My chief political aim is to see America as White as our Christian founding fathers intended. Mormons are my White kin, and thus, I am happy to labor with them to achieve a this political goal, despite our theological differences. At this time, such theological disputes do not further my chief political goal.
That is understandable. I certainly do not wish to share a country with the progressive libtard - even if they're White. Sadly, a plethora of my own kin won't make the cut. But ultimately, a nation cannot proceed without a common ancestry and shared heritage. I think it's mostly that I use the word "White" that people oppose.
The ones with significant father figure issues do - and it's more about attention than anything. But otherwise most women evaluate mates based on what others decide for them. Historically, that would be father, family, church, community, etc.
Nowadays, it's been reduced to what other women say. This is why men who are taken are in much higher demand - some woman has already deemed him relationship material, so I do, too.
@Jclearfield2@WheelnDealin101 Yes, though that is not a political matter. That is a Church matter, and I am not Church planting. I propose we can resume such theological debates when we have secured our nation from foreign immigration invasion.
@pearlythingz Traditional Christianity outlines male headship of father/husband over the woman, not the pastor. The pastor/elders would then have limited authority over said man. There are no scenarios where husband/fathers authority is revoked.
I do not expect my race to grant me salvation. Salvation is granted through faith in Christ alone.
What I speak of here is reinforcing God's design as a nation being a people of common ancestry. In America's case, it's Europeans. Nobody seems to have a problem with any other ethnicity in the world securing a nation for themselves.