How Can We Develop Faith Like Unto That of Abraham?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to Genesis 18-23 in a lesson titled “Is Any Thing Too Hard for the Lord?” The lesson was introduced by the following information. 

Abraham and Sarah’s life, filled with events both heartbreaking and heartwarming, is evidence of a truth Abraham learned in a vision—that we are on earth to be proven, “to see if [we] will do all things whatsoever the Lord [our] God shall command” (Abraham 3:25). Would Abraham and Sarah prove faithful? Would they continue to have faith in God’s promise of a large posterity, even when they were still childless in their old age? And once Isaac was born, would their faith endure the unthinkable—a command to sacrifice the very son through whom God had promised to fulfill that covenant?

Abraham and Sarah trusted God, and He trusted them (see Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3). In Genesis 18-23, we find stories from the lives of Abraham, Sarah, and others that can prompt us to think about our own willingness to believe God’s promises, to flee wickedness and never look back, and to trust God regardless of the sacrifice. In proving us, God also improves us.

This scripture block contains numerous principles, including: (1) The Lord fulfills His promises in His own time (Genesis 18:9-14; 21:1-7); (2) The Lord commands me to flee wickedness and not look back (Genesis 19:12-29); (3) What did Lot’s wife do wrong? (Genesis 19:26); (4) Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac is a similitude of God (Genesis 22:1-19). This essay will discuss principle #4 about Abraham’s sacrifice.

We do not know all the reasons that God commanded Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice, but we know it was to test Abraham’s faith in God. We also know that it was “a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son” (Jacob 4:5). There are numerous symbols or similarities between Abraham’s offering of Isaac and the Father’s offering of His Son, Jesus Christ. You might consider making a chart like the one below as you study Genesis 22:1-19.

 

Abraham and Isaac                                             Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ

Isaac was the only begotten son of Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 22:2; see also Hebrews 11:17).	Jesus is the Only Begotten of the Father (John 3:16).
Isaac was to be offered in place of a lamb (Genesis 22:7-9).	Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God (John 1:29).

 

In your studies, you could look for symbols or similarities to the Savior’s atoning sacrifice that you find most meaningful. You might sing or review the lyrics of a hymn that shows Heavenly Father’s love for us, such as “God Loved Us, So He Sent His Son,” Hymns,  no. 187. You might record your feelings about Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and the sacrifice that They made for you and me. Here is a link to a video about Abraham’s sacrifice. 

President Jeffrey R. Holland’s message “Behold the Lamb of God” (Ensign or Liahona, May 2019, 44-46) will add to our study about the sacrifice of the Savior. 

Brothers and sisters, this hour ordained of the Lord is the most sacred hour of our week. By commandment, we gather for the most universally received ordinance in the Church. It is in memory of Him who asked if the cup He was about to drink could pass, only to press on because He knew that for our sake it could not pass. It will help us if we remember that a symbol of that cup is slowly making its way down the row toward us at the hand of an 11- or 12-year-old deacon.

When the sacred hour comes to present our sacrificial gift to the Lord, we do have our own sins and shortcomings to resolve; that’s why we’re there. But we might be more successful in such contrition if we are mindful of the other broken hearts and sorrowing spirits that surround us. Seated not far away are some who may have wept—outwardly or inwardly—through the entire sacramental hymn and the prayers of those priests. Might we silently take note of that and offer our little crust of comfort and our tiny cup of compassion—might we dedicate it to them? or to the weeping, struggling member who is not in the service and, except for some redemptive ministering on our part, won’t be there next week either? or to our brothers and sisters who are not members of the Church at all but are our brothers and sisters? There is no shortage of suffering in this world, inside the Church and out, so look in any direction and you will find someone whose pain seems too heavy to bear and whose heartache seems never to end. One way to “always remember him” would be to join the Great Physician in His never-ending task of lifting the load from those who are burdened and relieving the pain of those who are distraught.

How Can We Prepare to Escape in Time of Emergency?

Families are stronger when they are prepared to act quickly in times of emergency, and strong families make communities, states, and nations stronger. There are numerous types of emergencies, such as house fires, floods, or wars, when families are forced to leave their house with little notice. Those who are prepared in advance can act quickly.

The U.S. State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem told their nonessential staff to leave TODAY. Individuals and families were warned that airline seats would be in high demand. “Focus on getting a seat to anyplace from which you can then continue travel to DC, but the first priority will be getting expeditiously out of country.” 

This is obviously a “first come first served” situation, similar to Afghanistan and Vietnam. Most of us can remember the flights out of Afghanistan with crowds of people trying to get on the few remaining airplanes. Older individuals can remember the fall of Vietnam and people climbing on the roofs of buildings, hoping to get into a helicopter to safety.

Not all emergencies fall into this category. Most emergencies may cover a large area, such as a wildfire or a flood, but individuals are basically on their own to get out.

Preparation is key to survival in many of the emergencies – physical survival first and then moving forward into future life. So how can one prepare for such an emergency?

This site gave valuable insight into how to “Be Prepared in Case You Need to Evacuate.” It gave “some key steps to consider” when preparing for a quick escape in case of an emergency. 

·         Create an emergency kit: Include essentials like water, non-perishable food, medications, and important documents [and information]. [Include communication devices and anything critical to life after the escape.]

·         Plan multiple evacuation routes: Ensure everyone in your household knows where to go and how to get there. [Identify exits to use and how to communicate with each other.]

·         Stay informed: Sign up for alerts from local emergency management agencies and the National Weather Service.

·         Practice evacuation routes: Walk or drive along each road at different times of day to spot potential obstacles.

·         Designate a meeting spot: Choose a primary location everyone can see from a distance to gather after leaving the house.

·         [Be aware of your surroundings and understand potential or real risks in the area, such as wildfires, flooding, or downed electrical wires.]

The site almost guarantees success: “By following these steps, you can ensure a quick and safe escape in case of an emergency. Remember to keep your emergency kit updated and to stay informed about local conditions.”

Why Is Greenlandic Security Essential to America?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns national security. With Russia and China venturing into the Arctic, America would be wise to install deterrents as quickly as possible. President Donald Trump recognized the threat to America and said that America needed to acquire Greenland. There were discussions, and the United States came away with the ability to own certain parts of Greenland, which would be sovereign territory to the U.S., on which to build military bases.

These discussions brought to forefront “the issue of Chinese and Russian threats to the forefront, particularly as it relates to their growing interest in the arctic,” according to an article by Robert Peters, senior research fellow for Strategic Deterrence at The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for National Security.

As noted elsewhere, China seeks to establish economic presence in the Arctic – and almost assuredly, long-term options for military operations in the region, to include “space and satellite warfare to strategic positioning of nuclear-armed submarines.”

Russia similarly has increased its air and maritime operations in the Arctic and may bring its gray zone activities into the region as a means to disrupt NATO activities.

Indeed, the prospect for America’s adversaries to fire missile salvos at the United States is so grave that it prompted one retired Air Force general to write, “Nowhere is America’s exposure to attack more acute than from its Arctic approaches – the most direct corridor through which both Russia and China could strike the United States.” What then should be done about Greenlandic security, given the emerging threat to the Arctic, as well as North America and Europe?

To begin with, the United States and Denmark should increase their joint military presence in Greenland so that they can better monitor air and maritime threats within the region.

Such efforts should include ground forces trained in arctic or alpine combat stationed at key points along Greenland’s northern coast.

Indeed, Greenland would be an ideal location for NATO militaries to engage in arctic training operations – which not only benefits military members engaged in such exercises but helps establish a military presence.

In addition, the U.S. and Denmark should work with other NATO allies, such as Finland and Canada, to station icebreakers along the northernmost settlements, such as Qaanaaq and Ittoqqortoormiit. Such icebreakers would enable allied ships to operate in the Arctic year-round, which could enable allied navies to engage in effective combat operations even in winter, but are also important when it comes to sovereignty claims. Russia’s icebreaker fleet, the largest in the world, enables Moscow to deploy naval assets to the Arctic, regardless of ice coverage.

Also, the United States should rotate Army units capable of carrying medium- and intermediate-range fires to Greenland so that they can engage and, if necessary, destroy sea and air threats that may transit arctic air or maritime space.

Perhaps most importantly, Greenland is an ideal place in which the U.S. can station sensors and radars that would be critically important to building the Golden Dome missile defense architecture….

If Denmark proposes such concrete steps to Washington, wherein both countries could cooperate to shore up Greenlandic security, both nations’ legitimate security concerns could be address. At the same time, they would be able to mitigate Russian and Chinese threats to North America, Europe, and the Arctic.

 

 

What Is Best – Common Sense or Crazy?

President Donald Trump gave his first State of the Union address for his second term of office. According to Jarrett Stepman at The Daily Signal, “the central theme of the speech [was] common sense versus crazy.” 

Stepman began by saying that “one of President Trump’s signature lines” was “These people are crazy. I’m telling you, they’re crazy.” He continued as follows:

Despite the decade-long attempt to portray him as a deranged and illegitimate shock to the system, it’s Trump who is bring back normalcy as Democrats descend into madness.

On point after point, Trump delivered factual assessments about where the country is compared to a few years ago. He noted that crime and inflation are down, American savings accounts are up, and our enemies are on their back heels as opposed to being on the march.

At every turn, as Trump point out, Democrats have punted in their responsibilities to protect and represent the American people.

On no set of issues was that clearer than his record on immigration and border enforcement. And that’s where Trump landed his biggest blow.

Trump rightly pointed out that since returning to office the border crisis has all but dissolved.

“In the past nine months, zero illegal aliens have been admitted to the United States,” Trump said. “The flow of deadly fentanyl across our border is down by a record 56%... And last year, the murder rate saw its single largest decline in recorded history … the lowest number in over 125 years.”

By the reaction of Democrats in attendance, you would have guessed this is all terrible news.

And maybe from their perspective, it is. They appear to have been counting on former President Joe Biden’s border crisis to go on indefinitely, for their constellation of NGOs to continue getting government support to fan its flames, and for taxpayer dollars to keep flowing to their new, imported voters.

Democrats clearly no longer care if immigration happens legally or not, so why should they care if taxpayer dollars are going to legitimate sources as long as their supporters get paid, right?

One of the great lines of the night was when Trump blasted the massive and shameful fraud that occurred under the averted eye of Gov. Tim Walz and the entire Minnesota Democrat political establishment.

“The Somali pirates who ransacked Minnesota remind us that there are large parts of the world where bribery, corruption, and lawlessness are the norm, not the exception,” Trump said. “Importing these cultures through unrestricted immigration and open borders brings those problems right here, to the USA – and it is the American people who pay the price, in higher medical bills, car insurance rates, rent, taxes, and perhaps most importantly, crime.” …

Trump effectively laid out that he was, unlike his opposition, going to prioritize American citizens. He was going to take commonsense, level-headed positions that most Americans still believe in.

Trump also made it clear that if his opponents on the left retake federal power, they will immediately return to the ruinous open borders and many other terrible policies that Americans voted against in 2024.

In a sense, it was the way Democrats acted Tuesday night that said nearly as much as

Trump’s speech. House Speaker Mike Johnson said it well when he noted that it was “good” for the American people to see just how “shameful” and out of touch the opposition had really become….

What Did the Supreme Court Decide on These Cases?

 According to Fred Lucas, chief news correspondent for The Daily Signal, the Supreme Court announced that it will release opinions o February 20, 24, 25. Anticipated decisions would affect “the future of President Donald Trump’s tariffs, new congressional maps, and an expected strike at the ‘deep State.’” 

Among the most anticipated rulings is on Trump’s tariffs, imposed last year without authorization from Congress. Tariffs are a core element of his economic agenda….

At issue is whether the president exceeded his executive branch authority by imposing tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which is intended to address emergencies only. Normally, trade policy, including tariffs, is enacted through legislation in Congress and signed by the president….

The case marks uncharted waters for the Supreme Court, which has never ruled on how far the International Emergency Economic Powers Act extends.

[The fact that the United States was dying economically after the failed Biden administration might be considered an emergency.]

Another major case could involve justices issuing an opinion that strikes a blow against the federal bureaucracy in Washington.

This specific case of Slaughter v. Trump regards Trump’s ouster of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. But the court’s ruling will affect other federal boards and commissions with members appointed by Republican and Democrat presidents.

The members, in theory, operate without political concerns. They serve for a set term until it expires….

The high court, in the 1935 precedent in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, ruled Congress could enact laws limiting the power of a president to fire executive officials of an independent agency.

In oral arguments, a majority of justices seemed near certain to scrap the 90-year-old precedent, which has protected the federal bureaucracy.

In another case that could be ruled on in the coming days, the high court also heard arguments in a redistricting case in October that could affect which party controls the House of Representatives.

A majority of justices seemed inclined to uphold the congressional and legislative maps in Louisiana.

Liberal groups have sounded the alarm that the forthcoming ruling in Louisiana v. Callais could net Republicans up to 19 new sets nationwide in the U.S. House of Representatives, as the decision could impact parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The dispute began after the 2020 census when Louisiana redrew six congressional districts with just one majority-black congressional district.

The NAACP and others sued, alleging the new map resulting from the 2020 census violated Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, which bans race-based gerrymandering of districts.

The state had one majority-black district from the 2010 census, but NAACP and others contend that the state’s black population shifted and grew, resulting in the need for a second district.

In 2022, U.S. District Chief Judge Shelly Dick sided with the NAACP and ordered the state to redraw the map with two majority-black districts.

After the state created a new map, other state voters sued, asserting the new map violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14^th Amendment, since the boundary lines of the second district had been drawn based on race. The 5^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the new map.

Yet another high-profile case involves campaign finance law. Justices heard arguments in December in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, and a majority seemed inclined to further roll back campaign finance limits.

If the Supreme Court sides with the Republicans in the case, it would mean candidates can accept funding directly from a political party and also discuss with party officials how to use the funds.

The case emerged in 2022, when plaintiffs, including then-U.S. Senate candidate JD Vance, now vice president, as well as then-Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, sued the Federal Election Commission. The plaintiffs contend that coordinated expenditure limits violate the First Amendment.

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.

Who Is Marco Rubio?

My VIP for this week is Secretary of State Marco Rubio for his remarks during the 62^nd Munich Security Conference on February 14, 2026, in Munich, Germany. In his article published at The Daily Signal, Anthony Iafrate, associate editor for the Daily Caller News Foundation, called Rubio’s remarks and tone an “apparent olive branch to Europe.” European leaders gave Rubio a standing ovation. 

Iafrate reminded his readers that there are increased “tensions between the two powers” [US and Europe] since President Donald Trump sought to acquire Greenland, currently a territory of Denmark. Trump’s push for Greenland came after newly inaugurated Vice President JD Vance gave a more critical message at the national security conference in 2025. Rubio’s message was more palatable to the Europeans.

“For the United States and Europe, we belong together. America was founded 250 years ago, but the roots began here on this continent [Europe] log before,” Rubio said during his speech. “We are part of one civilization – Western civilization. We are bound to one another by the deepest bonds that nations could share, forged by centuries of shared history, Christian faith, culture, heritage, language, ancestry, and the sacrifices our forefathers made together for the common civilization to which we have fallen heir.”

“And so this is why we Americans may sometimes come off as a little direct and urgent in our counsel. This is why President Trump demands seriousness and reciprocity from our friends here in Europe,” the secretary of state continued. “The reason why, my friends, is because we care deeply. We care deeply about your future and ours.”

“And if at time we disagree, our disagreements come from our profound sense of concern about a Europe with which we are connected – not just economically, not just militarily,” he added. “We are connected spiritually and we are connected culturally. We want Europe to be strong. We believe that Europe must survive, because the two great wars of the last century serve for us as history’s constant reminder that ultimately, our destiny is and will always be intertwined with yours, because we know that the fate of Europe will never be irrelevant to our own.”

Rubio went on to list various historical and cultural achievements of Europe, including the continent being the birthplace of classical liberalism, “the rule of law, the universities, and the scientific revolution,” as well as its profound contributions to classical art, literature, classical music, and rock music.

The secretary also stressed the need for both the U.S. and Europe to “gain control of our national borders,” calling mass migration “a crisis which is transforming and destabilizing societies all across the West.”

“Controlling who and how many people enter our countries, this is not an expression of xenophobia. It is not hate. It is a fundamental act of national sovereignty,” he said. “And the failure to do so is not just an abdication of one of our most basic duties owed to our people. It is an urgent threat to the fabric of our societies and the survival of our civilization itself.”

He also called to reform “global institutions,” such as the United Nations.

“[W]e do not want our allies to be weak, because that makes us weaker. We want allies who can defend themselves so that no adversary will ever be tempted to test our collective strength,” Rubio stated.

“This is why we do not want our allies to be shackled by guilt and shame. We want allies who are proud of their culture and of their heritage, who understand that we are heirs to the same great and noble civilization, and who, together with us, are willing and able to defend it,” he emphasized.

 

How Can We Influence the Rising Generation to Love America?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the need for Americans to love America. The education system in America is responsible for the decline in love of nation, according to Reagan Campbell, an intern for The Daily Signal. 

Americans are losing love for their country. The education system is taking our young in a different direction by dismissing our nation’s past and introducing ideologies contradicting our founding principles. Much of our culture seems determined to treat America’s 250^th birthday with condemnation rather than celebration.

Yet in this age of pessimism toward our nation’s past, Matthew Spalding offered a new invitation: to fall in love with American again – by rediscovering the story and principles of the Declaration of Independence.

The Hillsdale College professor introduced his new book, “The Making of the American Mind: The Story of Our Declaration of Independence,” this week at the Washington, D.C., campus of Hillsdale College.

Spalding’s introductory speech highlighted the beauty of the declaration, its founding truths, the role of prudence, and the use of theology.

America is beautiful not only because of its land, but because of its story, he explained. “We have this wonderful document, like a symphony; has different tones, different speeds, moments. It all comes together.”

Spalding underscored that the declaration invokes prudence as a governing standard. He argued that this principle is the document’s hinge point, the mechanism that allows leaders to navigate between reality and abstract truth. He noted, “Politics requires us sometimes to make compromises. To do things that are imperfect, because we’re imperfect.”

Spalding emphasizes the fact that “God appears five times in the declaration … notice how those references to God become more personal and intimate as God proceeds? Such that by the end, this creator, God, now sees into our hearts.”

History, he shared, has pointed back to the references to God in the decades following the declaration. The uprising and resistance of America’s Founding Fathers against the British reminds us of our defensiveness and freedom we have in our Creator. Abraham Lincoln’s first speech in Chicago reminds the audience to remember our Creator.

Our country’s independence story is a testament about our patriotism. It is “what makes America exceptional.”

In answer to a question post-speech about how to convince middle school students to love America, Spalding said to capture the imagination – capture the excitement “about the American Revolution, which is a wonderful story,” the story about what happened. Spalding has “passion for teaching the next generation” with a goal to “help them fall in love with their country again.”

He added that understanding American history can help young people address the challenges they face. They “are looking for something that’s strong and sacrificial and manly. Our founding tells that story. And it’s that American spirit that then creates these great heroes and will hopefully inspire and create other great Americans in the future going forward.”

How Does an Individual Obtain Heaven?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Historical and Scriptural Context

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

Connection to the Book of Mormon

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

Symbolic and Theological Lessons

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

Language and the Adamic Tongue

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

Summary

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