Are Young Women Responsible for Falling Marriage Rates?

Marriages are stronger when husbands and wives work together as equal partners, and strong marriages usually result in strong families, communities, states, and nations. Last Thursday night I posted a discussion about an article by Maria Baer and Brad Wilcox titled “Opinion: The Amazonian Trap.” Tonight’s discussion will be based on an article by McArthur Krishna in a rebuttal to the earlier article.

In her article titled “Opinion: Single women are no longer choosing shoddy marriages –what men can do about it,” Krishna explained that today’s young women are rejecting the idea that any marriage is better than none. 

Increasingly, single women are rejecting the idea that any marriage is better than no marriage. They are not turning away from love, commitment or family; they are turning away from marriages in which they are expected to obey, carry a disproportionate share of the work or have their voices routinely disregarded.

The question is not simply why fewer young women are choosing marriage. The more important question is: What kind of marriage do we hold up as worthwhile … and why is the onus on young women …?

Recent research suggests that many young women have good reason to be cautious. Across attitudes toward authority, the division of domestic labor and whose voice carries weight in a relationship, the evidence reveals persistent inequalities that can prevent marriage from being a place of mutual thriving.

For example, a recent study conducted by King’s College London of 23,000 participants from 29 countries found that almost one-third of Gen Z men thought that wives should always obey their husbands and that men should be the final decision-makers in a relationship.

Another prominent study from the University of Michigan found that when men marry, they gain an hour of discretionary time – and women lose seven. A more recent study by Pew Research found that even when women earn as much as their spouse, wives still contribute double the number of hours required to maintain a house and family.

Finally, a UCLA study found that wives incorporate relevant information from their spouse … while men do not.

Taken together, these studies and others indicate that flourishing marriages are in danger due to lack of partnership.

While both men and women are responsible for creating healthy marriages, the recent piece published in the Deseret News focused only on what women can do. Here, let’s talk about what men can do.

1. Men can show up as partners

Partnership marriages mean marriages where both partners’ needs and wishes are considered so all thrive. Decisions are made as equals rather than hierarchically. Resources such as time and money are split….

2. Men can contribute more to family life

Married men can evaluate their holistic contribution to married and family life. If they provide financially with a full-time job, what is contributed after those work hours? (A full-time parenting job is much more than 9-5.) This is an opportunity to learn about the concept of “mental load.” … Married men need to consciously choose to contribute to the domestic demands of family life.

For unmarried men, there’s an opportunity to learn the skills to successfully take care of your future family. Many men would do anything to protect their families — so start by learning to do laundry, cook, clean and communicate. (These activities keep your family healthy and strong!)

A comprehensive study from Europe found that when men participated in family life more, divorce dropped 34%.

3. Men can learn to listen to women

If your first instinct is to discount this information, you might wonder why. The Gottmans (the renowned husband-wife team that has done the most comprehensive research on healthy marriages … and what prompts divorce) say that respect is a key foundation to a healthy marriage. Listening to your partner and attempting to understand where they are coming from is an integral component of respect.

If we are serious about strengthening marriage, the solution is not to pressure young women to marry or to tell them their expectations are too high. The onus is not on one party.

The question is not whether young women are willing to choose marriage. The more valid question is: “Are men and women, together, willing to build marriages worth choosing?”

The goal is a divine marriage where both parties contribute to creating a relationship where joy, vitality and mutual thriving are present.

 

Will the 2026 Mid-Term Election Have Integrity?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns election integrity. President Donald Trump is insisting on honest and fair elections in the upcoming federal elections. On March 31, 2026, President Trump signed an executive order on voting in federal elections. The order, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” would give overlapping responsibilities to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Postal Service. The order gave DHS the responsibility to compile a list for each state of U.S. citizens who will be at least 18 years old by Election Day, and the Postal Service the responsibility to transmit ballots from only voters whose names appear on the list.

As they usually do, 20 Left-leaning states, led by California, challenged the order, arguing that eligibility to vote is a states’ right issue under the U.S. Constitution. Emma Pitts at the Deseret News reported on the issue as follows. 

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani sided with the states on June 25, and [she] prohibited the federal government from implementing the order ahead of the Nov. 3 election.

“The States alone determine voter-eligibility requirements, subject only to the outer limits of the Constitution,” the Massachusetts judge ruled, adding, “This injunction does not bar the federal government from providing assistance with verifying citizenship or eligibility of any voter if the assistance is provided at the request of any State and within the framework provided by Congress.”

Talwandi refused the Trump administration’s request for a pause on her injunction, causing the defendants to then request a pause from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1^st Circuit. The appeals court ultimately refused to pause the lower court’s injunction:

“Were the EO (executive order) to take effect for the elections taking place in September and November, it would sow confusion and threaten disenfranchisement of many eligible voters. And given that the Government ‘make(s) no argument that (its) actions were legal on the merits,’ and ‘there is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful (government) action,’ the public interest does not favor a stay.”

In the federal government’s last attempt to lift the lower court injunction while the underlying appeal continues in the 1^st Circuit, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed to the Supreme Court.

The filing does not ask the Supreme Court to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of Trump’s election executive order right now; instead, it asks the justices to determine what rules should be in effect while that litigation continues.

“A stay – along with an immediate administrative stay – is also warranted because the injunction below imposes irreparable harm on the government,” Sauer argued. “Absent a stay, the government will be unable to obtain appellate relief from an order that bars implementation of a presidential policy that seeks to ensure voter integrity in the upcoming November 2026 election. Accordingly, both the irreparable harm factor and the public interest favor the government.”

On Tuesday, 12 states, headed by Alabama, sided with the Trump administration’s request to temporarily pause the 1^st Circuit’s order while litigation continues.

 

Articles of Faith: What Do Latter-day Saints Believe About the Fall of Adam?

Article of Faith 2

   We believe that men will be punished for their own sins,

                    and not for Adam’s transgression.

 This essay will begin a discussion about the Fall of Adam and Eve and the second article in my series on the Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, before discussing the Fall, we should lay a proper foundation for the conditions under which Adam made his decision.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches as doctrine that Heavenly Father bestowed upon His spirit children certain inalienable rights while in the spirit world. Moral agency, or freedom to choose, is one of those rights. Elder James E. Talmage explained this doctrine as follows (Articles of Faith [1890], 52-55).

The Church teaches as a strictly scriptural doctrine, that man has inherited among the inalienable rights conferred upon him by his divine Father, freedom to choose the good or the evil in life, to obey or disobey the Lord’s commands, as he may elect. This right cannot be guarded with more jealous care than is bestowed upon it by God Himself; for in all His dealings with man He has left the mortal creature free to choose and to act, without compulsion or restraint beyond the influences of paternal counsel and direction. True, He has given commandments and has established statutes, with promises of blessings for compliance and penalties for infraction; but in the choice of these, men are untrammeled. In this respect, man is no less free than are the angels except as he fettered himself with the bonds of sin and forfeited his power of will and force of soul. The individual has as full a measure of capability to violate the laws of health, the requirements of nature, and the commandments of God in matters both temporal and spiritual, as he has to obey all such; in the one case he brings upon himself the penalties that belong to the broken law; as in the other he inherits the specific blessings and the added freedom that attend a law-abiding life. Obedience to law is the habit of the free man; the transgressor fears the law, for he brings upon himself deprivation and restraint, not because of the law, which would have protected him in his freedom, but because of his antagonism to law. [Emphasis added.]

The predominant attribute of justice, recognized as part of the divine nature, forbids the thought that man should receive promises of reward for righteousness, and threats of punishment for evil deeds, if he possessed no power of independent action. It is no more a part of God’s plan to compel men to work righteousness than it is His purpose to permit evil powers to force His childr4en into sin…. [Emphasis added.]

A knowledge of good and evil is essential to the advancement that God has made possible for His children to achieve; and this knowledge can be best gained by actual experience, with the contrasts of good and its opposite plainly discernible. Therefore has man been placed upon earth subject to the influence of good and wicked powers, with a knowledge of the conditions surrounding him, and the heaven-born right to choose for himself….

Samuel, a converted Lamanite [taught:] “for behold, God hath given unto you a knowledge and he hath made you free. He hath given unto you that ye might know good from evil, and he hath given unto you that ye might choose life or death” (Helaman 14:30).

When the plans for creating and peopling the earth were under discussion in heaven, Lucifer [Satan; the devil] sought to destroy the free [moral] agency of man by obtaining power to force the human family to do his will, promising the Father that by such means he would redeem all mankind so that no one of them should be lost. This proposition was rejected, while the original purpose of the Father – to use persuasive influence of wholesome precept and sacrificing example with the inhabitants of the earth, then to leave them free to choose for themselves – was agreed upon; and the one to be known as the Only Begotten Son was chosen as the chief instrument in carrying that purpose into effect.

Heavenly Father gave each son and daughter an important and power gift when He bestowed moral agency upon everyone. However, the gift came with responsibility. Elder Talmage explained as follows (Articles of Faith [1890], 55-57.

Man’s Accountability for his individual acts is as complete as is his agency to elect for himself. The ultimate result of good deeds is happiness, the consequence of evil is misery; these follow in every man’s life by inviolable laws. There is a plan of judgment divinely foreordained, by which every man will be called to answer for his deeds; and not for deeds alone but for his words also and even for the thoughts of his heart…. John the Revelator was permitted to learn in vision something of the scenes connected with the last judgment; he wrote: “And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works….”

The execution of judgment is not always made to follow the acts of men immediately; good deeds may not be at once rewarded, nor evil be peremptorily punished; and this is according to divine wisdom, for were it otherwise the test of individual character and the trial of human faith, for which purposes this mortal probation was primarily ordained, would be greatly lessened: as the certainty of immediate pleasure or pain would largely determine human acts to secure the one and avoid the other. Judgment, therefore, is postponed, that every one may prove himself, the good man increasing in righteousness, and the evil-doer having opportunity for repentance and reparation….

It is the prerogative of Jesus Christ to judge mankind, and He will do it as His own purposes, which are the purposes of His Father, may be best served….

All the above information can be summarized as follows: Heavenly Father desires all His children to return to His presence to live with Him for eternity. However, He will not force any of His children to do so. In other words, He desires us to want to be with Him because we love Him –not out of duty or out of fear, but out of love. Wanting to be with Him is different than simple obedience to His commandments. If we genuinely love Him with all our heart, mind, might, and strength, we will live our lives in such a way that we will be worthy of returning to His presence. The choice is ours, but He stands ready to help us in repenting of our sins and overcoming our weaknesses.

 

  

Is America in a Revolution or a Counterrevolution?

Americans hear of revolutions and counterrevolutions in foreign lands but never consider they are happening inside the United States. Victor David Hanson says that America has “been in aggressive revolutionary cycle for about 50 years.” He explained that “most of the Democratic Party, and now the radical elements” have been striving for revolution. 

Hanson says that they are now accelerating their efforts “to accelerate that efforts as emblemized by the democratic socialists to take control of government, expand it, redistribute income so that many people in blue states especially are paying over 10% of their income, in addition to 38% of their federal tax or two or three percent in Obamacare tax and other add-ons.” Hanson continued as follows.

… And the welfare state, which has distributed over twenty trillion dollars since this started under the Great Society, is getting bigger and bigger, at least until Donald Trump.

And this progressive revolution doesn’t believe in borders. It has let in – we have now 53 million people that were not born in the United States, and in California, it’s over a quarter of the population. It’s all-time high percentage-wise, 16% foreign-born….

And so, the progressive project has given us a real revolution. We never imagined that there were going to be more than two genders or sexes. We never imagined that they would try to normalize biological men taking over women’s sports or dressing among young teenage girls. We never imagined that.

We never imagined that prosecutors would let out career felons who had committed violent acts the same day they were arrested. We didn’t know we were gonna empty the prisons because we felt that punishment, penal punishment was too mean.

We never really felt that our only real democratic country and ally in the Middle East, Israel, we would try to disassociate ourselves, and we would try to romanticize terrorists like Hamas.

But what I’m getting at, this was the progressive project. It was anti-American, it was anti-Western, and it glorified other modes of civilization, so to speak: socialism, communism, anarchism. And it was very critical of the very society who had enriched most Americans.

I say most – the middle class of America is the largest middle class in the world and the most affluent, and our poor are better off than most middle class and upper middle class in other places.

It’s important to remember that there has not been a counter-revolution. Ronald Reagan was the first and really last Republican president that had an economic counterrevolution. It was quite successful. He lowered the tax rate. He deregulated the economy, and by 1983-84, he was growing the economy at 7% GDP growth.

And then, of course, that was watered down in subsequent years. But the two Bushes, candidates like John McCain, Bob Dole, Mitt Romney, their agenda was to slow down the revolution, but not to try to overturn it….

And then came Donald Trump.

He was not – he’s surely not a revolutionary. We were in the middle of a revolution, but he was not a trimmer either. He was a true counterrevolutionary.

The first term, he was not familiar with Washington. He made appointments with people who did not agree with him – not just they did not agree with his methodology, but they didn’t agree with his counter-revolutionary agenda.

But it was still in places working. And what was the result? The result was COVID-19 and the COVID-19 lockdown, and it was aborted.

The second time he came around, he tried to finish the counterrevolution. So he pretty much demolished the subsidies for green energy and re-emphasized oil and gas production, and we became the greatest producer of oil and gas in the history of civilization.

[Trump] sort of said, “We’re not going to regulate AI and robotics, cryptocurrency, genetic engineering, drone. We’re not gonna legislate them out of business. We’re not gonna have antitrust and complete investigations of all these people. We’re gonna promote it. We’re going to promote these new innovations and new technologies.”

And lo and behold, we’re ahead of the Chinese in almost all of them now….

[Trump] did away with DEI [in the military] …. All of a sudden, we have met all of our recruitment figures….

[Trump] said, “I’m going to finish the wall [on the border]. I’m not gonna let anybody stop me. This time there’s going to be a wall, and we are going to deport people. We’re gonna deport a million people in my first year, and we’re gonna make sure a million others self-deport, and we’re gonna go after 500,000 with criminal records.” …

[Trump] went down and basically threatened Panama that we would take over the canal unless they honored our Panama Canal treaty and expelled the Chinese from trying to control the entry and exists of the canal.

[Trump] said to [Nicolas] Maduro, “You better stop because you’re exporting terror and communism and bullying your neighbors.”

[Maduro] didn’t, and Trump extradited him and ended that threat.

And now as we look at Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Bolivia, Argentina, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, I could go on, they’re mostly center right.

So, [Trump] staged a strong counterrevolution by reinforcing the Monroe Doctrine that had been rejected by the Left, and he made South America and Central America now a free market and, for the most part, a society that’s pro-American, with some notable exceptions.

For example, in Nicaragua, a beleaguered Daniel Ortega and a beleaguered Castroite government in Cuba that are both now for the first time in years isolated.

In addition to that, [Trump] made our allies stronger. He used unorthodox methods….

But nonetheless, he said to our allies, “We’re not gonna be in NATO unless you’re real NATO members. You’re not NATO members. You’re not arming yourself. You’re not abiding by your commitments.”

Same held true to Canada. And lo and behold, now we have much stronger allies, and the alliance is stronger than ever.

What am I getting at? Donald Trump is not a revolutionary. He’s a counterrevolutionary. And what is he trying to do? He’s trying to undo the entire half-century progressive project within four years. That’s an impossible task. And yet he’s trying to do it.

[Trump is] the first authentic counterrevolutionary since Andrew Jackson.

Who Is Sarah Huckabee Sanders?

My VIP for this week is Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders. According to Star Parker Sanders “really care[s] about children and families, put[s] learning as their priority, and let[s] th4e marketplace work to give parents freedom to choose what they see as best for their kids.” 

Under the leadership of Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Arkansas set up its Education Freedom Accounts program, establishing a platform through which parents have available scholarship funding to use to choose where to send their children to school.

Data is now coming in for the program, now in its second year.

Per a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, students participating in the Education Freedom Account program “outperformed nearly 60% of students nationwide in math and English on standardized assessments.”

Further, per the report, there are almost 50,000 students now using these accounts and 81% of K-12 parents support the program – up 20 points from 2023.

The Education Freedom Accounts provided $6,684-$7,627 to each student for educational expenses.

Blue New York state has not opted in to the Education Freedom Tax Credit.

Investor Jeff Yass noted in the Wall Street Journal that, despite New York City spending $42,000 per student in its public schools, scores in math and reading are dismal.

Yass suggests to New York City socialist mayor Mamdani that the $42,000 be split in half, giving a scholarship voucher worth $21,000 for each child and the other $21,000 into a savings account in the child’s name. After 13 years, when the child graduates [from] high school, there would be $300,000 accumulated – assuming a paltry 2% annual interest rate – for college.

We celebrate America’s 250^th birthday with joy, even though a lot is not what it should or could be.

Freedom is precious and magnificent because it leaves the door perpetually open for renewal.

One party, Democrats, thinks that freedom is the problem.

Republicans know that freedom is the answer.

Young new Republican leaders such as Sanders are shining examples of the great potential ahead.

What Is the SAVE Database?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns election integrity and clean voter rolls. According to an article written by Fred Lucas and published at The Daily Signal, the federal government – the Department of Homeland Security—has a database to help identify dead people and noncitizens who are registered to vote. The program is the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database. 

Using the SAVE database, twenty-five states have “identified hundreds of thousands of dead people and noncitizens registered to vote.” However, only ten states “have fully processed the voter data through the … SAVE database.”

SAVE is primarily used by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to verify eligibility for government benefits. The Trump administration made it available to states to cross-reference voter registration data.

So far, 25 states have cross-checked more than 68 million voter registration records through SAVE and found 28,000 noncitizens and 400,000 dead people registered to vote. As more states finalize the process, the number will likely grow.

Among just those 10 states that completely process their voter data through the SAVE system, they found more than 10,000 noncitizens and more than 360,000 dead people on the voter rolls, according to DHS.

A DHS memo says, “These states are serious about ensuring that only US citizens vote in US elections.”

Georgia, in using the SAVE system, found that 2,540 noncitizens had at some point registered to vote. It also found 42,776 deceased people on the rolls….

Several other of the 10 states that completed the process corroborated the numbers referenced in the DHS memo.

Ohio identified only 769 noncitizens on the voter rolls, but 59,774 dead people were listed….

North Carolina’s review determined 34,622 deceased people and 1,599 noncitizens were on the voter rolls….

In Texas, the nation’s second-most populous state, there are 111,573 dead people and 2,296 noncitizens on the voter rolls, according to DHS.

Louisiana had 15,231 dead people on the voter rolls, and 419 noncitizens, according to DHS….

Alabama, using the SAVE system, found 33,165 dead people on the rolls, and 465 noncitizens, according to DHS.

Missouri had 10,660 dead people registered to vote, and 1,112 noncitizens. Kansas has 10,197 dead registered voters and 449 noncitizens on the voter lists, according to DHS.

Idaho had 4,328 dead people on the voter rolls and 49 noncitizens.

Why Does God Require Humility and Obedience?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to 2 Chronicles 14-20; 26; 30 in a lesson titled “Our Eyes Are upon Thee.” The following information introduced the lesson. 

The Kingdom of Judah was surrounded. Armies from three powerful enemy nations were all advancing at once, prepared for battle. In this desperate moment of need, Jehoshaphat, King of Judah, turned to the King of heaven and earth. Jehoshaphat gathered his people at the temple and prayed. He acknowledged their human weakness and pleaded for deliverance. In response, the Lord promised His protection: “Fear not, nor be dismayed” (2 Chronicles 20:17).

We might not have an invading army at our doorstep threatening to destroy us, but sometimes we do feel surrounded by adversity and evil. Our path to deliverance is the same one Jehoshaphat sought, and our prayer can be like his too: “O our God, … we have no might against this great company that cometh against us; neither know we what to do: but our eyes are upon thee” (2 Chronicles 20:12).

In 2 Chronicles 14-30, you will read about Jehoshaphat and other kings in Judah. Consider how their faith-driven reforms, victories, and challenges can apply to your own life.

The scripture block contains the following principles: (1) Trusting in God will bring me peace             

(2 Chronicles 14-16); (2) I can defend the truth, even when it’s unpopular; (3) In difficult times, I can turn to God and his prophets (2 Chronicles 20:1-25); (4) Pride leads to destruction

(2 Chronicles 26:3-21); (5) I can be a peacemaker (2 Chronicles 30).

Study help with this lesson is to identify simple statements of truth. Elder Neal A. Maxwell taught: “The scriptures offer us so many doctrinal diamonds. And when the light of the Spirit plays upon their several facets, they sparkle with celestial sense and illuminate the path we are to follow” (“According to the Desire of [Our] Hearts,” Ensign, Nov. 1996, 21). As you study the scriptures, consider taking time to identify, mark, and ponder short yet power messages. Here are some examples found in 2 Chronicles 14:11; 15:7; 18:13; 20:15; 26:5. Look for other “doctrinal diamonds” in your scripture study.

This essay will discuss principle #4 Pride leads to destruction (2 Chronicles 26:3-21). One of the suggested “doctrinal diamonds” is found in 2 Chronicles 26:5:

5 And [Uzziah] sought God in the days of Zechariah, who had understanding in the visions of God: and as long as he sought the Lord, God made him to prosper.

As with numerous other kings of Judah, Uzziah’s reign began with great accomplishments but ended with tragedy. Uzziah was only sixteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned fifty-two years in Jerusalem.

As long as Uzziah stayed humble and obedient to God, he prospered, and he became powerful. He built cities and towers. He had large herds of animals. He had a large and power army at his command that conquered their enemies near and far. His name and fame spread to foreign nations. However, he did not stay humble but became prideful. The story of Uzziah shows how “pride goeth before a fall.”

16 ¶ But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction: for he transgressed against the Lord his God, and went into the temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of incense.

17 And Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him fourscore priests of the Lord, that were valiant men:

18 And they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, It appertained not  unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thine honour from the Lord God.

19 Then Uzziah was wroth, and had a censer in his hand to burn incense: and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy even rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of the Lord, from beside the incense altar.

20 And Azariah the chief priest, and all the priests, looked upon him, and, behold, he was leprous in his forehead, and they thrust him out from thence; yea, himself hasted also to go out, because the Lord had smitten him.

21 And Uzziah the king was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house, being a leper; for he was cut off from the house of the Lord: and Jotham his son was over the king’s house, judging the people of the land. (2 Chronicles 26:16-21)

Uzziah was powerful and famous, and his life had purpose and meaning as long as he stayed humble and obedient. However, he became prideful and went into the temple to burn incense, a task that only priests – the sons of Aaron or Levites – were allowed to do.

Even though he was King of Judah, he did not have proper authority to burn incense. The result of his pride and disobedience – even as he was in the act – he got leprosy. He was a leper for the rest of his life, and his son Jotham became King of Judah.

God requires His servants to be humble and obedient. He blesses those people who rely on God for their blessings and prospers them. On the other hand, His Spirit withdraws from anyone who is prideful and disobedient, and the blessings stop flowing toward that person – just as it did with Uzziah.

What Is the Amazonian Trap?

Strong families include marriage and children, and strong families strengthen communities, states, and nations. However, young women are turning away from love and marriage, according to an article by Maria Baer and Brad Wilcox in the Deseret News.

Maria is a journalist and co-host of the “Breakpoint This Week” podcast with The Colson Center for Christian Worldview. Brad Wilcox is director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and senior fellow of the Institute for Family Studies.

Legend has it that the Amazons, the warrior women of Greek mythology, built a civilization on a single premise: Women could build a world of their own without men.

The Amazons kept no husbands. They raised only daughters, sending their sons away, and they even cauterized their breasts so nothing would get in the way of their ability to fight. The legend reflects a fantasy that has appealed to different times, places and people: that a woman becomes strongest not by pairing with a man but by providing for and protecting herself — often with the support of some strong sisters.

Millennia later, many young American women are embracing this Amazonian strategy of detachment from men, minus the sword and the horse. They’re doing it by deleting dating apps, posting “boy sober” TikToks, enjoying Sunday brunches spent with just female friends, and hardening their conviction that men are more trouble than they’re worth.

Young women say they are put off by men who toy with their bodies and emotions, and those who seem stuck in “limbo between adolescence and adulthood,” dubbed child-men. They are discouraged by mainstream media depictions of men as emotionally and socially stunted, as well as those presented by influencers who get clicks by painting men and marriage in the worst possible light.

In short, growing numbers of young women are being tempted by heteropessimism.

This pessimism is reflected in young women’s declining faith in love and marriage. Only 24% of women 18–29 believe “married mothers are ultimately happier than other women,” far lower than any other group. High school girls’ hopes for marriage are also retreating: In 2010, more than 80% expected to marry; now it’s just 67%.

Dating tells the same story: We’re in a “dating recession.” Pew found 39% of single women under 40 aren’t even looking for a relationship at all, and our own research at the Institute for Family Studies and the Wheatley Institute shows more than 80% of eligible women in their 20s and 30s aren’t dating anyone seriously. A growing number of young women seem content — or resigned to — going through life without a man.

We understand the appeal of the Amazonian strategy. But the apostles of women going their own way — like the Hollywood actress feted in The New York Times for declaring herself “choicefully single, happily, gloriously single” — miss something crucial: For all too many, this path leads not to liberation, but to a more anxious, lonely and unhappy life. Unmarried, childless women in their 20s and 30s are nearly three times more likely to be unhappy with their lives compared to married mothers the same age (25-39), according to the General Social Survey. Heteropessimism really is a trap.

Perhaps that explains why so many hurting women in their 30s are showing up for help at the office of Suzanne Venker, an author and life coach who recently discussed the pattern with Chris Williamson on his “Modern Wisdom” podcast. These 30-something women are coming to Venker desperate to start or sustain a good family life but with no idea how to do so. Most spent their 20s building the scaffolding of independence — careers, savings, status — exactly as second-wave feminism had scripted, while dating and family sat on the back burner.

By the time they feel “ready” in their 30s, the switch doesn’t flip on command. Many found it hard to find a good man given that the pool in their immediate circles had shrunk; others found unanticipated difficulty in pivoting from a life focused on career and travel to marriage and young kids; still others found getting pregnant difficult or impossible, especially if they were in their late 30s. The Amazonian detachment they leaned into in their 20s, it turns out, does not reverse itself just because a woman decides she’s finally ready for a family.

Venker now has a project “to help younger women avoid the pitfalls” that she sees in her older clients. She offers three guideposts:

First, if you find a good guy, be open to marrying “youngish” (mid to late 20s, broadly defined). The husband hunt gets harder after 30, and today’s dating market isn’t doing anyone any favors. Women looking to make a smarter choice should be open to playing the odds early, starting with the biggest poll some of them will ever encounter: college. This also widens the window for building a family….

Second, she recommends dating with intention. “There’s just so much pretending going on” in modern dating, Venker say, and her fix is blunt: “Just get it out on the table in the first three dates” in terms of what you’re looking for in life and love – in terms of family, career and whether or not you and your partner are aiming for something more casual or committed.

If family matters to you, figure out if the man you’re sitting across from on a dinner date is marriage material. This includes sizing up a man’s character and his professional possibilities – not his wealth, but his reliability as a provider….

She points to a telling gap in public opinion: 71% of Americans believe a man should be able to provide for his family while only 32% say the same of women….

Third, Venker says women who are particularly family-minded should choose a career that complements their future family dreams rather than competes with them. In college, for instance, this means picking a major “that works well with the kind of life you want to have down the line,” flexible enough to be “done part-time or from home,” rather than choosing an expensive degree that locks in a decade or more of debt just as her priorities start to shift….

This strategy isn’t for every woman, but her point is that those who want to prioritize family would be wise to aim for careers with built-in flexibility – nursing and teaching are classic examples, financial advising and consulting are newer ones – that allow for part-time or freelance work and make it easier to combine work and motherhood.

In essence, Venker is asking young women to do what might seem unthinkable: plan for a future they’re not sure they’ll want, because they’re immersed in a culture that prizes Amazonian detachment. In this culture, to date with marriage in mind, and to choose a career with a future family in mind, is to swim upstream….

However regressive some commentators find it, most women end up being ambitious for family life, even as many are also ambitious for rich intellectual and professional ones too. And the women who build families with men in marriage are among the happiest in the country….

 

Why Does Pioneer Day Mark a Low Point in Religious Freedom in America?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday is that religious freedom applies to all religions and even those people who have no religion. However, it has not always been applied equally.

On September 17, 1787, the U.S. Constitution was signed, and nine states ratified it by June 21, 1788, making it the law of the land. All thirteen states ratified the Constitution by May 29, 1790.

The Bill of Rights – meaning the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution – was written and proposed in 1789; it was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Bill of Rights was created to protect the individual rights of each American as well as to limit the power of the federal government.

Yet, the Mormon Pioneers were not protected when their religious freedom was threatened.

In fact, the Mormon Pioneers chose to leave the United States because they were persecuted for their religion.

Pioneer Day – July 24^th – is an annual commemoration of the day when the first pioneer wagons entered the Salt Lake Valley (Utah) on July 24, 1847. “Days of ‘47” is a huge celebration held in Utah annually.

Latter-day Saints are not the only people who have been persecuted for their religious beliefs, but early members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints endured their persecution righteously. The persecution began with Joseph Smith and increased as the Church of Jesus Christ grew. The Latter-day Saints were threatened, raped, murdered, suffered property damage, and more – first in Kirtland, Ohio (1831-1838) and in Missouri (1831-1839) and then in the Nauvoo, Illinois, area (1839-1847).

Joseph Smith and his brother, Hyrum Smith were assassinated at Carthage, Illinois, on June 27, 1844, and the main body of the Church fled to the Great Basin in 1846-1847. They understood that they had no religious freedom in the United States, so they went to the unsettled western area of North America searching for religious freedom and safety.

However, their safety was short lived.  After the Mexican-American War, the Great Basin area became part of the United States. Federal laws soon threatened religious beliefs as laws against the practice of plural marriage infringed on religious freedom.

Polygamous husbands and fathers were fined and imprisoned. To escape the law, many families went into hiding or again left the United States. Those who left created settlements in Mexico and Canada where they could continue to practice plural marriage.

The members who stayed in the Great Basin continued to be persecuted. Antipolygamy laws disincorporated the Church, allowing Church property to be confiscated.

With the temples being threatened and the work of eternity being stopped, President Wilford Woodruff took the matter to the Lord. Under inspiration from God, President Woodruff wrote and signed the 1890 manifesto that ended plural marriage. Anti-Mormon persecution declined but did not end. Persecution continues to this day by individuals and other religious organizations. However, the United States government has finally recognized that Latter-day Saints have religious freedom.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, from the days of Joseph Smith to the present day, fights for religious freedom for all people. Earlier this year, the First Presidency called for a Church-wide fast for religious freedom to be held on July 6, 2026. I was one of millions of members of the Church of Jesus Christ who fasted and prayed to thank God for religious liberty and to plead with God to protect religious freedom for all people.

 

 

Articles of Faith: What Do Latter-day Saints Believe About the Godhead 6?

Article of Faith 1

We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ,

                                and in the Holy Ghost.

This is the sixth and last article on the Godhead in my series on the Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The past few weeks, I discussed the character of God the Father or Elohim, and last week I discussed Jesus Christ or Jehovah. Since Jesus Christ taught that His disciples “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9), we can know that He has the same character traits as His Father.

Through latter-day revelation, we know that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ each have a physical body made of flesh and bone, but the Holy Ghost is a spirit personage. Doctrine and Covenants 130:22-23 teaches as follows:

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

23 A man may receive the Holy Ghost, and it may descend upon him and not tarry with him.

My essay for this week will use the words of Elder Bruce R. McConkie to explain clearly who the Holy Ghost is.

There are several ways in which the labors and ministry and status of “God the third,” who is the Holy Ghost, are separate from the other members of the Godhead. Chief among them are these:

1. He is a personage of spirit.

The Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bones, while “the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.” That is, he is a spirit person, a spirit entity, a spirit man. He is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Lord. Why this difference between him and the other two members of the Godhead? With reference to his status as “a personage of Spirit,” the scripture says: “Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.” (D&C 130:22.) That is to say, according to the eternal laws ordained by the Father, there are certain separate and distinct things to be done by a spirit member of the Godhead. He is to dwell, figuratively, in the faithful, and he is to speak to their spirits in a special and particular way, which he can do because he himself is a spirit.

2. He is the Testator, Revelator, Comforter.

The Holy Ghost is God’s minister; he is appointed to teach and testify, to bear witness of the Father and the Son, and to reveal all needful things to men. As the Testator, he bequeaths salvation, through an eternal testament, to the heirs of God. The Holy Ghost is a Revelator. Almost always the first great revelation received by any person is a testimony of the truth and divinity of the Lord’s work on earth. “And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.” (Moroni 10:5.) He is the Comforter. Those who enjoy his companionship find their whole souls are filled with comfort and joy. And the very reason men are commanded to repent and be baptized is so they “may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that [they] may stand spotless before [the Lord] at the last day.” (3 Nephi 27:20.)

 3. He uses the light of Christ in his ministry.

The light of Christ (also called the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of the Lord) is a light, a power, and an influence that proceeds forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space. It is the agency of God’s power and the law by which all things are governed. It is also the agency used by the Holy Ghost to manifest truth and dispense spiritual gifts to many people at one and the same time. For instance, it is as though the Holy Ghost, who is a personage of spirit, was broadcasting all truth throughout the whole universe all the time, using the light of Christ as the agency by which the message is delivered. But only those who attune their souls to the Holy Spirit receive the available revelation. It is in this way that the person of the Holy Ghost makes his influence felt in the heart of every righteous person at one and the same time. (Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith [1985], 69-70)

What Is the Voter ID Act?

It is now in the latter part of July and moving closer to mid-terms and November. Congress has not yet passed a bill to require U.S. citizenship to register to vote and picture identification to vote. In their article published at The Daily Signal, Don Palmer and Elizabeth Schlueter discussed a proposal to improve election identity. 

Voter ID Act (HR 9368) was sponsored by Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wis. [and] passed the Committee on House Administration June 24. It was attached to the Stop Insider Trading Act (HR 7008) as an amendment and will be heard in the House Rules Committee. This is a crucial step toward authorizing consideration of the Voter ID Act for final passage on the House floor….

The bill requires voters to show photo ID when casting a ballot in a federal election, creates a grant program to provide valid IDs for voters who cannot afford them, and allows voters who forget their ID on election Day to cast provisional ballots – all measures that have proven effective in the states….

The Voter ID Act offers five options for valid photo ID: driver’s license, state-issued identification card with a photo and expiration date, U.S. passport, military ID, and tribal ID….

Americans are accustomed to providing photo ID for other important transactions, and the Voter ID Act makes provisions for voters who struggle to obtain a qualifying ID before Election Day. Requiring a valid ID at the polls ensures that our ballots are as well-protected as our booze – seems like common sense. Even the Olive Garden never-ending Pasta Pass requires photo ID!

The authors shared several examples of voter fraud from across the nation that are gathered in The Heritage Foundation’s Voter Fraud Database.

For instance, last September, Louisiana used the SAVE database and identified 390 noncitizens on its voter rolls; 70 of them had illegally voted in at least one election. The state recently brought charges against one of the illegal voters and anticipates more such cases.

Given that 22 states are not using SAVE or attempting to establish an agreement with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to do so, one can only guess at how many noncitizens are on other states’ voter rolls….

As we head into midterms, legislators should take the commonsense route and establish federal means of enforcing current election statutes by passing the Voter ID Act if it arrives on the House floor. Americans deserve to know that only legitimate voters are casting ballots come November.

 

Who Is John Solomon?

My VIP for this week is John Solomon, an investigative journalist. According to an article by Greg Hughes published at The Daily Signal, Solomon has “been involved in politics in some way for 38 years” but spent most of his journalist career in the mainstream media. 

Hughes wrote, “His resume boasts 20 years with The Associated Press, stints at The Washington Post, collaboration with ‘60 Minutes,’ and a senior position at The Hill.” Hughes continued, “He was highly regarded by his peers and received many awards for his investigative work, including the Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award and the Society of Professional Journalist National Investigative Award. However, things changed after “the election of [Donald] Trump, [when] he became an outcast among these same peers.” Hughes claims that Sullivan’s “sins” was digging “into the legitimacy of the Russia collusion narrative and the Mueller investigation.”

Solomon’s commitment to truth had not changed. He had always had a consistent approach – which included questioning the government’s behavior, no matter who was in power. But any attempt to give Trump – the trespasser, the usurper – a fair shake in the press was deemed to be the ultimate betrayal.

In time, Solomon’s trailblazing investigative work has been vindicated. He founded Just The News in 2020 after it became clear that authentic investigative journalism was no longer welcomed within his profession.

Solomon is an investigative journalist. Today, he is widely considered a right-wing voice, but only because he stayed true to his profession while that profession turned into a leftist ideological camp.

It seems that CBS Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss, tasked with trying to restore some semblance of objective journalism to the network, understands Solomon’s work. He was recently interviewed on the network.

The interview would appall members of the regime media. In it, he shared facts that have been ignored and censored, meaning they had never been heard by most of the American public before.

I trust the reporting of John Solomon. His “Just the News” is honest. He reports news as it is and not what he would like it to be. His investigations and reporting were instrumental in breaking the Russian collusion narrative and getting to the bottom of the Mueller investigation.

 

Should Americans Worry About Democratic Socialists Winning Elections?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns socialism and “the recent rise in democratic socialists winning primary elections.” In an article published at the Deseret News, opinion editor Jay Evensen wrote the following: 

I’ve been around long enough to see how most long-term political plans eventually crack and disintegrate under the harsh heat of reality. So, I try not to get too worked up over the recent rise in democratic socialist winning primary elections, or over the movement’s supposed aims, which sound closer to Marx than to Jefferson or Madison.

But those who hope a post-Trump future might revert to the calmer political days of our youth may be disappointed. The far left seems to be on the rise to compete with the far right.

And while that rise is still small, if politicians don’t stem the fearsome rise in the national debt, a possible economic collapse and the chaos it could cause might bolster all kinds of radical ideologies….

Democracy has a way of taking the sharp edges off radical ideologies, eventually. The MAGA movement benefited from a charismatic leader, which the far left currently lacks.

A Gallup poll last year found a majority of Americans still feel favorably toward capitalism, but support is waning.

As I said, that trend could accelerate if the economy collapses under the weight of the national debt and its annual interest payments, which already exceed the nation’s military budget.

Samuel J. Abrams (professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a scholar with the Sutherland Institute) agreed with Evensen in his column for Deseret News. “… Evensen is right not to panic [about] the recent string of democratic socialist primary victories nationwide.” Why young Americans are turning to socialism | Opinion – Deseret News

This is all true, but there is a deeper story that must be told as to why these radical ideologies have begun to win and why these politicians have been able to organize so effectively. It begins with the question of why so many young Americans are drawn to them.

The answer can be found in a book published a quarter century ago by a late mentor of mine – Seymour Martin Lipset. Writing with Gary Marks, Lipset wrote “It Didn’t Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States” and asked why America, alone among industrial democracies, never developed a serious socialist movement.

The socialists trying to reshape the Democratic Party

The answers Lipset and Marks offered were partly structural – our two-party system and winner-take-all elections punished third parties – but they were also, crucially, experiential. So many Americans lived capitalism’s promise and positive realities.

America’s workforce saw real mobility for themselves and their children and an individualist, antistatist creed ran deep. Moreover, Americans were formidable joiners – as observed by Alexis de Tocqueville decades earlier – and they were deeply embedded in churches, lodges, unions, clubs and neighborhood associations that gave them belonging, status and voice without any need for a revolutionary party to supply it.

Lipset and Marks argued that socialism did not fail in the United States because Americans read the right rebuttals to Marx. Rather, it failed because the conditions present nationwide never let it take hold. This points to the uncomfortable truth of 2026: Almost every immunity Lipset and Marks identified in their book has now degraded – particularly for young adults.

A misunderstanding of market economics

Start with young Americans’ lived experience of markets and capitalism. In cities where socialism has gained political traction – Chicago, Seattle, New York and San Francisco – many younger Americans are living through soaring housing costs, shrinking opportunities and dysfunctional markets. Their frustrations are real.

This mistake is not in recognizing the problems but in misidentifying their causes. Too often, however, they are seeing the consequences of regulation, restrictive zoning and poor governance as if they were failures of capitalism itself.

That confusion is hardly surprising. Most young Americans have never been taught how markets create prosperity. Significant numbers graduate from college without taking a single economics course….

A lack of strong social structures

Moving beyond economic systems, Lipset and Marks would point to the recent real decline of associational life as a major cause of socialism’s ascent. Theorists from Alexis de Tocqueville and Edmund Burke to Robert Nisbet and Richard John Neuhaus have long marveled at Americans’ art of association. Lipset understood that these institutions kept radicalism marginal by meeting fundamental human needs for fellowship, purpose and recognition.

Those institutions have been hollowed out, and young adults are the loneliest Americans on record. They may be digitally connected and habitually online, but few join congregations, civic clubs, scouting or recreational leagues. They are not merely under-informed; so many younger Americans are isolated, under-formed, unattached and without a social core….

What can be done?

If we consider this framing, it radically changes how we think about this so-called socialist surge. If the problem were socialism as an ideology itself, the answer would be rebuttal with more op-eds, more education and public-focused work, and more warnings about Venezuela and countless failed states. But reason and evidence alone do not persuade or work on people whose initial attraction was rooted less in ideas than belonging.

If the problem is formation – and that certainly appears to be the case – the real answer is to rebuild what once formed young Americans into confident, connected participants in a free society.

That means teaching economics so that graduates understand scarcity, trade-offs, incentives and the astonishing record of market economies, along with their real failures. It also means rebuilding our social associations where young people find the belonging they now seek in ideological movements like the DSA….

Finally, I should note that Lipset’s title contained a quiet warning that his admirers sometimes miss. Socialism didn’t happen here in the past tense because a particular America existed: prosperous, mobile, religious, fraternal and thick with institutions that formed citizens and demonstrated capitalism’s promise in daily life. That America was not an accident, and its immunities are not permanent as we see now – our nation’s immunities to socialism were built and then regularly reaffirmed.

Evensen is right that we need not fear the socialists. What we should fear and then fix is the loneliness and disconnection as well as the ignorance that make socialism feel like an answer for so many young people. Restore formation, purpose, community, and belonging and this socialist impulse will fade the way of every American socialist movement before it did.