https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cdl-mueller-biden-administration-leads-campaign-to-de-christianize-western-culture

There are still some voices who are speaking up.  Hope they have a 'food taster'...

But I heard Biden is the most religious president we’ve ever had.

Funny.  

I doubt that they're the types who would shirk martyrdom though.

"How large is that Cardinal's National Guard?"

Comrade Susan Rice

Religious != Christian
He bends the knee at the altars of Ashtoreth and Baal and even pours out a propitiation of the blood of infants to Moloch.  
As written in the Book of Kings, he has done more than all the previous kings to provoke the Lord to anger.

To the indifferentists, all religions are the same, so it doesn't matter.

I'm not so sure of this. Don't underestimate the sins of pass presidents.

Clearly. Look at the Bible he put his hand on while taking his oath.

"You know a tree by it's fruit..."

Nancy Pelosi is Gods gift to the House. You know.... "the Word"

What bible did president Biden take his oath from?

He is.  Just not Catholic.  He's a humanist

I have seen otherwise religious conservative folks brag and swagger at the drop in Western religious influence and church attendance... Right here on arfcom.

I understand atheists or liberal extremists feeling good about that information. But this was from otherwise gun owning "religious" conservatives gloating at the sharp drop in church attendance and membership in Western religious culture.

Tragic.

Sad.

Cardinal Muller is spot-on. Western religious influence, especially Christ-centered influence is under full-fronted societal attack. Christian thought and Christian perspective is being shunted and Christian beliefs abused. Church attendance is dropping.

How do we react? How do we respond to nay-sayers and shade-throwers who criticize Western religions who have dropping Church attendance?

Those who follow Christ know that it will get bad before it gets worse. Those who follow Christ know that faith will fail in the Latter-Days. I guess all we can do as followers of Christ trying to make a difference is to be prepared ourselves. Have years supply of food. Have savings earning interest. Be prepared not just with resources, but with faith. As hearts start to fail, and the West starts to fall, we need to be the ones who lead and protect our families and communities and our Constitution and our country.

Are you saying you hope someone kills the Pope? Who are we hoping has a "food taster."??-?? I am sincerely curious.

Who are we hoping gets killed?

Find a flock and a shepherd that are strong and who will have each others' backs.  Some parishes are exploding.  

The idea of extended parish closures was a huge mistake by the modernist, humanist sect in Catholicism.  It not only opened people's eyes; it broke their attendance habits.  Those whose faith was lacking aren't going back.  Those with strong faith were pushed to the internet for (poor) sustenance.  There they found men like Father Altman, Father Ripperger, and Father Nix and when they saw what was missing from their own parishes, they began to look for something better.

I've not seen any Christians "brag and swagger at the drop in Western religious influence and church attendance" in this sub-forum. Now, I have seen some that have stated a fact that some denominations have witnessed a drop in their attendance. That's different.

It's also not hypocritical. I say this because I don't believe in the humanist, liberal "we're all basically the same despite our differences" nonsense that liberal sects of all denominations have fallen into. I don't believe that Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Mormonism (and that's not an insult) etc. are the same as Christianity if by the same one means "just as true".

I believe Christ is the only way. Moreover, within Christianity, I believe the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church Christ founded and stated guarantees Salvation if one follows its tenets and remains in a state of Grace.

While all denominations possess some degree of truth, goodness, and beauty, and while there are many issues we can agree on and voice our support for, I do not pretend that I see them as "equal in Truth" in God's eyes, and I would like to see their members come back home. Therefore, if membership in non Catholic denominations decrease and Catholic attendance increases, why would I not see that as a good thing?

I do not think they are less than me, worse than me, or destined for damnation. I just think they are not in Christ's Church.  

When attendance decreases all around, then sure I see that as sad. However, if it is God's plan and will for the "last days" as some believe, then how does the "let's stick together and change it" mantra matter?

This. TO SOME EXTENT, numbers are not important. The quality of Christians versus the quantity is what truly matters. That's what matters to God anyway.

He's hoping NO ONE gets killed. Read his answer in the proper context and it becomes clear.

Mullers comments --as I understand them-- are universal.

Western culture, as I take Mullers comments, is in decline.

Western culture, and Western Christianity is not in a universal decline because "some denominations" have witnessed a drop in their attendance. The decline pretty much affects the entirety of Western Christianity.




Yes it is.




It is easier to write "Hinduism, Judaism, Mormonism..." To make your misguided and misplaced point.

Than it is to write "Hinduism, Judaism, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints." Its harder for you to make your point if you use the actual name of The Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, (and not Judaism, and not Hinduism) claims to be a Christian Church... Link


From the link:






Muller, as I see, read, and understand his position-- is referring to an obvious (to me, I guess) universal faltering of faith in the Western world. It is not one faith that is experiencing slower growth. It is pretty much all Western faiths. And any one faith struggling is bad news to good and moral people on its own. But that is not the case. Western Christianity and Western culture... Especially the focus on the importance of the traditional family... Is at risk. I agree with Muller. I think he is right.

in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, 1 Tim. 4:1.

in the last days perilous times shall come, 2 Tim. 3:1.

I think, even as we enter the darker days of the Latter-Days, it is still the duty of good people to protect and defend the innocent. And protect and defend The Constitution.

The Constitution is a sacred, God-inspired document that requires good and moral people to defend it. I doubt there is much disagreement on this.

The family is so important. I agree with Muller. Good and moral people need to take a stand for the family. For the defense of the traditional family. Every child deserves to be raised in a good and moral home.

I can't see much if anything in the article I read on this where I disagree with Muller.

Cool. I guess I have tried to look at it...

Are we hoping that no one gets killed, like the Pope?

Or are we hoping no one gets killed, like conservatives who oppose the Pope?

I guess I am going to need it spelled-out for me.

Killing people makes them martyrs for their cause. It increases the reach and impact of their argument more often than not.

answer inside

Perhaps you should mention him for clarification.

Well, Muller is right, and I agree with him. I doubt there is a lot of difference of opinion between good and moral people on this issue.

Western civilization, which is based on the traditional family, is in decline.

Politicians (and other prominent people) tout their relationships with prostitutes. Politicians protect and defend and promote abortion, single-parent families, and expensive government programs that place a financial burden on families and allows for the dividing of families.



I would believe you are sincere if you would actually use the actual name of The Church you are criticizing: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe in and worship Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.

Next time, use the actual name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to make your point. It will make your motives more believable...

Using the actual name of The Latter-Day Church in your criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ won't force you to deny or betray your faith or religious beliefs...

Your belief in my sincerity is inconsequential as it pertains to my desire to adhere to my religious beliefs.

Secondly, I do sincerely believe that using the name you want me to would be forcing me to deny and/or betray my faith. As such, I will not do it.

There is no way this conversation is going to produce anything productive so I am stopping it here.

It is not necessarily the name I want you to use per se. Its not like I pulled the name out of thin air. It is the *actual* formal name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Its not like my name is Juni and I want everyone to start calling me "Chocolate Thunder." The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the actual, formal name of The Church of Jesus Christ.

I searched, "Catholic World Report" and found the Catholic publication referred to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints a bunch of times in articles. It cannot be a damnable offense for Catholics in good standing to --in good faith-- refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints by the formal, actual name of The Church of Jesus Christ. "The Catholic World Report" does it. Link

Searching the articles, it appears that "Catholic World Report" is purposefully trying to operate with goodwill and good fellowship with us, regardless of differences, even significant ones. Obviously, clearly, they disagree with us on many important and significant positions. But they want to be taken seriously, so they operate with goodwill, friendship, and good faith.

If the "Catholic World Report" can doctrinally refer to us in good faith by the name of The Church of Jesus Christ, I would assume that --doctrinally-- you could possibly as well...



Ok. That is fine.

If you have a link or document to Catholic beliefs documenting not calling The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints by the actual name of The Church of Jesus Christ, that would be cool. I would really, really like to take a look at it. My curiosity meter is to the fully-on position... If not, then whatever. Have a good evening, regardless.

Back in 2001, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a response to a Dubium regarding the validity of baptism conferred by the "the community the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

link

I think that the two churches have very different understandings, who Jesus is and what the Holy Trinity is, not the least among them.

I remember when that announcement happened. I am pretty sure there was a similar policy in place prior to that announcement. I was told the same thing as a Missionary in the mid-1990s from believing Catholics.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and the Catholic Church have extreme and obvious differences in beliefs.

We do not accept *your* baptism, either, if we are going to be honest. If you join The Church of Jesus Christ as a former member of the Catholic Church, you will have to be re-baptized. There are serious and glaring differences in beliefs and doctrines between our faiths. But your central beliefs are centered in Jesus Christ. Our Our central beliefs are centered in Jesus Christ, and His ministry, teachings and atonement for mankind. Folks who disagree with Catholics can argue all day on things I think you guys get wrong. And the same with us. We have antagonists who point out where they think we get it wrong. So do Catholics. The problem I see is that any fair and honest analysis of The Catholic Church can see that Christ is the central part of your beliefs. And any fair and honest analysis of my religion will show: Christ is the central part of our beliefs.

I don't have a problem with folks saying they disagree with The Church of Jesus Christ. Disagreements happen. There are disagreements among every religion that believes they are saved by following the teachings of Jesus Christ. I do not have a problem with folks saying they disagree with the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ. In many cases, when they outline their disagreements, I can point them in the right direction, but that is besides the point. Disagreement is not necessarily the issue.

The issue is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was listed among a list of denominations that do not prescribe to believing that they are saved or redeemed through Jesus Christ.



Islam does not claim that they are saved through the atonement, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They do not worship Jesus Christ.

Hinduism. Same thing.

Judaism. They specifically, at their core, believe Christ has not come and redeemed the world. Yet. I guess Messianic Jews believe in Christ, but they were not specified.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? Yes, we believe in Jesus Christ. We worship Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. We believe we are saved through Jesus Christ.

The issue is that in my opinion any professed claims of similarity are not sufficient to overcome the massive, fundamental doctrinal differences that essentially alter what the majority of Christians perceive constitute Christianity; Such notions as men can become Gods, Prophets in the "revelation" sense continue after John the Baptist, the Trinity, Baptism, and infallibility of the Bible, additions to the Word of God (i.e. Book of Mormon) etc.

The differences are so vast it is akin to the mainstream "Christian" denominations that say "We are Christian as we place Christ at the center of our church, but we believe in gay marriage, abortion, female clergy" etc.

Again, I have listed the differences only to illuminate why Mormons were included in my statement. I do not care to discuss any rationalization of the Mormon faith, any apologetics, or any attempts to align Mormon teachings with Christianity.

I think most Mormons are wonderful, good, and kind people who demonstrate many virtuous characteristics and live good lives, as do some Muslims, Hindus, etc. This is not an insult on Mormons or their church, just my opinion.

To be clear, the reason I posted that quote/link was because it was the first place I found from an official RCC source (as opposed to commentary sites) that used the LDS name, which I believe was your question to VG





Do we believe the same things about Jesus or in the same Jesus?  I have never read an LDC catechism, if such a thing exists.  My understanding though, is that the LDS teaches that Jesus is a created being, a creature.  A universal (AFAIK) tenet of Christianity is that Jesus is not a creature, but one person of an uncreated triune God.

Is my understanding of LDS doctrine correct?

We Catholics do not believe the same things about Jesus as the Mormons, and not in the same Jesus anymore than if I were to contend H46Driver is a 6'7" black man from American Samoa who likes his toast slathered in cocoa-butter infused vaseline (If I got any of this right, please let me know so I can buy a lottery ticket).

Yes, your understanding is correct.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-mormon-christ

Mormonism is a hodge-podge of syncretic beliefs, a lot of them defined as heresies in the first few centuries of the Church: much like Islam simply repackaged the things rejected by the Early Church.

Perhaps for the clarification of others, I should post the following:

The idea that because the Catholic Church chooses to use the LDS name, it is okay for me to do so is a red herring. I never stated that my opinion is such so as to keep in line with Church doctrine. That is an assumption, side-argument, or whatever you want to call it of the other poster.

Simply stated, the RCC has no official doctrine on whether one can or cannot use the LDS name. As such, in keeping with the Church's strong belief in an individual's free will, I choose not to because of the aforementioned reasons.

Whether the Church uses it or not is of no importance in this case.

That the name as the Mormons officially call it was used, was simply for clarity of which community they referred to in their ruling on the validity of Baptisms; perhaps there could be some breakaway sect which has jettisoned general Trinitarian rejection in favor of an orthodox understanding of the Trinity -- certainly such a case, though under the general title of "Mormon", would warrant a separate look. But that Mormons should take it as a prescription for reference to which Catholics are bound is incorrect. If there were a group commonly referred to as... I dunno, Gabrielites, but their personal "official" name were "The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ", and part of their doctrine was that somehow, because Christ's flesh was wholly from Mary, we in fact worship Mary corporally, but Christ spiritually, it would be equally absurd to expect us to refer to that group as "The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ" due to the confusion it would cause, and the incorrect nature of the title. Much like Mormon baptism has the proper matter and form but a wildly different intention as to that form (I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost), so too would the intentions of the Gabrielites be incorrect in their baptism, were such theological beliefs to impact the Trinity as accepted.

It's problematic from a Catholic perspective to use the term "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" in a general context because it would be unthinkable for us as Catholics to give any validity to the claim of that organization as being a true Church of Jesus Christ - hence, the Vatican typically only refers to Churches as such when they have true Apostolic succession. Otherwise, it's a "community"+a title.

I could personally care less if one wishes to refer to the Catholic Church as the Roman Church (which is incorrect since the Roman component is but one of many others). I mean, it's what they intend in general since they prefer to ignore the theology and historical veracity of Eastern Catholic and Orthodox claims which somehow get forgotten in lieu of merely bludgeoning the Roman rite with charges of innovation and being unscriptural. Heck, I could care less if they even refuse to call us Christians or choose to engage in old canards like "papists" or "idolaters" or even the pagan Roman misunderstanding, "Cannibals!!!!!!".

They could even call us Babylonians in reference to the following:

Orson Pratt, Writings of an Apostle, Orson Pratt, n. 6, 84).

My concern is primarily that people understand what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

As always, an intelligent, well-reasoned, and insightful post.

That did not slip past me.

The Roman Catholic Church was obviously trying to be correct in the use of the *offiial* name of The Church of Jesus Christ in an official pronouncement.

Jesus Christ is both eternal and Gods Son. Link

If you understand the concept of "red herrings" then you understand why I find it ridiculous that you list The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints with churches that do not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

There is no official doctrinal reason you don't call The Church of Jesus Christ by its official name. It just makes it easier to make your misguided point.

In the sense of making it easier to misconstrue our teachings, some people refuse to use the actual name of The Church of Jesus Christ at all... Regardless of context.



Back in the day, Pratt, and others referred to the Catholic Church as such. He was probably thinking of differences in doctrines, and apostate practices such as infant baptism as the reason. They were speculating, postulating, and wrong.

Babylon refers to those who persecute and abuse The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It is government officials who limit religious freedoms. It is/was government officials who work against the children of God. Link

Pratts statement was repudiated by the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in 1865:



I do not refer to Catholics as "Babylon," and you have to go back to a repudiated statement from the 1800s to show anyone in The Church referring to Catholics as that term.




That is my concern as well. At least concerning the actual teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Pratts misguided and wrong reference to Catholics and "Babylon" was repudiated. At the time. Good people can be wrong sometimes.

Did you not read what I wrote? Official texts engage in specifity not for the purpose of prescribing any entity as such, but to keep from confusion should any other group in a larger milieu need to be looked at per the question.



Did the link I provided not properly convey the pre-Sonship state of Christ, and as he relates to the Father, as held by LDS doctrine? Was God the Father ever a man and does he have a body of flesh and bone; was he a man that then became the Father?

Babylon - never said you did refer to Catholics as such, just that I wouldn't care if you did.

Repudiated statements... meh, the point is, again, I don't care what you call us. I might even find it amusing, since it would reveal your subconscious issues with the Catholic Church.

What about this... is it repudiated?
(Mormon Doctrine, 1958, 129).

And, is there "public" repudiation while maintaining internal adherence?

I find it odd that a supposed "Apostle's" views on something could be repudiated. What's their use, then?

My main point is you want us Catholics to engage in a pinch of linguistic incense while you stamp your feet and act like a child about something so trivial as a colloquialism which is in long-held and frequent use, only recently "changed" from your perspective, despite whatever your organization may deign to call itself in any official manner.

Call us whatever you want, but don't expect me to associate your organization with Jesus Christ, for you preach another Gospel, another Christ. I will not engage in a saccharine "dialogue", and frankly could care less about your feelings just as I hope you could care less about mine in the context of what either holds is true -- for truth cares nothing about how one "feels" about its reality.

Except I don't think it, even on a subconscious level. I have always liked and appreciated Catholics. I have always had close personal friends who were Catholics. My next door neighbors growing up in Utah were Catholic. They were good people, just like us. They went to Church Sunday, just like us. They voted pro-life conservative, just like us. Deep in my conscious is fond memories and experiences of long summer baseball games between our big families and their cousins and my cousins. You can't fake friendship that lasts years. Deep in my memories and "subconscious" and deep conscious and "indelible in my hippocampus" is satisfying friendship and good times with Catholics. I have always been friends with Catholics, even now.

I don't have any subconscious issues with Catholics at *any* level.




McConkies son was my Stake President when I lived in Colorado. He said point-blank, when I asked him that his dad got some things wrong.

McConkies first edition included the wrong statement, among other statements that were changed. McConkies second edition changed the wording from the paragraph you wrote to the following paragraph:

Link

McConkie himself "repudiated" his own wrong statement/




In the case of Pratt, I have a few ideas on why his statement was officially repudiated...

He didn't make the statement in an official publication at the time it was published outside of official avenues. Which wouldn't matter except that the term does not exactly fit with Catholics in a broad doctrinal sense. Pratt could identify specific instances of Catholic beliefs that do not harmonize with our understanding of scripture. But *the* official organization does not necessarily fit Catholics per se.

Pratt got it wrong. And it was corrected. 100 years later, McConkie got it wrong. And it was corrected...



That is not what is happening. That is not a fair description of what is happening here.

And you had to go back 100 years, and ~70 years to find terms you might disagree with applied to you.

I did not invent the name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I wrote that whatever poster wants to use whatever term to describe The Church of Jesus Christ. I thought that it would make it harder for the poster to make his point against The Church of Jesus Christ if he had used the actual given name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints.



I have not called Catholics anything other than Catholics.

To create disagreement on this issue, you had to go back 100+ years to find disagreement. When that did not work, you had to go back 70+ years to find contention and disagreement.

That ought to speak positively of me, my position, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. We can find instances right now of folks trying to manipulate our beliefs against us by not wanting to use the actual name of The Church of Jesus Christ.

I like Catholics, and have no problem with them. They are my friends, and political allies on the traditional family, rights of the unborn, and conservative ideals generally.





I *really* don't think that helps your position, bro. That is pretty low-hanging fruit.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is centered on the teachings of Jesus Christ.





You guys get a lot of things wrong. Infant baptism is a big one. Many other things you guys are off the reservation on.

I would not be honest with myself, though if someone asked me, "Do Catholics believe in and worship Jesus Christ."

Because I am an honest person. Because I know the truth, Catholics get many things wrong, but they still believe in Jesus Christ. They still worship Jesus Christ. So my answer to the question, if someone did not know, "Do Catholics believe in and worship Jesus Christ." My answer is simple: Yes.

Because I am an honest person.

I could clarify that there are differences in specific beliefs. I could clarify that we believe that the early "creeds" were acts of open apostasy against the early Church. But that is not what the question was. The question was: "Do Catholics believe in and worship Jesus Christ." Me being a man of honor forces an honest answer: Yes.

And I don't think it helps your position, in the long run-- to try to define "Christianity" to exclude members of The Church of Jesus Christ. When I teach someone, or when a local University has a "question and answer" session with me. Or whenever. "I heard you do not worship and believe in Jesus Christ." It is like a softball lob. There are hard questions to ask, that is an easy one.

We do believe in and worship Jesus Christ. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believes that we are saved through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

When we believe in and worship Jesus Christ.







Good use of the word Saccharine. That is pretty good. If this discussion were an IQ test, I am pretty sure you would win.

I don't have "feelings" associated with this discussion, except that I have a deep love and respect for my Catholic friends, and my earliest memories are good times growing up with good Catholics.

This is not a discussion about "feelings." I hope you know that when we are teaching someone in our home, or answering questions and dialoguing at a College thing. If someone brings up, "Here is a narrow definition of what a Christian is, and you do not meet the definition." It is usually almost always a discussion that ends in our favor.

"You are not "Christian" because you don't meet the definition outlined in a creed." Are you under the assumption that we agree with the creeds? We are not "creedal Christians."

"You are not a "Christian" because you believe in scripture in addition to the Bible." We believe in The Bible and The Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon testifies of Christs Biblical ministry.

"You are not a "Christian" because all the other "Christian" religions think you are not. Following Christ is not a popularity contest. We still worship in and believe in Jesus Christ.

I don't have any "feelings" associated with this discussion. It is a good discussion, and I am learning a great deal. I will try to include the word, "saccharine" into a discussion at work tomorrow. For kicks and giggles, I will work it into a discussion with one of my best work friends who is a... Wait for it... Catholic. :-)

You can use whatever term you want to use to describe our church. Use whatever term your moral integrity allows you to use. But if you tell someone, "The Church of Jesus Christ does not follow the teachings of Christ." And I answer the question and show where we *do* believe in and worship Jesus Christ, they will question your integrity and your motives. I am trying to help you out.

Narrow definitions can be used to exclude or include just about any other Church you want to exclude or include.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believes in and worships Jesus Christ. That is the truth. And that is not saccharine, mawkish, maudlin, or lachrymose. (I used a thesaurus).

And that's all I said I was doing from the onset.

And, my integrity and faith prefer to use the term Mormon, so I will continue to do so.

As such, hopefully this will be the end of this deviation from the original point of this thread. I have stated that I will continue to use "Mormons" as my conscience dictates, and you have said you are fine with that. No offense was or is intended.

yes but consider all the unchristian mean tweets due to his character flaws that we will now not have to suffer.

certainly that's worth a few million innocent lives.

There have indeed been other "less Christian" presidents. However, I can state in all certainty that there has never been another president who has so openly supported anti-Christian notions with such audacity and defiant impunity.

Yup, and from the mouths of "Christians".

Whatever your conscience and  personal ethics allow you to do. You have to look at yourself in the mirror every day. Same for me. That is why I cannot misrepresent other peoples beliefs, even if I think they are misplaced or misguided.

You can use whatever term you want. I said that from the beginning. I did not pull the official name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints out of the air. I think it is short-sighted and ill-advised to not use the name of The Church of Jesus Christ when talking about whether we believe in and worship Jesus Christ. I think you avoid it for short-sighted reasons. It might help you in a moment of debate to make a point easier, word-wise. But what happens when someone you have told, "Mormons don't follow the teachings of Jesus Christ" learns, that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints actually *does* indeed worship and follow Jesus Christ? You don't think they will question your misguided motives and intentions in the end? You look at yourself in the mirror. And I look at myself in the mirror. I think honesty and integrity are the best options if ever given an option. But you do you, VG.

Even Obama supported the traditional family in his first campaign for President in 2008. Pressed in a debate, he said that marriage was between a man and a woman:

Link

The political-left has been pushing the narrative against the traditional American family for a long time. What Obama said in 2008, he didn't mean, he was just trying to get elected, and African Americans vote Democrat but are also Church goers.

Fast-forward to current times. We have shifted *hard* as a Nation to the anti-family left since 2008.

I will..

Classy jab. Now, let's move on please.

It was far, far more than just "mean tweets" that led to the hard-shift to the left since 2008. Prostitutes. Socialism payouts. Massive deficit spending. Hard shift to the left on debt social spending. Things freedom-minded religious conservatives abhor.

On the subject of the value of the creation of human life, Trump and Trumps prostitutes never took the creation of human life with any degree of religious sincerity. The traditional American family and family and religious values were never at any level of seriousness for Trump and Trumps prostitutes.

The hard shift to the hard-left on traditional family values cannot be solely blamed on anti-family Democrats. A certain level of blame can also be blamed on pro-prostitute Republicans.

I would like to see Biden excommunicated, publicly and with fanfare.

Edited ~ medicmandan