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.

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

·         Dating resilience is low among young adults.

·         There is a dating-marriage-skills gap.

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

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

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

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

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

Will the Senate Pass the SAVE America Act?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Is Immigration Law Not a Suggestion?

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

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

What the court actually said

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

The Fifth Circuit answered no.

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

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

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

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

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

Long-delayed enforcement

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

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

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

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

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

Asylum is not a loophole

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law on the books vs. law in practice

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

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

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

Why this ruling matters

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

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

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

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

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

How Often Do You Show Your Identification?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Is Melania Trump?

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

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

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

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

Melania’s Philosophy

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

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

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

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

A Behind-the-Scenes Experience

The film also offers some personal moments.

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

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

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

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

Will Congress Pass the SAVE America Act?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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