What Do I Think about the Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Situation?

             As all the world seems to be obsessed with Prince Harry and his wife, I decided to add my two-cents worth of opinion. Like most of the world, I was shocked when the royal couple decided a year ago to make a drastic change in their lives. What was so bad about being a “senior royal” that they sought such a change? After all, Meghan was living the life that every little girl who dreams of – growing up and marrying a prince!

            None of us know the details or circumstances of the royal family. I doubt that even those who are involved in the situation know what really happened. It is common knowledge that two people can grow up in the same home, with the same parents, and the same basic life situation and still be complete opposites. We are all individuals who see, hear, and feel things in our own individual way.

            Having noted that people are all individuals, it is time to get down to my own thoughts. I believe that Harry – and Meghan to a lesser degree – are much at fault for the entire situation. Harry was well aware of the situation that his future wife would live. If he did not like it, he should have done something to make it different instead of rushing into marriage. William and Harry went through the same experience of losing their mother, Princess Diana. They both knew of the difficulties that she faced with the media chasing her and her children. Yet, they dealt with their experience and knowledge in different ways.

William dated Catherine for ten years before they married because he wanted to be sure that Kate knew what she would face as his wife. As a result, Kate was prepared and ready. Harry did not give Meghan much time to become accustomed to the royal way of life. The couple dated for about fifteen months before Harry popped the question, and they married a few months later. As far as Meghan is concerned, what did she expect? Did she think that she was just going to waltz into the British royal family and not have to make changes in her life? She should have done more research about the royals and their way of life before she fell in love with Harry.

Prince Harry and Meghan claim that they had to leave the royal family because the evil media was destroying them. They could not handle all the media attention, but they thought nothing about doing an interview with Oprah and exposing their story to all the world. Were they thinking at all? Did they think that the interview would bring less media attention?

I know only few bits of information about the royal family life and the life of the Markle family. I do not know what was said or what happened, what should have been said or happened, or what should not have been said or not happened. However, I know that it is a bit odd for a young couple to be estranged from both her family and his family.

These are the facts that I know. Meghan is estranged from her white father, her white half-brother, and her white half-sister as well as her white in-laws. However, she is on good terms with her black mother. It is well known that Barack Obama related to the black side of his family more than the white side. Is it the same with Meghan? Could it be that Meghan is the racist, or is she trying to widen the racial divide?

Then there is the complaint that the royal family cut off Prince Harry’s finances. He has been forced to provide for his family from the $10 million that he inherited from Princess Diana. Most people that I know would consider $10 million to be a good chunk of money and would not be whining about having so little. Besides, Harry is a 33-year-old married man expecting his family to continue to bankroll his way of life – when he has money to provide for himself. Why?

Prince Harry and Meghan are upset that the Queen has taken back titles, etc. What did Prince Harry and Meghan expect? Did they expect to walk away from the “family business” – known as the Firm – and continue to reap the benefits without any of the work? I do not know any family business that shares the benefits with family members who are not working for the family business. Why should the royal family share their money with spoiled brats who did not want to be involved in the work?

In addition to all the above, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle broke an important rule: It is wrong to air the family’s dirty laundry in public. They were upset with members of the family, and the problem should have been solved privately with the family. They should have gone to those family members and solved the problem rather than go to the media. They were disloyal to the family that they claim to love. In addition, I find it ironic that Meghan was complaining about the way that she was treated, but she had no qualms about saying terrible things in public about Kate and the rest of the family.

As you can see, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle cannot claim any sympathy from me. They sound like spoiled brats who “want their cake and eat it too.” They want the benefits of being senior royals, but they do not want the work and pressure of being senior royals. I do not know what went on, but I do not see any legitimate reason for Prince Harry and Megan to be acting the way that they do. If the family was doing some illegal, they should go to the authorities. Otherwise, they should be working with the family rather than throwing the entire royal family under the bus.

Will the Practice of Polygamy Return to the Church of Jesus Christ?

                 Much has changed since the days when my great-grandparents practiced polygamy. Many of my ancestors were among the early converts to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I have numerous ancestors who practiced polygamy, some of whom spent time in prison because of the practice.

                The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children” (The Family – A Proclamation to the World). However, some members of the Church of Jesus Christ practiced polygamy for about fifty years.

[Members of the Church of Jesus Christ] believe that God commanded early Latter-day Saints to practice polygamy for a time. While Latter-day Saints today do not know all the reasons for God’s command, they do understand some reasons why God would command the practice of polygamy. For example, the Book of Mormon teaches that men should have only one wife (see Jacob 2:27-29), unless the Lord commands His people to “raise up seed unto [Him]” (Jacob 2:30). The practice of plural marriage by early Latter-day Saints did lead to an increase in the number of children born to Church members.

Early Latter-day Saints also believed that the establishment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints included a restoration of ancient principles and practices, as taught in the Bible. It is clear from the Bible that multiple prominent Biblical figures – including Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and David – practiced polygamy…. 

            Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practice polygamy. In fact, the Church of Jesus Christ prohibits its practice. Official Declaration 1 states the following about polygamy.

The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise (see 2 Samuel 12:7-8 and Jacob 2:27, 30). Following a revelation to Joseph Smith, the practice of plural marriage was instituted among Church members in the early 1840s (see Doctrine and Covenants 132). From the 1860s to the 1880s, the United States government passed laws to make this religious practice illegal. These laws were eventually upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. After receiving revelation, President Wilford Woodruff issued the following Manifesto, which was accepted by the Church as authoritative and binding on October 6, 1890. This led to the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church.

            The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints prohibits the practice of polygamy and has done so since the Manifesto was given in October 1890. President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008) explained the current position of the Church of Jesus Christ on polygamy:

I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy….

If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose.

Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (Articles of Faith 1:12). One cannot obey the law and disobey the law at the same time….

More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage (“What Are People Asking about Us?” Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71-72).

            For more than twenty years, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were persecuted for practicing polygamy. The United States government threatened to confiscate all Church property and to imprison all Church leaders. President Woodruff recognized that the Church could not complete its mission without its leaders and without its temples. When he took the problem to the Lord, he received the Manifesto and told to end the practice of polygamy.

            Members of the Church of Jesus Christ stopped practicing polygamy, but they continued to believe in the principle of plural marriage. None of us know if the practice will return to the Church or not. However, I can now understand how the practice could return to Church practices -- particularly if there is a great war and the number of men is limited (as discussed in Isaiah 3-4 and 2 Nephi 13:25, 14:1).

            More than a decade ago, same-sex marriage became legal in the United States and many other nations. Now we face the challenges of transgenderism. Even as we face this challenges, two cities in Massachusetts have “officially recognized polyamorous relationships as an acceptable form of domestic partnership. Somerville, Massachusetts, made it official last summer, and the Cambridge City Council did it this month. Readers may remember that Massachusetts was the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. 

            You may question what the connection is between polygamy and polyamory. This site discusses the two terms and describes some differences between them. Polygamy and polyamory both begin with poly, which is a Greek root word for “many.” “Both terms describe multiple partner relationships.” Polyamory means multiple loves, while polygamy means multiple spouses. 

The biggest difference between polyamory and polygamy is the gender of the partners. In polyamory, anyone of any gender can have multiple partners – the gender of the person or their partner does not matter. Polygamy is almost universally heterosexual, and only one person has multiple spouses of a different gender. The most common form of polygamy by far is polygyny, a marriage in which one man marries multiple women. In polyandry, a rather rare social form, one woman marries multiple men.

            Other differences between polyamory and polygamy are religion, history, region where practiced, and social acceptance. Polyamory is usually not connected to religion. Polygyny is usually connected to religious cultures where men have multiple wives. The two primary religious subcultures practicing polygyny in the United States are Muslims (mostly African Americans, immigrants from Muslim cultures, and a few white converts) and Fundamentalist Latter-day Saint/Fundamentalist Mormons who are almost always white. There are also a few Christian sects in the United States who allow polygyny.

            The term “polyamory” was coined in 1990. The practice has had three “waves”: (1) Utopians, feminists, and anarchists thought polyamory would cure “everything from capitalist oppression to men’s tyrannical ownership of women. (2) “The second wave began with the ‘free love’ portion of the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 70s, flourishing among hippies, swingers, and disco dancers. (3) The current and largest wave “started with the spread of Internet communication.” Polygamy began in biblical times.

            Polygamy is most common in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa where women have less freedoms. Polyamory is more popular in areas that grant women more freedom and access to religion – Australia, Canada, the United States, and Western Europe.

            Both polygamy and polyamory face some type of marginalization in some areas and both are more accepted in some areas – polygamy in regions of Asia, the Middle East, and Africa and polyamory in Seattle, London, Paris, and Stockholm. “Bigamy – being married to two or more people at the same time – is illegal in the U.S. and much of the world.”

            The speed with which same-sex marriage became legal was shocking. With polyamorous and polygamous relationships gaining popularity in the nation and world and with Democrats, liberals, and leftists controlling Congress, polyamory and polygamy could be legalized quickly. The Church of Jesus Christ stopped practicing polygamy because it became illegal. If the laws are changed – and the Lord commands, members of the Church of Jesus Christ could one day be practicing polygamy again.

Who Is Beth Stelzer, and Why Is She Important?

            My VIP for this week is Beth Stelzer, a powerlifting athlete that is fighting to protect women’s sports from transgender athletes. She began her quest after her first powerlifting match where she expected to find many individuals supporting strong women. However, the entire competition was filled with protests from a biological male that identifies as female. He was upset because he was not allowed to participate.

            Stelzer founded Save Women’s Sports to protect “the right of every woman and girl to compete on a level playing field.” She joined “Problematic Women” with Virginia Allen to discuss the recent executive order from President Joe Biden to allow biological men to compete in women’s sports. When asked to share her story, Stelzer first praised the female athletes in Connecticut who are stepped up to fight for level playing fields. She then told her story.

My story—long story short—is, I’m a mom, wife. Just an average person who found sports a little later in life and fell in love with powerlifting, and really carved out time out of family time to train like two to three hours a day, five to seven days a week, just as much time in the kitchen, to get ready for this women’s state championships.

And when I got there, instead of this awesome welcoming into the community I was expecting, this male threw a disruptive protest during the entire event because he wasn’t allowed to compete in the women’s championships.

It just kind of threw me down this rabbit hole of realization of what’s really happening—basically, the erasure of women’s rights.

            Allen summarized Stelzer’s experience: She shows up at her first powerlifting competition expecting a celebration for strong women. Instead, she watched a grown man that identifies as female throw a temper tantrum because he was not invited to participate. She was disappointed and felt that it was not right. She began online research about the people getting harassed, and she ended up founding Save Women’s Sports. Allen asked for more details about her experience.

How the experience [was] basically taken away from me was heartbreaking. It’s a small community of people, the powerlifting community, and I expected this welcoming event, and instead, it was just chaos. But it helped me realize what’s going on to women’s rights.

I got home and started researching how athletes are basically being silenced by cancel culture in this fear environment that these activists are creating. And so, I started savewomenssports.com as a way to compile information for people to see a source of the truth in this debate, and here we are making laws.

            Allen and Stelzer agreed that no one should be discriminated against. Allen then asked Stelzer what the latest executive order means for the future of women’s sports. Stelzer emphasized that it is not women’s sports that are in danger.

For the future of women in general, basically. What this order did was erase the sex-based protections that women have fought so hard to have. In sports, that boils down to Title IX, and we have not even had that for 50 years.

In places, we’re still fighting to enforce that, and now, with Biden’s order, erased that. And we’re saying that anyone is allowed to self-identify into the female category, and we all know it is not fair for males to compete against females.

We just seem to have turned this into some kind of partisan issue when it’s just basically common sense, and it’s sad to see that.

Allen asked Stelzer to explain more about the biological advantages that men have over women in athletics.

Sure. The differences stem from the wide chromosome that males have, and these differences start in the womb, and they are cemented in puberty. So, there’s a lot of talk around testosterone and puberty and how that makes such a big difference.

But we see, even in the Presidential Physical Fitness Test that most of us in the United States do if we go to public school, the differences start at age 6 between boys and girls. This is a reality. It goes from bone structure to bone mass, muscle mass, heart size, lung size. That all contributes to the oxygen-carrying capabilities.

So many differences and not just how the bone structure like the Q-angle of hips. Women’s skulls are different. We are way more prone to concussions. There’s so many differences besides the realities of pregnancy, menstruation, menopause that we have to train around.

Stelzer continued by explaining why the differences between males and females cannot be mitigated. “We see in studies … a yearlong study, and muscle mass did not change after hormone replacement.” She called the hormone treatment “a seriously slippery slope” that young kids should not be on. If they choose to transition to the opposite sex as adults, that is a completely different thing from children and teenagers. “If we allow sports organizations to settle on this middle ground of allowing kids who transitioned, “pre-puberty transitioned” boys, to compete with girls, it’s a dangerous situation for everyone.”

Seltzer said that that the unfairness goes beyond the playing field. Expecting girls and women to expect boys and men in their dressing rooms and restrooms is unfair.

We’re not trying to insinuate that all people who self-identify as being opposite gender are somehow a threat, but it opens up, it conditions girls to accept male bodies, and they will not know which one of those male bodies is the threat. And that’s why we have sex-separated spaces to begin with.

            Stelzer had much more to share, and you can read about it here. Her organization is not trying to keep anyone from competition, but she is fighting for fair competition. “And it goes back to telling the kids the truth. They can compete on the team of their biological sex, and they should understand why that’s necessary.” She added that it is not possible to protect girls’ and women’s sports while including transgender athletes. She mentioned several states that are passing laws that will protect girls and women, such as Mississippi and Idaho. Other states like South Dakota are working on such laws. 

What Is Critical Race Theory, and Why Is It Harmful?

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is critical race theory. Three days ago, on January 18, 2021, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis condemned critical race theory and said that there was “no room” for it in the classrooms in Florida. 

Florida’s civics curriculum will incorporate foundational concepts with the best materials and it will expressly exclude unsanctioned narratives like critical race theory and other unsubstantiated theories….

Let me be clear: There is no room in our classrooms for things like critical race theory…. Teaching kids to hate their country and to hate each other is not worth one red cent of taxpayer money.

DeSantis said that Florida “will invest in actual, solid, true curriculum and we will be a leader in the development and implementation of a world-class civics education.” DeSantis proposed spending $106 million to support the teaching of civics in the state. He proposed devoting $16.5 million to training teachers and principals in civics education. This amount included $3,000 to every teacher who becomes credentialed in teaching civics. Another $6.5 million would pay for developing partnerships between schools and governments to interest students in public service. In addition, $17 million would pay for developing civics curricula, a curriculum that would not include critical race theory.

DeSantis and Florida are not the only Americans concerned about critical race theory. The Heritage Foundation held a virtual event on January 11, 2021, titled “The New Intolerance: Critical Race Theory and Its Grip on America.” According to The Heritage Foundation, “Critical Race Theory (CRT) has become one of the dominant paradigms of our age, making race the sole prism through which proponents analyze all aspects of the American experience.”

Jarrett Stepman of The Heritage Foundation reviewed the webinar in an article titled “Critical Race Theory Infiltrates Government, Classrooms.” He stated that critical race theory is “an ideology that has dropped deep roots into America’s most powerful institutions [and] is opposed to the very foundation of Western civilization. He also wrote that the webinar explains “what critical race theory is, how pervasive it has become, and what needs to be done to stop it.” Stepman introduced the four panel members and summarized their presentations as follow. Critical Race Theory Infiltrates Government, Classrooms (dailysignal.com)

Mike Gonzalez is a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation. He is also the author of The Plot to Change America: How Identity Politics is Dividing the Land of the Free. Gonzalez explained how critical theory developed in Germany in the 1930s and further developed into critical race theory in the 1970s. “Critical race theory combines Marxist theories of oppressor versus oppressed with the lens of race. It ultimately defines all history and human interactions as a perpetual racial conflict.” [With this kind of garbage being taught in the schools and universities, there is little question about why the United States cannot get past the race problem.]

Jonathan Butcher is a senior education analyst at The Heritage Foundation. He is the co-author with Gonzalez of a paper on critical race theory. He explained why this theory is dangerous for the future of America. “Critical race theory and its parent, critical theory, are rooted in a worldview that wants to dismantle social and governmental norms.” Butcher warned that we should not “ignore the intolerance and ‘dogmas’ of critical theory” even though “racism and other prejudices still and will continue to exist.”

[He continued,] “Critical theory is not a sympathetic perspective with policy goals that lead to racial reconciliation, freedom, and opportunity…. It’s talking about subjugation and retribution.”

Butcher further explained that proponents of critical theory acknowledge that America was founded on “the values of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism” and that critical theory ideas counter those values.

Christopher Rufo is the director of the Center on Wealth and Poverty at Discovery Institute as well as a fellow at The Heritage Foundation. He explained that the critical race theory ideas are not confined to the margins of academia, but they are “pervasive in countless private and governmental institutions.”

In conducting research into human resource departments and governmental agencies that are increasingly reliant on critical race theory, Rufo found the following:

The National Nuclear Laboratory in New Mexico was holding a critical race theory-based training in which they took their white male executives to a resort and forced them to go through a series of trainings to deconstruct their white male identity, which was consonant with the [Ku Klux Klan], MAGA hats, mass killings.

They then had to publicly condemn themselves and write letters of apology for their “whiteness.”

The [Federal Bureau of Investigation] was holding intersectionality training for FBI employees, the Justice Department was teaching the tenets of critical race theory, and even the Treasury Department was holding training sessions outlining how the United States was a fundamentally racist and irredeemable country.

The research completed by Rufo led to President Donald Trump signing an executive order to ban these trainings in the federal government. [President Joe Biden signed an executive order that cancelled the one signed by Trump.]

Lindsey Burke is the director of the Center for Education Policy at The Heritage Foundation. She said that the ideas about critical race theory have spread from the fountains at colleges and universities. She suggested that parents and other interested adults should pay attention to local school boards because they shape the curriculum in classrooms nationwide.

            What can be done to stop the spread of critical race theory? In a report by Burke and Gonzalez, they explained “how interest groups are able to lean on school boards and get material, like The New York Times’ 1619 Project, into classrooms.” Burke suggested that “State lawmakers should require public school boards to make curricular materials available for public review.” She had other suggestions for countering critical race theory.

Those in churches and community groups, in the workplace, I would cast a very careful eye to things that go under the guise of diversity trainings…. I think that anything that is casting accusations or calling people to apologize for simply their identification or their category, that removes hope. You are what you are born into.

            It is obvious that critical theory and critical race theory are pervasive in schools, private businesses, and government institutions. These theories are the opposite of the ideas upon which America was founded. If such theories and concepts are allowed to spread, they will destroy America as it has been for more than 230 years.

Critical theory and critical race theory must be rooted out of our nation as quickly as possible, and the best way to get rid of them is to expose them. I encourage all my readers to listen to the webinar and learn all that you can about these dangerous theories. Then you should do all that you can to spread the information to your family, friends, and neighbors. Another thing that you can do is to find and support conservative members of the school board.

Who Is Authorized to Receive Revelation for the Church?

             For my Come, Follow Me lesson this week, I studied Doctrine and Covenants 27 and 28. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized on April 6, 1830. Section 27 was received by the Prophet Joseph Smith in August 1830, and Section 28 was received by the Prophet in September 1830. As the Church of Jesus Christ was in its infancy, there were many questions that arose for which Joseph sought answers from the Lord.

            One of the questions that arose was a query about who could receive revelation for the Church. The Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ continued to unfold, and the concept of revelation was a new one for the Saints. They knew that the Prophet Joseph Smith could receive revelation for the Church, but they wondered if others could also receive heavenly guidance for the Church.

            A member of the Church named Hiram Page had a stone through which he said that he received revelations concerning the order of the Church and the building of Zion. Several members, including Oliver Cowdery, were wrongly influenced by the so-called revelations. Just before an appointed conference, the Prophet Joseph Smith inquired of the Lord about the matter and received the revelation now known as Section 28.

1 Behold, I say unto thee, Oliver, that it shall be given unto thee that thou shalt be heard by the church in all things whatsoever thou shalt teach them by the Comforter, concerning the revelations and commandments which I have given.

2 But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses.

3 And thou shalt be obedient unto the things which I shall give unto him, even as Aaron, to declare faithfully the commandments and the revelations, with power and authority unto the church.

4 And if thou art led at any time by the Comforter to speak or teach, or at all times by the way of commandment unto the church, thou mayest do it.

5 But thou shalt not write by way of commandment, but by wisdom;

6 And thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church;

7 For I have given him the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead.

            The Lord kindly told Oliver Cowdery that revelation follows proper lines of authority. The Lord told Oliver that his role as the second elder of the Church was not to receive revelations or to write commandments for the Church, nor was he to command Joseph Smith, who stood at the head of the Church. Instead, Oliver was to follow the example of Aaron who faithfully supported Moses.

            Like Moses, Joseph Smith was the Lord’s prophet, and it was to Joseph that the Lord gave the keys of the kingdom in his day. Nevertheless, Oliver was promised that he would be led by the Holy Ghost and would be given power and authority to teach the doctrines that were revealed to Joseph.

            This may have been an unpleasant experience for all concerned, but it taught an important lesson: There is order in the Church, and the Lord appoints only one person to receive commandments and revelations for the guidance of the Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith spoke about this proper order of revelation.

It is contrary to the economy of God for any member of the Church, or any one, to receive instruction for those in authority, higher than themselves; … if any person have a vision or a visitation from a heavenly messenger, it must be for his own benefit or instruction; for the fundamental principles, government, and doctrine of the Church are vested in the keys of the kingdom” (Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, 197-98). On a later occasion he declared, “The Presidents or [First] Presidency are over the Church; and revelations of the mind and will of God to the Church, are to come through the Presidency. This is the order of heaven, and the power and privilege of [the Melchizedek] Priesthood. It is also the privilege of any officer in this Church to obtain revelations, so far as relates to his particular calling and duty in the Church” (Teachings: Joseph Smith, 197). (As quoted in Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual – Religion 324-325 [2018])

            There is only one person who stands at the head of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and that person is the President of the Church as well as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. This is the person through whom the Lord speaks to His Church. However, people at all levels of the Church can receive revelation to help them in their individual callings. Then-Elder Dallin H. Oaks outlined how this order of revelation continues in the Church today.

Our Heavenly Father’s house is a house of order, where his servants are commanded to “act in the office in which [they are] appointed” (Doctrine and Covenants 107:99). This principle applies to revelation. Only the president of the Church receives revelation to guide the entire Church. Only the stake president receives revelation for the special guidance of the stake. The person who receives revelation for the ward is the bishop. For a family, it is the priesthood leadership of the family. Leaders receive revelation for their own stewardships. Individuals can receive revelation to guide their own lives. But when one person purports to receive revelation for another person outside his or her stewardship – such as a Church member who claims to have revelation to guide the entire Church or a person who claims to have a revelation to guide another person over whom he or she has no presiding authority according to the order of the Church – you can be sure that such revelations are not from the Lord (“Revelation” [Brigham Young University devotional, Sept. 29, 1981], 7, speeches.byu.edu). (As quoted in Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual – Religion 324-325).

            The president of the Church receives revelations for the Church, the stake president receives revelations for the stake, and the bishop receives revelation for the ward. All members and other people can receive revelation to guide them in their individual stewardships and lives. God is a God of order. He does not do anything haphazardly. This order is one way we can determine who has authority to receive revelation for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and for other offices in the Church.

Will the Rising Generation Recover the Education Loss from School Closures?

             Families, communities, and nations are strengthened when the rising generation receives an adequate education. By all accounts, many American children and youth have not received an adequate education over the past year. The one-year anniversary of “15 days to slow the spread” was recently passed, and full recognition of the damage done to the rising generation is dawning.

            As schools shut down across the nation, millions of school students were sent home for online learning. Dr. Ben Carson shared his thoughts about the problems caused for the rising generation by the lockdown. 

The negative consequences of full-time distance learning, decreased social interaction, and the cancellation of group sports are exponential as we prolong school shutdowns across our country.

The reality is that online learning may work for some, but doesn’t work for all. The negative impact on many students is real, but most acutely seen in our low-income, minority, rural, and special-needs populations.

For students that can access the internet – and not all of them can – many assumptions about full-time distance learning were made that proved to be wrong. For example, the amount of work it would take teachers to transition from in-person education to online education was greatly underestimated.

Similarly, for students, using a computer or tablet for recreation doesn’t necessarily translate to navigating a computer for learning, particularly for younger children. And keeping students engaged is an important part of teaching effectively, which has proven difficult to do remotely.

            In addition to the problems stated above, there is another problem that may be the hardest one to solve. Carson said that there are an estimated 3 million students nationwide who did not bother to enroll for school last fall. He called these students “the most marginalized.” The long-term effects of full-time online learning are not known. This fact makes it more difficult to fix the problem before the effects “turn into long-term challenges,” according to Carson.

Because teachers’ unions continue to insist that schools remain closed, we are leaving many of our most vulnerable students permanently behind. But children are missing more than the education that classroom instruction provides. Child abuse and neglect is going unchecked. And we are seeing disturbing trends in the increase in incidents of self-harm, social anxiety, substance abuse, overdoses, and even suicide.

Extended school closures are taking their educational, physical, and emotional toll on our children. And if you believe the science, there’s no good reason to keep these closures in place.

            The “experts” have said from the beginning of the pandemic that children and teens have lower transmission rates of COVID-19. There was no reason to close the schools in the first place, and keeping the schools closed goes against science. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidance for schools to reopen safely, and there is real evidence to support that guidance.

Children in Arkansas, Iowa, Florida, and Texas returned to the classroom, some as early as last August. In addition, private schools and Catholic schools reopened in August where local authorities permitted. Schools in other nations, such as Taiwan, Norway, and Italy, minimized school closures. It is time for the rising generation to return to school and become assets to their families, communities, and nations.

Why Should Earmarks Be Banned Forever?

             The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns earmarks – the practice of Congress to funnel tax dollars to special interests. After a ten-year-long ban, earmarks may be coming back. According to Matthew Dickerson at The Daily Signal, earmarks may return under the name of “community project funding.” 

            Despite conservative opposition to “the practice of earmarking federal funds for special interests,” the practice increased exponentially. Dickerson stated that “the number of earmarks each year increased by 282% to nearly 16,000” between 1994 and 2011. The American people did not approve of the practice.

The American people have long opposed earmarks. A 2006 Wall Street Journal poll showed that people listed “prohibiting members of Congress from directing federal funds to specific projects benefiting only certain constituents” as their top priority for Congress.

A 2010 CNN poll showed that 79% of respondents described earmarks as “not acceptable.” This included 71% of Democrats and 89% of Republicans. A 2016 poll by Economist Group/YouGov found that “only 17 percent of respondents approved of the practice of earmarks.”

In response to the public outcry against the corruption and controversy surrounding earmarks, Congress banned them beginning in 2011. Bringing earmarks back, even under the seemingly wholesome name “community project funding,” would simply be a return to the bad old days.

            Dickerson wrote that those who have seen the earmark process in action described it as “inherently corrupt.” “The prospect of directing millions of taxpayer dollars toward special interests creates an incentive for lawmakers, lobbyists, and potential recipients of earmarked funds to behave in unscrupulous ways.”

            After giving numerous examples of the corruption in earmarks, Dickerson said that “Corruption is just one of the reasons why the ban on earmarks should not be lifted.” He gave another important reason for not lifting the ban: “earmarks encourage wasteful spending.” The total amount of government spending increases with earmarks even though the amount of dollars is a small percentage of total spending. The lifting of the ban on earmarks would be a sure sign that the swamp in Washington, D.C. was not drained.

            Of course, the lack of earmarks does not stop corruption in Congress or wasting of tax dollars. The recent $1.9 trillion covid relief bill is nothing but corruption and waste. According to Michael Hendrix at the New York Post, “America’s states and cities are seeing a direct windfall north of half a trillion dollars.” However, blue states are reaping more benefits than red states. “Nine of the ten states with the lowest unemployment in America are led by Republican governors, and they are the ones punished under the relief bill’s formula.” 

The biggest winners will be states who locked down the hardest during the pandemic. Their “Faucian bargain” has now paid off. Never mind that vaccine rates have been abysmal in states like California, which at one point ranked last in the country for getting jabs in arms, or that COVID-19 has blown past masks and mandates to infect millions in the Golden State.

States with the largest pension burdens, like Illinois and New Jersey, will also benefit from Biden’s bailout. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s latest budget conspicuously avoids lifting a finger to fix his state’s long-term insolvency. And papering over New York’s fiscal shortfalls still hasn’t stopped Gov. Andrew Cuomo from toying with higher taxes to soak the rich.

            According to Hendrix, America has allocated approximately $5.5 trillion in COVID-19 relief spending. He compared those costs to the price that the United States paid for World War II – “roughly $4.8 trillion in 2021 dollars.” The latest relief bill was not necessary because about one-third of previous relief bills remains unspent. Democrats obviously wanted to bail out the blue states!