Children Need Both a Mother and Father, According to Research.” 

… there is never a bad time for Americans to be reminded that strong families thrive when men and women commit to one another in holy matrimony before bringing children into the world.

It is no secret to conservatives that children raised by their married mother and father are more likely to succeed in school, avoid harmful behaviors, and enjoy better long-term mental health than those raised in a single-parent home.

Yet in a culture that has rejected the reality of biological sex and redefined the meaning of marriage, it can be difficult to explain why the natural family is the best structure for children’s long-term outcomes.

The differences between how men and women interact with their children are seen every time a dad throws a baby in the air – much to the child’s delight and often to mom’s distress. The complementary parenting styles of men and women are observed in everyday life, but they are also backed by research.

According to research from the Journal of Child and Family Studies, when it comes to raising children, mothers are generally more emotionally available, self-controlled, and responsive to their children, attributes that help children feel accepted and supported. Moms also tend to be more lenient with their children than dads.

Fathers, on the other hand, are generally more inclined toward discipline and structure than mothers.

That does not mean dads don’t enjoy time with their children. In fact, research shows that fathers are more likely to initiate active play time with their children and keep them physically active as time goes on.

Yes, fathers may show less affection as their children grow older when compared to moms, but they are more likely to grant the type of autonomy that launches teens into adulthood.

Researchers have found that fathers also push their children to take chances and overcome limits.

While these traits are not universal, they clearly point to the difference in how mothers and fathers approach parenting. Yet despite these seemingly contradictory attributes, studies find that most couples acknowledge and appreciate the balance men and women bring to the home.

Children don’t just need two parents. They need the care and affection of their mother and father.

Unfortunately, whenever you remove children from the traditional family structure, they are far more likely to experience poverty, abuse, and unstable relationships themselves.

Furthermore, children are much safer from abuse and neglect when they are raised by both of their biological parents.

One study found that children living with an unrelated adult were 50 times more likely to die from inflicted injuries than children living with their biological parents.

This reality is one reason The Heritage Foundation’s policy paper titled “Saving America by Saving the Family: A Foundation for the Next 250 Years” treats restoring the family home as a matter of justice, driven by two truths.

The first truth is that all children have a right to the affection and protection of the man and woman who created them. The second is that the ideal environment in which to exercise this right is in a loving and stable home with their married biological parents….

Marriage creates a special lifelong bond between a man and woman, but it is also the foundation for the best environment for raising happy and healthy children.

 

 

Why Do Democrats Oppose Proof of Citizenship and Photo ID to Vote?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns election integrity and the SAVE America Act that the House of Representatives passed a week ago with unanimous Republican support and even one Democrat. This “bill would put in place basic election integrity requirements like providing proof of citizenship and photo ID to register and vote in federal elections.” The bill is currently in the U.S. Senate, where Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) is leading the effort to get the bill passed and on President Donald Trump’s desk to sign.

Democrats partially shut down the government -- again -- and left our nation because they do not want secure elections. They put forth numerous claims – “mischaracterizations and even flat-out lies” – about the SAVE America Act, and Rebeka Zeljko debunks three of them. 

            1. ‘It’s already illegal!’

The SAVE America Act aims to protect ballots from election fraud, particularly from illegal aliens and noncitizens. Democrats are quick to point out that it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in elections, and those Democrats who are willing to admit that noncitizens voting does occasionally happen insist it takes place at a negligible rate.

This is partially true. It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in American elections, and when it does happen, estimates show it occurs less than 1% of the time. But even if the rate is extremely low, it’s not zero. And while many elections are decisive victories, some are decided by razor-thin margins, making every ballot count….

2. ‘Jim Crow 2.0’

Democrats are no stranger to playing the race card, claiming that requiring photo ID somehow unfairly affects minorities. Perhaps most notable of them all is Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, who unabashedly likened the SAVE Act to Jim Crow-era rules.

“I have said it before and I’ll say it again, the SAVE Act would impose Jim Crow type laws to the entire country and is dead on arrival in the Senate,” Schumer said in a statement earlier this month. “It is a poison pill that will kill any legislation that it is attached to. If House Republicans add the SAVE Act to the bipartisan appropriations package it will lead to another prolonged Trump government shutdown.”

Apart from Schumer’s soft bigotry of low expectations, his claim is simply inaccurate. The SAVE America Act offers a wide range of acceptable documents to prove citizenship, including a valid U.S. passport, a REAL ID that indicates citizenship, a U.S. military identification card that shows birthplace in the U.S., a birth certificate or other equivalent naturalization documents, and even some tribal IDs like the American Indian card.

Presenting a photo ID is also already a requirement to vote in some states as well as for countless other activities and purchases, including boarding a plane and casting a vote as a member of Congress….

3. ‘It’s an attack on women!’

Another claim Democrats have repeatedly made is that the new requirements disproportionately impact women who have changed their names after marriage. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said that the name change “creates a real problem” for her, implying that the legislation is the GOP’s latest attempt to suppress women’s votes.

The absurdity of Warren’s claim is self-evident. Married women often obtain documentation with their new names for other processes that require identification, such as purchasing alcohol or opening a bank account. In additional, women are not limited to producing birth certificates, but also may provide other forms of acceptable ID, such as a passport or a REAL ID.

Even in the rare case that a woman’s ID is not updated with her new legal name, the SAVE America Act explicitly allows for name changes in documentation. The legislation requires states to establish fallback procedures for voters who have changed their names due to marriage, divorce, adoption, or another reason.

            The reality is that none of the proposed requirements are novel or restrictive. They are simply                 common sense. 

What Is the Moorer-Radford Espionage Affair?

Blaze TV host Liz Wheeler interviewed Newsmax chief Washington correspondent James Rosen, “the investigative journalist who blew the lid off the deep state’s secret spying operation against Richard Nixon.” You can watch the interview at this site. 

President Donald Trump has often condemned the “deep state” and the “swamp” and drew only wrath from the general public. Many people considered the idea of the “deep state” to be a conspiracy theory. According to Wheeler, “seven recently declassified documents from Richard Nixon’s 1975 grand jury testimony are evidence that the deep state doesn’t just exist – it’s been forcefully active for decades.”

For clarification purposes, the article by the Blaze TV Staff defined the “deep state” as “the hidden network of unelected bureaucrats, intelligence officials, military leaders, and other insiders who secretly control government policy regardless of who is elected.”

Rosen … has been digging into this story for over 30 years. He explains that the seven newly unsealed pages from Nixon’s secret 1975 grand jury testimony finally confirm one of the most explosive (and deliberately buried) scandals of the Nixon era: the Moorer-Radford espionage affair.

Back in 1971, top military leaders felt ignored by President Nixon and his adviser Henry Kissinger. They were upset that big foreign-policy decisions were being made without them.

In response, the Joint Chiefs of Staff launched a secret spying operation inside the White House. They used a young Navy yeoman named Charles Radford to steal thousands of top-secret documents.

“He took a copy of every document that came across his vision. What he couldn’t copy, he memorized. He dove through waste baskets and burn bags. He literally rifled the briefcases of Henry Kissinger while he slept on overnight flights,” says Rosen.

“It’s estimated that this yeoman stole 5,000 classified documents from the National Security Council over a year’s time, 1970 to ’71, in wartime, and delivered those documents to the Joint Chiefs of Staff through the admirals,” he adds.

When these ultra-sensitive documents Radford had stolen started appearing in newspaper columns just days after high-level meetings, Nixon’s “plumbers” – which Rosen describes as a White House “special investigative unit” – quickly traced the leaks back to Radford and the Pentagon spy ring.

The White House was stunned to discover that the U.S. military had been running an espionage operation against its own commander in chief during wartime.

“[The Senate Armed Services Committee] held classified closed-door hearings, but everybody involved had good reason to want to let the matter drop, and ultimately nothing was done,” says Rosen.

For starters, Nixon didn’t want to publicly “vilify” the military during the Vietnam era, when returning veterans were already facing widespread scorn and being labeled “baby killers,” Rosen explains. Further, Attorney General John Mitchell reminded Nixon of his own administration’s secret operations, making a full-blown scandal risky for everyone.

So the affair was hushed up. Radford and the involved admirals were quietly reassigned to remote posts; the Pentagon liaison office was dissolved; and no charges were filed. Brief classified Senate hearings in 1974 fizzled out amid the Watergate storm.

Rosen, who first detailed this from Nixon’s 1971 White House tapes in his 2002 Atlantic article “Nixon and the Chiefs,” says these seven newly declassified pages from Nixon’s 1975 grand jury testimony add the former president’s own sworn account of the betrayal.

It shows unelected military leaders actively undermining an elected president over policy disagreements – proof, he argues, that the deep state isn’t a modern myth but a decades-old “beast.”

Why Should Young Adults Marry and Have Families?

It is no secret that all nations in the world are shrinking in population and are below the replacement rate with births. Soon after his inauguration to his second term, “President Trump signed an executive order directing his administration to develop policy recommendations to protect access to in-vitro fertilization, expand its availability, and lower its cost to patients,” according to an article by Aaron Kheriaty published at The Blaze. 

In October [2025], the administration announced additional measures to lower costs for IVF and common fertility drugs and explore pathways like expanded employer benefits or excepted benefit categories for assisted reproductive technologies. While this included joint efforts across federal agencies to make this costly intervention more affordable, the administration stopped short of imposing broad new federal mandates for insurance coverage or direct government funding of IVF….

The problem of below-replacement fertility rates in the United States – which poses serious demographic, social, and economic challenges – has gained some political attention since the last election.

As of 2024, the fertility rate in the U.S. stands at a record low of 1.6 births per woman of childbearing age, well below the replacement rate of 2.1. This drop continues a downward trend that began in the early 2000s and accelerated after the 2008 recession.

Kheriaty thinks the idea that more access to IVF will solve the “fertility crisis is pure fantasy” for two reasons: (1) It “will prove cost-prohibitive” and (2) “the success rates tend to be low.” “Instead of putting all our eggs in one basket, we need a capacious approach to supporting fertility that does more to address the root causes of infertility and, whenever possible, restores reproductive function the way nature intended.” There are also ethical reasons to try a unique way to improve fertility.

President Trump is not the only leader who is concerned about the declining birth rate. In his October 2025 General Conference address, then-President of the Quorum of the Twelve and now President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Dallin H. Oaks gave the following counsel. 

The family proclamation, announced 30 years ago, declares that “the family is ordained of God” and “is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” It also declares “that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.” And “we further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.” As then-Elder Russell M. Nelson taught a Brigham Young University audience, the family is “pivotal to God’s plan…. In fact, a purpose of the plan is to exalt the family.” 

The Church of Jesus Christ is sometimes known as a family-centered church. It is! Our relationship to God and the purpose of our mortal life are explained in terms of the family. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the plan of our Heavenly Father for the benefit of His spirit children. We can truly say that the gospel plan was first taught to us in the council of an eternal family, it is implemented through our mortal families, and its intended destiny is to exalt the children of God in eternal families.

Despite that doctrinal context, there is opposition. In the United States we are suffering from a deterioration in marriage and childbearing. For nearly a hundred years the proportion of households headed by married couples has declined, and so has the birthrate. The marriages and birthrates of our Church members are much more positive, but they have also declined significantly. It is vital that Latter-day Saints do not lose their understanding of the purpose of marriage and the value of children. That is the future for which we strive. “Exaltation is a family affair,” President Nelson has taught us. “Only through the saving ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ can families be exalted.”

The national declines in marriage and childbearing are understandable for historic reasons, but Latter-day Saint values and practices should improve – not follow – those trends.