What Do You Remember about 9/11?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns remembering 9/11. Twenty-five years ago, America and Americans suffered one of the worst days, one of the darkest days in our history. It was the first time since Pearl Harbor that someone attacked the United States on our own soil.

On the morning of September 11, 2001 – 9/11 – terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a fourth plane in Pennsylvania. Hundreds of people were killed, and our nation was deeply shocked. Everyone who lived through that day will remember where they were and what they were doing when they first heard the news of the attack.

I remember where I was when I heard that President John F. Kennedy had been shot. I remember where I was when I heard that President Ronald Reagan had been shot. I remember where I was when I heard that the tower had been hit. My first thought was that a private pilot had been where they should not have been. When the second tower was hit – and I learned that the airplanes were actually airliners – I knew that America had been deliberately attacked.

I remember where I was when I heard that the first tower was hit. My teenage daughter was in her bedroom listening to the news when I entered the room to braid her hair. It was shortly after 5:00 in the morning. Some minutes later, I was at the meetinghouse preparing to teach a group of teenagers a spiritual lesson. A group of my students entered the classroom and told me that the second tower had been hit.

I came home from Seminary that morning to find my husband and newly married son waiting for me with the news. They told me that my daughter-in-law’s red-eye flight was changed from a stopover in Seattle to a non-stop flight to Salt Lake City. She had safely arrived home before the skies were closed.

I remember driving out to Lake Hood that day to get something out of the shed for my husband. There was no one at the lake – one of the busiest float plane bases in the world next to an international airport. There were no airplanes flying, and no workers at any of the aviation-related businesses.

I remember the silence of the skies. It was moose season, a time of year when large numbers of private pilots fly out to hunting camps and return with meat for the winter. There were no airplanes in the skies, and the whole area was strangely quiet.

I remember our own excitement/fear when we learned that an airliner was headed to Anchorage – not knowing about the event in New York City. Authorities here thought that another attack was happening, but they were able to talk to the pilot and divert the flight to Canada.

I remember my daughter coming home from school and exclaiming about all the flags flying along her route home. Our flag was also flying.

I remember September 12, 2001, when members of Congress stood on the steps of the Capitol Building, holding US flags and singing “God Bless America, in a spontaneous chorus.

I remember the changes in security at federal buildings and airports. I hate the twenty-five years of taking off shoes and jackets to clear security before I could board an airplane.

Articles of Faith: What Do Latter-day Saints Believe About the Atonement of Jesus Christ?

Article of Faith 3

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved,

by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

 This essay is the first one about the Atonement of Jesus Christ as stated in the third Article of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To understand the importance of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, we must understand that it is the third pillar of eternity. Elder Bruce R. McConkie taught the following:

The three greatest events that ever have occurred or ever will occur in all eternity are these:

1. The creation of the heavens and the earth, of man, and of all forms of life.

2. The fall of man, of all forms of life, and of the earth itself from their primeval and paradisiacal state to their present mortal state; and

3. The infinite and eternal atonement, which ransoms man, all living things, and the earth also from their fallen state so that the salvation of the earth and of all living things may be completed.

These three divine events – the three pillars of eternity – are inseparably woven together into one grand tapestry known as the eternal plan of salvation. We view the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ as the center and core and heart of revealed religion. It brings to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Salvation is in Christ.

But had there been no fall, there could have been no atonement. The fall of Adam brought temporal and spiritual death into the world, and it is from these deaths that man and all forms of life are ransomed through the atonement wrought by the Lord Jesus Christ. Adam brought mortality; Christ brought immortality. Salvation comes because of the fall and the atonement.

But if the earth and man and all living things had not been created in their physical and paradisiacal state, in a state of deathlessness, there could have been no fall. The fall, with its resultant probationary estate, is the child of the original and primeval creation, and the atonement is the child of the fall (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith [1985], 81).

As Elder McConkie explained, the Creation of the world, the Fall of Adam and Eve, and the Atonement of Jesus Christ are the three pillars of eternity. Heavenly Father’s plan for the eternal happiness of His children is built upon those three pillars. Now that my readers are aware of the three pillars and their importance to God, we will now move into a discussion about the Atonement of Jesus Christ. In a later chapter, Elder McConkie answered the question: “What is the Atonement?”

The atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ is the third of the three infinite events that comprise the eternal plan of salvation. The other two are the physical creation of all things and then their subsequent fall to their present mortal state. As the paradisiacal creation was the precursor of the fall, so the universal fall, first of Adam and then of all created things, is the foundation upon which the atonement rests. The creation, the fall, and the atonement, these three are the divine and eternal events through which the purposes of the Supreme God are accomplished.

Salvation, meaning eternal life, is reserved for the faithful. It is offered to all men in all ages on the same terms and conditions…. It is offered to man without money and without price; it is available to all because of the atonement…. The light of Christ is given to all men; all are guided by the still, small voice of conscience…. Obedience and good works would count for nothing if there were no atonement…. Temporal and spiritual death would reign forever if there were no atonement…. Salvation is for the obedient; it is their sins that are borne by Christ.

… Thus, salvation of every son, kind, and degree – whether it is resurrection only, on the one hand, or eternal exaltation, on the other – comes by the grace of God. There is no other way; salvation is in Christ, and it comes because of his atoning sacrifice.

This sacrifice, which only a God could make, took place in Gethsemane when he sweat great gouts of blood from every poor…. And it also took place as he hung on the cruel cross of Calvary. During the last three hours of that agonizing ordeal, while darkness overspread the land, all the pains and suffering of Gethsemane returned. He came into the world, not alone to suffer in Gethsemane, but also at Golgotha….

We can no more comprehend the atonement than we can understand the creation or the fall. It suffices, in our present state of probation, and subject to our present finite limitations, to know that we exist, to know that there was a fall, and to know that Christ is the Redeemer. It makes no more sense to reject the fall and the atonement than to reject the creation. The fact is, all three are realities; all three are the means whereby salvation comes (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith [1985], 107-110).

Do All Women Support Lindsay Clancy in Killing Her Children?

Bethany Miller has an interesting view about the Lindsay Clancy case, and she claims that women’s reactions to it are like those of the Luigi Mangione case. She told Glenn Beck that the “reactions aren’t a sudden collapse” but “the fruit of a long insidious project.”

The Blaze TV Staff reported on a recent episode of “The Glenn Beck Program” where Miller joined Beck to discuss one question: “What is the state of American women today?” They discussed how “thousands of women continue their support of Lindsay Clancy” and how women failed to stop romanticizing Luigi Mangione even after his pleaded guilty. Why are women responding as they do? Why do women continue their “disturbing advocacy surrounding people who have admitted to killing innocents?” You can listen to the discussion here. 

In her recent article titled “Lindsay Clancy, Luigi Mangione, and the State of American Women,” Miller explained her theory about what is happening among American women.

In 431 B.C., the Greek playwright Euripides staged Medea, a tragedy about a woman betrayed by her husband who ultimately murders their children in revenge. The chorus of Corinthian women initially sympathizes with Medea’s suffering and Jason’s betrayal, but recoils when her grievance turns toward innocent children. Their empathy had a boundary. They could understand her pain without excusing what she did.

Twenty-four centuries later, that boundary appears considerably less visible. Lindsay Clancy admitted to strangling her three children, 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan. Her defense contends that postpartum psychosis rendered her legally incapable of criminal responsibility, while prosecutors argue that she understood what she was doing and acted deliberately.

Outside the courthouse, however, another trial of sorts has unfolded. Hundreds of supporters, overwhelmingly women, have appeared in pink carrying messages that Clancy “needed help.” Women online have filtered her story through their own experiences with postpartum depression, psychiatric medication, sleeplessness, exhaustion, and physicians who failed to listen. Women have utilized Lindsay Clancy as a mirror for their own experiences of motherhood and mental illness. The refrain is intensely autobiographical: I see her. I understand her. That could have been me. Lindsay Clancy has become more than a defendant. She has become a Rorschach test for modern womanhood.

The trouble with mirrors is that they show us ourselves. They do not necessarily show us the truth about someone else. A state medical examiner testified that complete oxygen deprivation can cause unconsciousness within roughly 10 to 30 seconds, while prosecutors argued that Clancy continued strangling the children after they went limp. Whatever the jury determines about her mental state, these were not abstractions called “a postpartum tragedy.” They were three small children whose mother placed exercise bands around their necks. Cora. Dawson. Callan. If our modern empathy is really as expansive as we congratulate ourselves for believing, surely it should extend first to the children who could not defend themselves.

There is much more to Miller’s article, and you can read it all on this site. 

The bottom line is: It is not acceptable for a mother to kill her own children, whether she is mentally ill or not.

Who Is the Lone Juror?

My VIP for this week is a lone juror in the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy who killed her three young children and then claimed postpartum psychosis. Clancy is accused of strangling her three children in January 2023 and then attempting suicide. Her attempt left her paralyzed.

The jury was unable to reach a verdict – 11-1 split. Eleven members of the jury favored a not-guilty or not-criminally-liable verdict.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington asked the judge to remove the hold-out juror because he refused to follow the reasonable-doubt instruction. Judge William Sullivan declined the request and res-instructed the jury.

According to legal experts, the situation is “extraordinary” and could lead to one of several outcomes, including a mistrial or the insertion of an alternate juror.

The trial ended in a mistrial last week because the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on whether she was criminally responsible for killing her children. The mistrial means the trial is over, but the case is ongoing.

Clancy remains charged, and prosecutors will decide what happens next. Prosecutors could choose to retry the case, offer a plea deal, or restructure the trial by separating phases for guilt and responsibility. Meanwhile, Clancy is held without bail in a state hospital where she is being treated.

The defense position is that Clancy suffered from postpartum psychosis and had a psychiatric emergency. Her lawyer claimed that the mental illness was so severe that Clancy could not control behavior or understand that what she did was wrong. He also claimed that Clancy did not have adequate medical care because she moved between doctors, medications, and treatment programs. Public support and empathy frame the case as one of maternal mental health problems and not premeditated murder.

Prosecution position recognizes that Clancy killed her children and had mental illness. However, prosecutors claim that Clancy had the capacity to know right from wrong, which is shown by her actions showing intent and planning. They based their position on the timing of events, digital evidence, and Clancy’s own writings to support a deliberate, calculated killing.

The bottom line at this point: Clancy claims to be a victim of severe mental illness rather than a murderer who planned to kill her children.

The fact remains that Clancy killed her children. If she is determined to be too mentally ill to be convicted, she should be unable to use her story to make millions of dollars from books, speeches, or other means. Since maternal mental health is part of the defense, all new mothers should receive adequate help from medical providers.

I applaud the lone juror for standing by his beliefs – whatever his reasons – and causing this trial to receive nationwide publicity. 

Why Are Judges Ruling Against Election Integrity Laws?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns election integrity laws and judges who are determined to strike them down. According to Hans von Spakovsky, a judge, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, struck down a Texas voter ID law for the fifth time last week. 

[Federal District Court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos’s] 2014 rebuff of the original version of the Texas law made it clear that she believes all voter ID laws are based solely on the desire to discriminate, not improve the integrity of the election process.

Now you know why the plaintiffs went shopping to her federal court to bring the statewide challenge.

In 2014, Ramos ruled that the law discriminated against minority voters – ignoring clear evidence that this is not the case. Minority turnout had actually increased in the 2013 state election, the first election held with the new ID law in place.

What makes Ramos’ latest ruling so odd is that the amended law not only followed all guidelines set out by the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals, it also contained provisions that Ramos herself had found acceptable as an interim remedy for the November 2016 election.

Adding a new wrinkle, Ramos also ruled unacceptable a provision Texas adopted that has been part of federal law – and never challenged – since 2002.

Here’s why Ramos’ decision is likely to be reversed.

The original Texas law required voters to present a government-issued photo ID, and the state to provide a free ID to anyone who did not already have one. Ramos ruled this provision was discriminatory, and a split 5^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year upheld her views on the discriminatory effect claim.

But the 5^th Circuit remanded the case to Ramos, saying there wasn’t sufficient evidence to support her conclusion that the legislature had a discriminatory purpose in passing the law. Most importantly, the 5^th Circuit held that, since the vast majority of Texas voters could meet the ID requirement, Ramos would have to tailor her remedy to rectify only the discriminatory effect on the very small number of voters who could not meet the ID requirement.

By throwing out the entire law, Ramos has blatantly ignored the 5^th Circuit’s directive.

The 5^th Circuit also found acceptable the section of prior Texas law that allowed “forms of identification like utility bills, bank statements, or paychecks.”

In 2016, when the litigation was remanded to Ramos, she approved an interim remedy (agreed to by the Obama Justice Department) that would allow voters who showed up at the polling place without an ID to still vote in the general election if they:

1.     Signed a declaration that they had a “reasonable impediment” that prevented them from getting the free photo ID; and

2.     Presented a “valid voter registration certificate, a certified birth certificate, a current utility bill, a bank statement, a government check, a paycheck, or any other government document that displays the voter’s name and address.”

In other words, the remedial law had a safety valve where individuals without an ID were still able to vote.

This list of documents is identical in part to a federal requirement (Section 303(b) of the Help America Vote Act) that has been in place since 2002.

That provision requires that any voter who registers to vote by mail must, the first time they vote, show state election officials an ID such as a “current and valid photo identification” or “a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter.”

The voter ID law amendment adopted by the Texas Legislature this year implemented the language from the Ramos-approved interim remedy and the 2002 Help America Vote Act almost word-for-word.

Now claiming that the law as amended is discriminatory, Ramos dismissed her prior approval of these same requirements as not a “binding determination.” …

 

What Is the Covenant Path?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to Psalms 100-150 in a lesson titled “Let Every Thing That Hath Breath Praise the Lord.” The following information introduced the lesson. 

The traditional Jewish name for the book of Psalms is Tehillim, a Hebrew word that means “praises.” It’s related to the exclamation hallelujah (meaning “praise Jehovah” or “praise the Lord”). If you had to choose one word to sum up the main message of the Psalms, praise would be a good choice. Some psalms contain the direct invitation to “praise ye the Lord” (see especially Psalms 146-50), and all of them can inspire worship and praise. The Psalms invite us to acknowledge the Lord’s power, His mercy, and the great things He has done. We can never repay Him for any of this, but we can praise Him. That praise might take different forms for different people – it might involve singing, praying, or bearing testimony. It often leads to a deeper commitment to the Lord and to following His teachings. Whatever “praise ye the Lord” means in your life, you can find inspiration to do it as you read and ponder the Psalms.

The scripture block teaches several principles, including (1) The Lord can comfort me in my suffering (Psalms 102-3; 116). (2) Jesus Christ fulfilled prophecies from the Psalms (Psalms 110; 118). (3) God’s word will keep me on His path (Psalm 119). (4) The Lord is more powerful than any idol (Psalms 134-36). (5) The Lord knows my heart (Psalm 139). (6) “Praise ye the Lord” (Psalms 146-50). This essay will discuss principle #3 about the scriptures helping us to stay on the covenant path (Psalm 119).

Psalm 119 contains many phrases that compare our lives to a journey back to Heavenly Father. There are words such as “walk,” “path,” “way,” “feet,” and “wander.” During my lifetime, I have traveled many paths and roads where I hoped that I would arrive at the desired destination. The scriptures and the servants of God urge us to stay on the covenant path because they know that this path leads back into the presence of God. President Russell M. Nelson gave the following counsel about the journey through life and the value of staying on the covenant path (“Living by Scriptural Guidance,” Ensign, Nov. 2000, 17). 

If our journey through life is to be successful, we need to follow divine direction. The Lord said, “Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not” [Doctrine and Covenants 6:36]. And the Psalmist wrote, “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path” [Psalm 119:105]….

In your journey through life, you meet many obstacles and make some mistakes. Scriptural guidance helps you to recognize error and make the necessary correction. You stop going in the wrong direction. You carefully study the scriptural road map. Then you proceed with repentance and restitution required to get on the “strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life” [2 Nephi 31:18]” (“Living by Scriptural Guidance,” Ensign, Nov. 2000, 17).

Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles also spoke about the journey through life. After teaching the Parable of the Prodigal Son, Elder Uchtdorf said that the parable is about each person living today. “The Prodigal and the Road That Leads Home,” Liahona, Nov. 2023, 86-88). 

 My beloved brothers and sisters, dear friends, like all of the Savior’s parables, this one is not just about people living long ago. It’s about you and me, today.

Who among us has not departed from the path of holiness, foolishly thinking we could find more happiness going our own self-centered way?

Who among us has not felt humbled, brokenhearted, and desperate for forgiveness and mercy?

Perhaps some may even have wondered, “Is it even possible to go back? Will I be labeled forever, rejected, and avoided by my former friends? Is it better to just stay lost? How will God react if I try to return?”

This parable gives us the answer.

Our Heavenly Father will run to us, His heart overflowing with love and compassion. He will embrace us; place a robe around our shoulders, a ring on our finger, and sandals on our feet; and proclaim, “Today we celebrate! For my child, who once was dead, has come back to life!”

Heaven will rejoice at our return.

What Are Protective Factors to Strengthen Families?

Families can be strengthened, and strong families can strengthen communities, states, and nations. According to this site, there are five protective factors for families – “characteristics or strengths of individuals, families, communities or societies that act to mitigate risks and promote positive well-being and healthy development.” Here are the five protective factors. 

1. Parental resilience: Managing stress and functioning well when faced with challenges, adversity, and trauma.

2. Social connections: Positive relationships that provide emotional, informational, instrumental and spiritual support.

3. Knowledge of parenting and child development: Understanding child development and parenting strategies that support physical, cognitive, language, social and emotional development.

4. Concrete support in times of need: Access to concrete support and services that address a family’s needs and help minimize stress caused by challenges.

5. Social and emotional competence of children: Family and child interactions that help children develop the ability to communicate clearly, recognize and regulate their emotions and establish and maintain relationships.