Who Are the Enemies in Our Midst?

            Today is a day of commemoration for the United States because it marks the day that Japanese aircraft bombed Pearl Harbor and thrust our nation into World War II. The enemy came upon us suddenly and attacked without warning.


            The same was true of the Saints in the days of the Apostles. I studied in recent weeks the words of Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude, and I noted that each of them warned of false prophets and false teachers. I studied the words of John and Jude this week, so I will share what I learned about spiritual enemies.


            John wrote his Third Epistle to a faithful man named Gaius. He first expressed his joy at hearing of the faithful members of the Church. He then warned Gaius about a man named Diotrephes. It seems that Diotrephes held a prominent post in the town – a Church leader or his home was used for the meetings or something. Whatever post he held, John noted that he loved to have “preeminence” among the Saints, but he spoke “malicious words” about and rejected the authority John and the other Church leaders. He openly opposed the Church leaders.


            The Prophet Joseph Smith (1805-44) wrote, “It is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:39). This is so true of mankind. A little authority can bring out the worst in most of us.


            President James E. Faust (1929-2007) of the First Presidency gave this caution: “There is a certain arrogance in thinking that any of us may be more spiritually intelligent, more learned, or more righteous than the councils called to preside over us. Those councils are more in tune with the Lord than any individual person they preside over” (Finding Light in a Dark World [1995], 121).


            Criticism of Church leaders is a sure sign that a person is headed towards apostasy. Wise individuals recognize the sign, repent, and become supportive. Other people continue into apostasy, a situation that the Apostles were trying to prevent.


            There is no evidence that Jude was an Apostle, but he was respected enough to have his epistle included in the New Testament when it was compiled. His epistle is a “general” epistle, meaning that it went to many Saints. He warned that “certain men crept in unawares” (Jude 1:4) to damage the Church and destroy testimonies. Jude asked his readers to remember the historical people who had fallen away. 

Jude named the people that came out of Egypt with Moses but who were destroyed by God because of unfaithfulness. He named the people in Sodom, Gomorrha, and other cities where immorality was rampant and were burned with fire from heaven. He mentioned the “angels which kept not their first estate,” those spirits who rebelled against Heavenly Father in the pre-mortal life. They followed Lucifer and were cast out of heaven with him. Their penalty was the denial of a physical body for all eternity.

There are enemies in our midst today, and it is often difficult to recognize the “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” This lack of recognition and exposure allows the “wolves” to enter the Church and cause destruction of testimonies. The same is true of “wolves” in our nation, those who seek to “fundamentally transform” our nation from our constitutional way of life. We must beware of “wolves” in all the areas of our lives. They sneak around and pounce when our guard is down; therefore, we must constantly be on guard in order to stay safe.

Is Marriage Good for the Economy?

            Families, communities, and nations are stronger when individuals understand the connection between family life and the economy. I have seen numerous bits of information stating that marriage improves the economic situation of couples. Numerous years ago, I read an article by economist Walter Williams telling black youth how to become successful. He told them to graduate from high school, get married before having children, and stay married. Tonight, I read another article about the connection between economics and family life.


            Star Parker began her article by explaining that people generally assume that “economic policy and social policy are separate universes” when discussing public policy. She said that economic policy includes such topics as “taxes, government spending, business, jobs, etc.” while social policy is about “marriage, family, children, abortion, etc.” She concluded that there is evidence that there is no “line” between economic policy and social policy and that family structure “has gotten increasing attention as an important factor to consider in policy discussions about poverty.”


            Parker quoted an academic paper titled “Family Formation and Crime” that “examines the connection between the incidence of pregnancy, childbirth, and marriage, and the incidence of crime. The authors – Maxim Massenkoff and Evan Rose – conclude that there is a connection that should be understood by policy planners.

The conclusion, in the words of the authors: “Our event-study analysis indicates that pregnancy triggers sharp declines in crime rivaling any known intervention. For mothers, criminal offending drops precipitously in the first few months of pregnancy, stabilizing at half of pre-pregnancy levels three years after the birth. Men show a smaller, but still important 25 percent decline beginning at the onset of pregnancy, although domestic violence arrests spike for fathers immediately after birth.”

            Parker asked an important question: “What is it about birth and marriage that contributes significantly to reducing crime?” She quoted an expert who said it was about “socializing and civilizing both men and women.” However, Parker speculated that it is “a wake-up call” that helps men and women see life through different lenses. When people see “the awe and mystery of life” they gain “a sense of meaning and personal responsibility.” 


            I agree with Parker in that we should “be concerned about the decline in Americans’ sense of importance of marriage and children.” She quoted a survey from Pew Research Center that said “57% of men and 46% of women” believe that we can have a “fulfilling life” as long as we have a “job or career” we enjoy. These numbers compare to “16% of men and 17% of women” who believe children are “essential for a … fulfilling life.” 

Parker concluded that “Americans are saying work is three times more important for a fulfilling life than marriage and children.” Because pregnancy and marriage cause a drop in crime, public policies should be encouraging marriage and families. We can help to strengthen all families, communities, and nations by showing the importance of marriage and family life in combatting crime.

Is the USA a Christian Nation?

            The liberty principle for today is a question about Christianity in America. The nation was founded on Christian principles with freedom of religion as the first “right” listed in the Bill of Rights. However, attendance at church is declining and fewer Americans are describing themselves as religious.


            New York Times columnist and author Ross Douthat says, “We’re a no longer deeply Christian country that is not yet post-Christian and is still heavily influenced by Christianity.” I find this statement to be sad and frightening at the same time.


            I have read the Book of Mormon – Another Testament of Jesus Christ, and I believe it to be a true record of ancient Americans. It contains a record of three separate groups of people who came to the American continents. The main history is about the Nephites and Lamanites, descendants of a prophet named Lehi who took his family and left Jerusalem 600 years before the birth of Jesus Christ.

The second history is about a group of people known as the people of Zarahemla or the Mulekites. They also left Jerusalem about 600 B.C. Mulek was the oldest son of Zedekiah, the last king of Judah before the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem. Mulek was protected by a group of supporters, and they found their way to America. They took no records with them and had lost their language when they were discovered by the Nephites. They joined the Nephites and became one people with them.

The third history is about a group of people known as the Jaredites. Jared and his brother lived at the time of the Tower of Babel. They asked God to not confound their language or the language of their friends. God blessed them and did not confound their language. He also led them to America. 

The Jaredites warred among themselves until their entire civilization was destroyed. The last surviving Jaredite was discovered by the Mulekites, and he lived with them for nine months before his death. Hundreds of years later, the Nephites and the Lamanites warred among themselves until the Nephites were destroyed. The Lamanites are some of the ancestors of the Native Americans today.

            The reason that the Jaredites and Nephites were destroyed is that they rejected Jesus Christ. Before Lehi left Jerusalem, the Lord promised that He would take Lehi and his family to a land of promise. Lehi later shared the following information with his family.

Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord – having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise – behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them (Book of Mormon – Another Witness of Jesus Christ, 2 Nephi 1:9-10).

            I believe that the Nephites and the Jaredites were destroyed because they rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ. By doing so, they rejected the God of this land, even Jesus Christ. America is a promised land for the righteous followers of Jesus Christ. The Lord has promised to prosper those who live in the promised land as long as we keep His commandments, but we have no promise otherwise (see Doctrine and Covenants 82:10). 

This is the reason why I am saddened and frightened to hear the United States described as a nation that is losing its faith in Jesus Christ. I do not believe that the United States will be destroyed. However, I would not be surprised to see great tribulation come to this land because of dwindling of faith in Jesus Christ.

Has the Equal Rights Amendment Been Brought Back to Life?

            Many people, including myself, thought that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) died when it failed to be ratified by enough states. However, I recently discovered that the amendment is on life support with hopes of total revival.


            The ERA was introduced in 1923 soon after American women won the right to vote. It languished for 26 years until the Senate approved the amendment in March 1972. It then went to the states and was given seven years to be ratified by 38 states. The deadline was extended to June 1982, but the amendment failed to win enough states. 


            I thought that the ERA was dead but recently learned that it still lives – if only in the minds of progressives. As this opinion piece emphasizes, no one questions the right of women to be treated equally, but there is cause for concern when even avowed feminists have concerns. 

There are two significant challenges with the ERA:

First, there are far-reaching unintended consequences that could ultimately harm women. It could, for example, change family law – including child custody rights in divorce – impact abortion law and potentially draft women into military service during times of war.

The second is a procedural problem for a proposed amendment that was not ratified when it was introduced in the 1970s. Serious doubt remains whether the expired amendment can be picked up more than 40 years later and whether recent state votes in favor of it, in addition to the states that have since rescinded their votes, are valid….

The Equal Rights Amendment also risks constitutionalizing abortion once and for all. Since, under the ERA, governments arguably couldn’t treat abortion differently than any other medical procedure performed on a man, certain state abortion regulations would likely be struck down as unconstitutional….

            Some of today’s concerns were the concerns of those who fought against the ERA in the 1970s and 80s, but some of them are new. Valerie Hudson describes herself as a “feminist scholar” and a “dyed-in-the-wool feminist,” and she has concerns. The proposed amendment states, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” Hudson wants the term “sex” to be debated. Does “sex” mean male and female? She says that the wording in all federal laws must be changed to “sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity) if the ERA passes. She wants clarity on the term. Her second concern is about the possibility of women being drafted into the military during war time. If the ERA passes, there would be no legal grounds to continue the policy of drafting only males. This means that our daughters and granddaughters could be drafted into the military during war time.

Like Pandora’s Box, the ERA gleams and shines on the outside but holds the possibility of much danger on the inside. Those who are pushing for an ERA do not appear to know all the possibilities that could turn into big problems. They want what they want, and they want it now – no matter who gets hurt. Americans need to go slow on this possible amendment.

When Will the Impeachment Circus End?

            Impeachment is back in the news. The Democrat impeachment circus is starting over in another committee. Jerry Nadler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, reported last week that his committee started “formal impeachment proceedings” against President Donald Trump. Nadler is apparently going rogue because he said that he is not waiting for approval from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.


            The impeachment circus would have ended long ago if we lived in a sane world. The whole impeachment charade started from a telephone call made by Trump to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky in July. Democrats claim that Trump should be impeached because he demanded action from Ukraine in return for military aid. There are many problems with the claim, but the main one seems to be that Zelensky has said numerous times that there was no quid pro quo. He said that he felt no pressure from Trump whatsoever. In fact, he did not know that the aid was being held. This does not mean that Zelensky approved of the aid being held. He was upset because his country needs the money.

Look, I never talked to the president from the position of a quid pro quo. That’s not my thing…. I don’t want us to look like beggars. But you have to understand. We’re at war. If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us….

I think that’s just about fairness. It’s not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying.

            The Trump administration is concerned about corruption in Ukraine. Zelensky ran for office on the promise to do something about the corruption there. Zelensky admits that there is corruption, but he is afraid that Trump’s words will hurt the Ukraine image with the business world.


            Meanwhile back in Washington, D.C., House Republicans are defending Trump with “a point-by-point rebuttal” of the impeachment case made by Democrats against him. They argue that the previous Democrat circus did not turn over any evidence that the President did anything wrong in his July telephone call with Zelensky. The GOP report is 123 pages long and includes this statement: “The evidence presented does not prove any of these Democrat allegations, and none of the Democrats’ witnesses testified to having evidence of bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor.”


            The report was co-authored by three GOP Representatives: Devin Nunes (California -Intelligence Committee ranking member), Jim Jordan (Ohio – Oversight Committee ranking member, and Michael McCaul (Texas – Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member). The report includes the following statement. 

The Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is not the organic outgrowth of serious misconduct; it is an orchestrated campaign to upend our political system….

This impeachment inquiry and the manner in which the Democrats are pursuing it sets a dangerous precedent….

The impeachment of a president is one of the gravest and most solemn duties of the House of Representatives. For Democrats, impeachment is a tool for settling political scores and re-litigating election results with which they disagreed.

            Trump seems to understand that the Democrats will continue their vendetta against him. If they fail with the Ukraine impeachment attempt, they will try something else. I hope that Americans are watching this circus – and others – closely. I know that there are many Democrats who have gone crazy with Trump Impeachment Mania, but I also know that there are many others who are wise enough to see through the charade. Hopefully, many of the clowns in Congress will be voted out of office in 2020. I think that some of them deserve to be in prison, but I could be satisfied with them losing office and power.

Who Is Herbie Newell?

            I chose Herbie Newell as my VIP for this week for several reasons. He has an interesting story, and he provides a valuable service to children and families. I am not interested in fostering or adopting a child, but I found his services to be interesting. I am sending them along for anyone who may be looking for a child or children to take into their home.


            Newell is the president and executive director of Lifeline Children’s Services. He has held this position for 16 years. This organization is based in Alabama, and it “serves vulnerable children around the world.” Here are his own words.

First, and this is, I believe, what has been a big … part of the growth that we’ve seen in the ministry over the last 16 and a half years, and that is really identifying the children who are in need. 

I think a lot of times … a family has a desire, or they have a calling to take care of a child and then you kind of start with, unfortunately, at times, what kind of child are you looking for? What are the specifics of a child’s background that you’re looking for? 

And really what we’ve tried to focus on the last 16 and a half years is not necessarily what is a family looking for, but truly what are the children in need of, and then going and recruiting families that can meet the needs of that child. 

            I think that this is a different approach from what usually happens. The family looks for a specific type of child, whereas an agency should look for a couple or family that can bless the child. If you are looking for more information on fostering or adopting a child or children, check out this interview. 

Where Do My Rights End and Yours Begin

          The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the right of Americans to privacy when dressing, undressing, or using bathroom facilities, or at least be with people who are biologically the same sex. This is a right that may soon be gone because the battle over the rights of people who believe they are transgender. This battle seems to be centered in the schools.

            Nicole Russell shared some of her thoughts about this battle in an article posted by The Daily Signal. She wrote about two schools that are being sued because transgender students are not satisfied with their efforts to accommodate all students. She stated that there are some key factors that are driving both cases.

Though the lawsuits differ slightly in specifics, they share several common denominators that are key to understanding the transgender debate, particularly when it comes to students and schools.

First, these lawsuits are based on President Barack Obama’s 2016 “Dear Colleague” letter that mandated schools must include and accommodate transgender students and recognize gender identity, or else the school could face discrimination charges.

This was an order by executive fiat, not a law passed by Congress, and not a ruling from the Supreme Court.

            In 2017, the Trump administration rolled back those provisions, while the Education                             Department acknowledged that “each school has a responsibility to protect every student in                 America and ensure that they have the freedom to learn and thrive in a safe environment.”

Second, both lawsuits share an important, particular curiosity: Both schools addressed the transgender student’s wishes to be included and to have “equal access” to facilities, yet in both cases, the students complained that equal access wasn’t equal enough. They claimed the accommodations were somehow still discriminatory, even though it appears the schools took extra efforts to ensure the transgender students were treated equally while also preserving the rights of other students.

            In other words, both school districts went out of their way to protect all students’ rights, but                 transgender students made that an impossible task. They pushed for entitlement rather than                 equality.

            These students keep shifting the goalposts with their self-focused demands. Their demands                 ultimately pose a greater risk to other students’ privacy rights, which raises questions about                 discrimination in the opposite direction.

            Russell points out that these lawsuits should not even be happening. They are not based on any law passed by Congress or decided by the Supreme Court. The school districts caved to the demands of a few students while denying privacy rights of the majority. They took these actions even though “gender identity does not have protected status in federal civil rights laws, like sex, religion, or ethnicity.” 

The problem with making decisions based on gender identity is that there is not a specific identity with which to work. Common sense says that there should be restrooms for two sexes – male and female. How can any public facility have enough restrooms for all the different genders, specifically because we do not know how many genders with which we are dealing? In a quick Google search, I found three different numbers – 33, 63, and 112. Who knows which number is correct, or if any of them are true? 

            I propose that school districts build three different restrooms instead of two – one for biological “girls,” one for biological “boys,” and one for “others.” One thing is for sure: the right of privacy for biological girls and biological boys should not be compromised because a few people feel that they are in the wrong body. No one has the right to force the majority to conform to the desires of the few.