Seven Differences Between Mormonism and Christianity

mormoninfo.org ^

[greyfoxx39]

Introduction

The purpose of this is to let you know seven

differences between Mormonism and traditional

Christianity (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox).

Many would think that Mormonism is simply a part of

Christianity, particularly since they are called “The

Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints”

(emphasis added). The problem is that we, as traditional

Christians, think that Mormonism is teaching another

Jesus than what the Bible teaches (cf. 2 Corinthians

11:3-4, 13-15).

The Seven Differences

1. Mormon scripture teaches that all the various

Christian denominations, particularly the

Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists, are all

considered by Jesus Christ to be “wrong.” When

the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. was questioning,

as a 14-year-old boy, which of these churches to join, he

claimed, “I was answered that I must join none of them, for

they were all wrong; and the Personage who

addressed me said that all their creeds were an

abomination in his sight; that those professors were

all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their

lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for

doctrines the commandments of men, having a form

of godliness, but they deny the power thereof’”

(Joseph Smith--History 1:19, Pearl of Great Price,

emphasis added, cf. 1:9).

“Behold there are save two churches only; the one is

the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the

church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not

to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that

great church, which is the mother of abominations;

and she is the whore of all the earth (1 Nephi 14:10,

Book of Mormon).”

2. Mormon scripture, prophets and apostles teach that

there is more than one god who created this world,

that there are many gods who rule over other worlds,

and that worthy Mormons may one day become gods

themselves. Even though Mormons claim there is only

one God for them, they still believe that the Father,

Son, and Holy Spirit are separate gods who are only

one in their purpose rather than in a personal being

that they share eternally.

Three separate personages--Father, Son, and Holy Ghost-

-comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a

God, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a

plurality of Gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper

finite sense, these three are the only Gods we worship.

But in addition there is an infinite number of holy

personages, drawn from worlds without number, who

have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods (Bruce R.

McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 576-7).

“Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true

God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods

yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same

as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from

one small degree to another… until you attain to the

resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in

everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who

sit enthroned in everlasting power (Joseph Smith,

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 346-7).

“As man is God once was, as God is man may be”

(Prophet Lorenzo Snow, The Life of Lorenzo Snow by

Thomas C. Romney, 46).

“And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went

down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods,

organized and formed the heavens and the earth”

(Abraham 4:1, The Pearl of Great Price).

3. Mormon scripture, prophets and apostles teach

that God the Father is an exalted man with flesh

and bones.

“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted

man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! …I say, if

you were to see him today, you would see him like a man

in form--like yourselves in all the person, image, and

very form as a man; ...I am going to tell you how God

came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that

God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea,

and take away the veil, so that you may see” (Smith,

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345).

“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as

man’s” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22).

4. Mormon prophets and apostles teach that God

the Father has at least one wife by which we were

all literally born from as spirit children prior to

coming to this earth. Some of these prophets and

apostles have even taught that Jesus had wives

and children.

“This glorious truth of celestial parentage,

including specifically both a Father and a Mother, is

heralded forth by song in one of the greatest of

Latter-day Saint hymns. O My Father by Eliza R.

Snow, written in 1843 during the lifetime of the

Prophet, includes this teaching:

“ In the heavens are parents single? No; the thought makes reason stare!

Truth is reason, truth eternal, Tells me I’ve a Mother there.

When I leave this frail existence, When I lay this mortal by,

Father, Mother, may I meet you In your royal courts on high?”

(McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 516-7).

“We have now clearly shown that God the Father had

a plurality of wives, one or more being in eternity,

by whom He begat our spirits as well as the spirit of

Jesus His First Born, and another being upon the

earth by whom He begat the tabernacle of Jesus, as

His Only Begotten in this world. We have also

proved most clearly that the Son followed the

example of his Father, and became the great

Bridegroom to whom kings’ daughters and many

honorable Wives were to be married” (Apostle Orson

Pratt, The Seer, 172).

“When our father Adam came into the garden of

Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and

brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped

to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL,

the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about

whom holy men have written and spoken--He is our

FATHER and our God, and the only God with

whom WE have to do (Prophet Brigham Young,

Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, 50).

NOTE: Most Mormons are unaware that Brigham

Young in fact taught that Adam was the God of this

world. Only members of fundamentalist Mormon groups

(not affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday

Saints) hold to this doctrine today. Regardless of this

identification of God as being Adam, no one denies that

Young believed that God the Father has more than one wife.

5. Mormon prophets and apostles teach that God

the Father had a Father whom He followed as

Jesus had followed Him. This follows from the

preceding points.

“If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was

the Son of God, and John discovered that God the

Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may

suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there

ever a son without a father? And where was there

ever a father without first being a son? Whenever

did a tree or anything spring into existence without a

progenitor? And everything comes in this way.

…Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe

that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of

being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the

Bible is full of it.

I want you to pay particular attention to what I am

saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely

in the same way as His Father had done before Him.

As the Father had done before? He laid down His

life, and took it up the same as His Father had done

before” (Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph

Smith, 373).

6. Mormon prophets and apostles teach that there

are many things that Jesus did not create. For

example, He did not create our spirits, nor did He

create Lucifer, nor did He even create the planet

that He was born on as a spirit. The reason for this

is because Mormons believe that Jesus and Lucifer

are literally brothers, and we as humans are all the

younger brothers and sisters of them. We were all

born of heavenly parents, who did the creating work

of their world (not all worlds whatsoever) before we

arrived spiritually in heaven.

“The appointment of Jesus to be the Savior of the

world was contested by one of the other sons of God.

He was called Lucifer, son of the morning. Haughty,

ambitious, and covetous of power and glory, this

spirit-brother of Jesus desperately tried to become the

Savior of mankind” (Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel

through the Ages, 15).

7. Mormon prophets and apostles teach that we

should not pray directly to Jesus. Rather, they can

only pray directly to the Father in the name of Jesus.

Apostle Bruce McConkie said concerning the Father,

“He is the one to whom we have direct access by

prayer, and if there were some need -- which there is

not -- to single out one member of the Godhead, for a

special relationship, the Father, not the Son, would be

the one to choose. Our relationship with the Son is

one of brother or sister in the pre-mortal life.’

Referring to “others who have an excessive zeal,”

McConkie went on to say that they devote themselves to

gaining a special, personal relationship with Christ

that is both improper and perilous. ...Another peril is that those so

involved often begin to pray directly to Christ because of some

special friendship they feel has been developed.

...This is plain sectarian nonsense. Our prayers are

addressed to the Father and to Him only (BYU

Devotional [March 2, 1982], 17, 19 & 20).

A Christian Response

Some Mormons may quibble that some of these

sources are non-scriptural, and are thus simply the

opinions of men with no binding authority. But the Bible

says that if so-called prophets and apostles teach other

gods than what God has already clearly revealed about

Himself, we are to consider them to be false (cf.

Deuteronomy 13:1-5; 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, 13-15; &

Galatians 1:6-9). What difference does it make if the

preceding sources are deemed by the Mormon Church to

be scriptural or not? If this is truly what they taught, then

it seems quite obvious that these individuals are not

teaching the God of the Bible, and thus should be

considered as non-Christian (i.e., they are not following

the true Christ).

Mormons also quibble that the Bible is full of errors

and has been through many a translation such that many

“plain and precious truths” have been left out of the

translation we have today. Thus, Mormons unquestionably

rest their faith in what their church tells them to believe, so

long as they receive affirmation from what is called a

“burning in their bosoms.” Christians, on the other hand,

find no reason to think that many truths have been taken

from Scripture.

Why is it that all the various manuscripts

of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Scriptures, from which

all the various versions come, are remarkably consistent

with each other? Where is all the evidence that these

manuscripts were cut up in such a way so as to delete the

“plain and precious truths” found today in the restored

Mormon Scriptures? Christians find no reason to doubt

the words of the Lord Jesus when He said, “Scripture

cannot be broken” (John 10:35), and “[h]eaven and earth

shall pass away but my words shall not pass away” (Mat.

24:35). It is the word of God, not our “burning in our

bosoms,” that is a light to our path (Psalms 119:105).

The Christian interpretation of the Bible teaches that

there was only one Being (not a team of Gods that formed

a Godhead) who did the creation work of any world in the

entire universe (not some proper subset of it) (Isaiah

43:10; 44:6, 8, 24; 45:12; & 46:9). Of course other “gods”

are mentioned in Scripture, but they are consistently

referred to as false gods or idols that are not gods by nature

(Ps. 96:5; 1 Cor. 8:1-6; & Gal. 4:8).

(Some Mormons have attempted to support their polytheism by likening

themselves to early Christian fathers and other Christian

theologians in their view of the deification of humans. But

the latter still believe in only one true God by nature, and

hold that humans can never attain the unique features of

God like omnipotence, eternality, omnipresence, etc.

Consequently, Christian deification does not teach that

humans can literally become gods. Instead, it teaches that

humans are “deified” in the sense that the Holy Spirit

transforms Christian believers into the image of God,

modeled perfectly in the human nature of Christ, by

endowing them in the resurrection with immortality and

God’s perfect moral character.)

The Bible also teaches that God is not limited to a body

that He needs to become a God. He is too great for a body

(1 Kings 8:27 & Jn. 4:21-24). He is God unchangeably

from everlasting to everlasting (Malachi 3:6 & Ps. 90:2).

This is why God has a completely different nature from

man. He is not a mere man, nor an exalted man, since He

is not a man at all (Hosea 11:9).

The Bible also teaches that Jesus created everything

that was ever created from the beginning of heaven and

earth (Jn. 1:1-3, 14 & Colossians 1:15-18). Hence,

wherever humans or Lucifer were made, they were all

made by Jesus. This is why Christians have no problem

praying to Jesus (cf. Stephen’s prayer in Acts 7:59).

Jesus told us not just to pray to the Father, but to Himself

as well (Jn. 14:14—Greek says, “If you ask me anything

in my name, I will do it”). Whether Jesus is physically

present or not is irrelevant, since He claimed to be with us

always anyway (Mat. 18:20 & 28:20). Though He

became fully man, He has always been fully God and

ought to be treated as such (Jn. 1:1 & 14; 5:18 & 23;

Romans 9:5; Philippians 2:5-10; Col. 2:9; Revelation 1:8,

17-18; & 22:6-20). Since Jesus is the only Son of God

with the nature of God (“only begotten” in Greek means

“one of a kind or genus”), He is God the Son (Jn. 1:18).

More specifically, He is the second person of God. The

Christian God is more than one person; He is actually three

persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who are not unlike

radically connected Siamese twins (compare Isa. 44:24

with Genesis 1:26--the being of God created alone with the

plurality of persons that His being is comprised of). There

was never a time when one of the persons was without the

others. They are eternally distinct persons while eternally

inseparable in being as well as purpose.

Your eternal salvation depends on whether you really

know God or not. Jesus said, “[I]f ye believe not that I am

he, ye shall die in your sins” (Jn. 8:24). Please consider

praying to God (Father, Son, or Holy Spirit), asking Him

to cleanse you from all your sins, particularly of following

another god and another Jesus, and then repent from those

idols by leaving the Mormon Church.

Then please consider committing yourself to a genuinely “Christian”

denomination in order to grow in your new spiritual life.

1. All citations to Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith

use the pre-2002 edition.

R. M. Sivulka

[GilesB]

Neither of your examples have anything to do with the statistical term “outlier”.

Since I was the one who expressed my interest in Goode as an outlier, it is my use of the true definition that applies, not the one you pull out to fit your argument of the moment.

[Williams]

One thing I’m noticing here is a distinct inability by the anti mormon posters to recognize irony, analogies, etc.

For example, I made reference to Martin Luther, the Old Testament, Protestantism, etc. To show how one could criticize their religion along similar lines. I don’t have any interest in criticizing protestantism or mormonism. But they post lengthy (super lengthy) defenses not realizing the main point.

I made these ironic analogies exactly because the original post called on Catholics and Protestants to jointly reject the mormon “heresies”. I attempted to remind them that RC’S obviously can view protestantism as a heresy, and in their humorless responses they have stated that the RC church indeed had committed many wrongs and deserved the protestant revolt. So much for a joint response by all “traditional christians”.

I can discuss any religion and the list of differences in mormon theology was somewhat interesting. However, the intent of the post plainly was to convince me that mormonism is some kind of threat to be parried. Except that we all seek to preserve our own religion versus others, I think the alarm about mormonism is fantasy.

“Traditional Christians” fought hundreds of years of wars in Europe, viewing each other as heretics worthy of extermination. America was established as a sanctuary from all that, and mormonism does not even come close to being worthy of religious alarm.

Modern day Islam obviously is a greater concern, and even there the American approach is not to ban any religion. But that is another subject.

For the record, I have no problem with any peaceful law abiding religion. I don’t even underdtand where some posters got their particular concern about mormonism. However, I certainly think it’s valid to post back explaining my belief they are mistaken.

[GilesB]

Please offer your sophistries (fallacious arguments) somewhere else:

Stating that X (e.g. disguising ad hominum attack can be accomplished by Y (e.g. using question marks) does not imply that every time Y is used that X follows.

[Williams]

Glad smeone finally is talking about Romney, which interests me far more than mormonism.

You state “Romney is despicable because of his pro-abortion stance ....”

And that is/would be a very valid point EXCEPT that Romney is pro life. It is this constant time warp thinking which really bugs me.

Nor is Romney the first republican to have switched from pro choice to pro life. You don’t believe Romney? Yes, I know that, but a candidate’s “stance” means something. And in this case it is a conservative, pro life stance.

Obama, on the other hand, is 100% pro abortion, even to the point of infanticide. Yet you rail against the pro life candidate. Odd.

[GilesB]

Just a short reponse to illustrate the great chasm in your “logical” progression:

“If you’re speaking out of religious conviction here in your ongoing tirade vs. perceived “bigotry,” then you’ve got a LOT of work to do on other threads...Better get your lecture tour in order.

“Otherwise, I openly challenge and question you on your lack of consistency...which has already been well-displayed by your open resistance to applying your Virgil Goode win (say the state of CA) vs. the same Q as applied to Mitt Romney (can he win the state of CA?).”

If I ask if a spider is an insect, I am not morally, logically, scientifically nor otherwise obligated to query if every other living thing, or indeed ANY other living thing is an insect. Your attempt to put me, unfairly, in that philosophical corner displays more about your inferrences (that I was asking an “unfair” question about Goode) than it does about my question. It also hints at a shade of insecurity regarding Goode’s candidacy. It is the rhetorical equivilant of the childhood “that’s not fair, Brother pulled Sissy’s hair and you didn’t ask him” which, of course, does little to answer the original question, “Did you pull Sissy’s hair?”

[GilesB]

I agree with you.

I was also accused of some breach of Chhrstian behavior should I compartmentalize politics and my Christian beliefs. I thought “Render unto Caesar” clearly applies here - but evidently not.

I’m now wondering if I should stop going to my Jewish haberdasher, or my Hindu grocer, or my agnostic money manager, or the Muslim donut shop, or (GASP!) my Mormon dentist!?

Of course, just as my choices in each of those areas are guided by how each performs compared to other choices available, so is my vote informed by the performance (or actions) of the candidates, not by their religious affiliation. I don’t dislike Obama because of his Muslim upbringing, it is one thing that gives me pause, but if he implimented Reagan type policies, it wouldn’t matter to me. Heck, I wouldn’t care that he was friends with Bill Ayers, if he were like Reagan!

I do have a pretty clear understanding of the...shall I call it “obsession”? I perceive that most of these anti-ISMs are former Mormons. I too left a cult in which I was raised, and for several years I was impassioned about the “wrongness” of the teaching and of what was done to my family. I played the same tune on a different fiddle. The time came that I realized that my life, my salvation and my happiness could no longer be touched by the leaders of the cult - and I was finally free. Free from fear and anger and, most importantly, free to forgive.

In this thread, I asked a few simple questions - intended to discern the underlying motives of the poster. I got my answer, which confirmed my guesses - but then was beset by relentless badgering that implied some nefarious motivation for my questions - devolving into questions (the all important “?”) of the sincerity of my beliefs, my position (or the fervor thereof) on abortion and on and on and on. Frustrating for me, one who enjoys the rigors of a good, honest debate.

I have enjoyed your posts on this thread - which is why I posted to you in the first place.

[Elsie]

...you infer and assume things ...

Yes!

There is a LOT of that going on in this thread!

I'm glad you've noticed half of it.

[Elsie]

Since I was the one who expressed my interest in Goode as an outlier, it is my use of the true definition that applies, not the one you pull out to fit your argument of the moment.

---

 

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,

' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'  

[Elsie]

I made these ironic analogies exactly because the original post called on Catholics and Protestants to jointly reject the mormon “heresies”. I attempted to remind them that RC’S obviously can view protestantism as a heresy, and in their humorless responses they have stated that the RC church indeed had committed many wrongs and deserved the protestant revolt.

So THAT was your reasoning?

Silly me; I thought it was a red herring drug across the trail...

[Elsie]

I don’t even underdtand where some posters got their particular concern about mormonism.

Some?

Who exactly failed to express their concern?

---

However, I certainly think it’s valid to post back explaining my belief they are mistaken.

Mistaken about WHAT?

It is hard to follow the reasoning, if the facts are merely vaguely referred to.

[Elsie]

Glad smeone finally is talking about Romney, which interests me far more than mormonism.

Seven Differences Between Mormonism and Christianity

[Elsie]

Otherwise, I openly challenge and question you on your lack of consistency...

O...

K...

[Elsie]

In this thread, I asked a few simple questions - intended to discern the underlying motives of the poster.

Oh?

You really don't care about the DIFFERENCES; just the agenda?

[Elsie]

I don’t dislike Obama because of his Muslim upbringing, it is one thing that gives me pause, but if he implimented Reagan type policies, it wouldn’t matter to me.

You know; this is how I feel about Mitt; too!

I, however, do not have the confidence that he WOULD be very Reaganesque.

I could be wrong - I have been before.

[Williams]

I’m not aware if the anti-mormon folks are all former mormons. I find their reactions to be simplistic at best. Very child like. Yes, I know they will read this and post an answer to every sentence. Clever things like, “but I’m not a child so how can my viewpoint be that of a child?” Or “Here is the definition of ‘child’ from 10 Bible verses, so you must be wrong because I do not fit God’s definition of a ‘child’”.

There is a fine line between their extreme devotion and fanaticism. We have folks here who go on and on “proving” every point with Bible passages and their interpretations of those passages. They are blind to the possibility of being wrong. But let me tell you folks, as the old joke goes “this is 16 plus years of Catholic education speaking” and you can be wrong.

I don’t believe in Mormonism (meaning I don’t believe it is the truth, Elsie, I know it exists). But I also don’t believe in Elsie. I further go the extreme step of not worrying what Elsie says regarding the Pope’s supposed views on my posts here. It’s like an alternate universe here in which people are playing Pope.

However, there is a real world. In that world, people don’t give much of a good darn about Mormonism, Mormonism is not much of a threat to Catholicism, and there is no evidence that Mitt Romney is going to govern the USA as a “Temple Mormon”.

I post here in an effort at dialogue, and also to give some voice to the many Freepers who find these views to be extreme. But hey, it’s a free country and I could be wrong.

[Williams]

Elsie: Below is a good example of either 1. You are goofing around or 2. You really are not able to follow simple points. Below are your responses to my post. First, I said I don’t understand where some posters got their particular concern about Mormonism. Your response is a bit of a non sequitor. My very next sentence says, but I believe they are mistaken.

You then say I didn’t identify what they are “mistaken” about. Did you not get that one sentence follows another and I am saying they are “mistaken” to have a “particular concern about Mormonism” (meaning a serious concern about Mormonism in particular)?

I mean really, are you yanking my chain, or do you really think it’s valid to answer each sentence separately, and not to understand the meaning of two sentences, or a whole paragraph?

I notice this is very common on the thread. You take every sentence and “disprove” it, meanwhile not seeing the whole and claiming to not even understand the point the person made in a few paragraphs. Seems to be related to a very doctrinaire interpretation of isolated Biblical quotations.

example below:

“I don’t even underdtand where some posters got their particular concern about mormonism.
Some?

Who exactly failed to express their concern?

---

However, I certainly think it’s valid to post back explaining my belief they are mistaken.

Mistaken about WHAT?

It is hard to follow the reasoning, if the facts are merely vaguely referred to.”

[Tennessee Nana]

Silly me; I thought it was a red herring drug across the trail...
___________________________________

No silly you its a paleface Williebird drug across the ballot..

Not like the Founding Fathers envisioned but then maybe its Willie who is to cause the Constitution to hang by a thread...

This would do it Im sure...

Then there are those faithful Christian conservatives who rush in and save the day...

Depose the fishy smelling traitor Willie and put a Conservative man or woman in the White House...

I think thats how it goes...

[CommerceComet]

I was around, although very young, during Kennedy’s campaign. It is startling how much this sounds like some folks back then expressing their fear of the RCC and the Pope.

Of course, these are different situations so the previous one doesn't prove anything about the present one. Jack Kennedy was a CINO whose personal life exhibited little or no concern for Catholic theology. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is an enthusiastic true believer in Mormon theology.

[Colofornian]

I don’t dislike Obama because of his Muslim upbringing, it is one thing that gives me pause...

So Islam apparently "gives" you "pause," and that's "a-Ok" to effect an eval of a POTUS candidate; but not Mormonism...

And that's not religious "bigotry."

Yeah. We get these finest-line distinctions.

NOT.

[also...we note you don't go on the Obama threads accusing anybody of bringing up his Muslim ties of engaging in religious "bigotry..." (that's what I meant by your lopsided aps here)]

[Colofornian]

You state “Romney is despicable because of his pro-abortion stance ....” And that is/would be a very valid point EXCEPT that Romney is pro life. It is this constant time warp thinking which really bugs me.

So...December 2007 -- supposedly over three years AFTER Romney supposedly "switched" to pro-life -- is a "time warp?"

Ridiculous...see chart below where you can read Romney's comment to Katie Couric in Dec of '07...then try convincing us that his statement there was "pro-life"...

Just scroll down to LAST row...middle column...:

YEAR	Obvious Pro-Abortion Romney	Romney Feigning 'Pro-Life'
Bottom-Line Summary: ANN Romney Lies Thru Her Teeth	Ann Romney, 1994: Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood (Ann Romney’s Planned Parenthood Donation	Ann Romney, 2011: In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; we’ve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)
Bottom-Line Summary: Mitt Romney Lies Thru His Teeth	“Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) + ...”my position was effectively pro-choice." (Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007)	So, not only does Ann Romney tell Parade Magazine November 2011 that they've “never changed” re: abortion and that they've “always been pro-life,” but Mitt Romney told Chris Wallace part-way through their 2007 campaign that: “I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice”...This was seven months after he said in January 2007 that he was “always for life.”
Romney, goin' back to 1970 when Romney's Mom ran for Senate	"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy)	"'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review..., says the Concord Monitor = So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?"
1994 (Campaign)	"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) = Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent their faith as being...BTW, Romney uses the strongest word possible for support – “sustain” ...Note for non-Mormons: Lds use the word “sustain” for support for their own “prophet”	Romney has since invoked a "nuanced stance" about what he was in 1994: He says "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. (Source: Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007)
1994 (Planned Parenthood ties) → 2001	(a) Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood (a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/ann-romneys-planned-parenthood-donation/">Ann Romney’s Planned Parenthood Donation (b) On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attends private Planned Parenthood event at home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney: "Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts; "Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakie’s house and that she “clearly” remembered speaking with Romney at the event." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts; "In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts	2001: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01) = So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?)
2002-2004	“I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard…(Nov. 2, 2002) = Well, now guess what? He's solidly pro-abortion AGAIN! See also: "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05) = Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again?	Nov. '04: Romney & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" linked to stem cell research: Romney met w/Dr. Douglas Melton from Harvard Stem Cell Institute: He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn't believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. "It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life," Romney says. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 = (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert?)
2005	May 27 2005: Romney affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.") = OK, this is at least a flop from November '04!	What about his gubernatorial record '03-'06? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. I assume somewhere in '05 some 'pro-life' decisions. "As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life." = So, THESE ACTIONS were not only an '02 commitment reversal, but his May 27, '05 press conference commitment as well. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine
2006	April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details).	"As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates
Early 2007	On January 29, 2007 during South Carolina visit, Romney stated: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) = OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true?	Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering "I was always for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007) = Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life!
Summer 2007	"I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007 = OK...looking at '94 & '02 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?"	Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..." = Whatever he was from '70 when his mom ran as pro-abortion senator & he sided w/ her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion 'inlook' or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer?
December 2007 vs. November 2011 (Pro-treating offspring as research refuse late in previous POTUS campaign vs. now claiming 'never changed...always pro-life'	December 4, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." (Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes) Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such a schizophrenic "candidate!"	In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; we’ve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)