Flashback: Mitt vows to defend pro-choice, six months after turning pro-life
posted at 7:40 pm on June 15, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Our readers tell me that my pal Dean Barnett was kind enough to plug the Kerry/Vietnam post on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show just now. I’ve got a hunch he won’t be plugging this one.
This comes from the YouTube account “mittvsfact”, which, coincidentally, is identical to the URL McCain’s camp purchased two weeks ago. Supposedly Mitt had his “road to Damascus” moment on abortion in November 2004; here we find him six months later still vowing to defend the legal status quo in Massachusetts, per his campaign promise to do so, irrespective of his own views on abortion. Pro-life groups are annoyed that he didn’t instantly recant and do everything in his power to oppose the practice. Which is to say, it’s the converse of their objection to Fred: Mitt talked the talked but didn’t walk the walk.
Won’t he walk the walk now, though? This is the third old clip of Romney someone’s dusted off to question the seriousness of his commitment to the subject (albeit the first one from after he had his alleged conversion) and I’m not sure what it’s all supposed to prove. Does anyone seriously think that if we elect this guy, he’s going to shift back the other way? Opposing abortion is the core plank of his campaign; it’s his whole gimmick. Arguably there’s no other candidate in the race, Fred included, who’d be more reliably pro-life, simply because he’d have to be — his credibility would evaporate if he wasn’t. Exit question, then: Is this really a big deal?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
No. Not a big deal. I’m not convinced that his “conversion” is real, but I believe that Mr. Romney is a very smart man, and would realize what you stated, that he has hung his candidacy on this issue more than any other, and wouldn’t risk his credibility by flopping back were he to win. So his policy would follow his political pandering, and his constituency would be happy with that.
It is the walk, after all, not the talk, that makes things happen or not.
Freelancer on June 15, 2007 at 7:44 PM
Not a big deal for me, either.
amerpundit on June 15, 2007 at 7:49 PM
Given his record and opinion in his home state, I think it’s just indicative of his propencity to state whatever position he thinks it will take to get elected. His record and opinions in his home state stand for themselves.
Pro abortion:
From his own mouth, Video
Pro “morning after pill”:
Here and here.
Pro gay “rights”:
“Romney: I’ll be better than Ted for gay rights.”
Against Boy Scout ban on gay troop leaders:
Boston Globe article
Romney administration ordered Justices of Peace to perform homosexual “marriages” when asked - or be fired!
Pro gun control:
“He [Romney] is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban.”
- Romney 2002 campaign website
Regarding the Brady Bill which required waiting periods to buy a handgun, Romney stated, “I don’t think [the waiting period] will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”
- Boston Herald, 8/1/1994
Pro Kennedy-style “Universal Health Care”
The main supporter and cheerleader of Romney’s health plan has been, interestingly, the Heritage Foundation. However, there would appear to be just a bit of a conflict of interest in that. According to news reports, Romney’s charitable foundation recently donated $25,000 to the Heritage Foundation. And Heritage Foundation helped Romney research and write his health plan.
- Boston Globe, 8/17//2006
Poor party leadership:
Romney pledged to build the Massachusetts Republican Party, but in fact he did almost nothing. During his tenure there were two elections for the entire Legislature (2004 and 2006). In each election the Republicans lost seats. Republicans now hold the fewest seats in the Legislature since the Civil War.
The party’s slide has been so precipitous that Republicans yesterday did not contest 130 of 200 legislative seats, fielded a challenger in only three of 10 congressional districts, and put up fewer candidates for statewide office (three) than the Green-Rainbow Party (four).
- Boston Globe, 11/8/2006
“The Massachusetts Republican Party died last Tuesday. The cause of death: failed leadership. The party is survived by a few leftover legislators and a handful of county officials and grassroots activists who have been ignored for years. Services will be public and a mass exodus of taxpayers will follow. In lieu of flowers, send messages to New Hampshire Republican voters warning them about a certain presidential candidate named Romney.”
- Boston Herald, 11/12/2006
P. James Moriarty on June 15, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Actually, AP, I think it is a big deal because of the current disconnect between GOP leadership and GOP voters, as illustrated by the Amnesty bill. The current level of distrust and cynicism that GOP voters feel towards the party leadership, including Pres. Bush, is going to move the base towards someone they can count on as having firm convictions. To the extent that Romney can be painted as a “base-betrayer” (which may be Bush’s biggest collective fault) it will hurt him and cause already wary conservatives to look for someone who they know will stand his ground.
Jack M. on June 15, 2007 at 7:53 PM
So, Mitt’s getting slammed for saying he’d keep his promise he made when he ran for Governor regardless of his personal views on the subject? Heck, if more MA politicians kept their campaign promises rather than being bought off with patronage, the people of MA would be voting on a Gay Marriage amendment in 08.
TheBigOldDog on June 15, 2007 at 7:58 PM
This guy is a phoney. He’s all about the money. He might have more relevance in 1980 after the Carter years. He is no Ronald Regan.
sonnyspats1 on June 15, 2007 at 7:59 PM
I agree with Jack M. Its gonna be tough to convince anyone of anything given the virulent lack of trust in politicians right now.
Bad Candy on June 15, 2007 at 8:02 PM
Once again, is this 2008 election about abortion?
lorien1973 on June 15, 2007 at 8:03 PM
There’ll never be another Reagan, he’s dead. We have to build a new legacy instead of waxing nostalgic regarding past leaders.
Bad Candy on June 15, 2007 at 8:03 PM
No lorien, but it is about Conservatism and a person’s honesty when it comes to their beliefs. People have seen too many pretenders and been screwed too many times, they want the real thing.
Bad Candy on June 15, 2007 at 8:06 PM
Exactly why I am worried about 08. Unless we can shake that we are going to be on the streets until 2012.
Limerick on June 15, 2007 at 8:08 PM
It’s not at all a big deal. He says he’s committed to keeping a prior campaign promise to maintain the status quo and not focusing on his personal views.
Then he all but says he’s personally pro-life, but isn’t going to dwell on it now.
So here’s a guy who makes a promise to Massachusetts to be pro-choice, and sticks to it despite a personal change of heart. That’s actually a virtue, and if he’s running pro-life now I hope we could expect a similar commitment to the side he believes. I say this as a Fredhead, too.
What a lame and incompetent attempt at an attack ad. That ought to finish off McCain’s campaign for good; shame it had to be on such a sour note.
see-dubya on June 15, 2007 at 8:08 PM
Bingo.
thirteen28 on June 15, 2007 at 8:14 PM
I don’t trust him at all.
Fred Thompson ALL THE WAY.
msipes on June 15, 2007 at 8:21 PM
There’ll never be another Reagan, he’s dead. We have to build a new legacy instead of waxing nostalgic regarding past leaders.
Bad Candy on June 15, 2007 at 8:03 PM
Exactly. Mitt tried to exude alot of economic optimism and a positive outlook on the furure during the entirety of the last Republican debate. It was like Mr. Romney: In your estimation what would an early withdrawl from Iraq mean to the security of the US? Mitt: Well, it would destablize the whole region, which in turn could pose a threat to our national securety
sonnyspats1 on June 15, 2007 at 8:22 PM
Cont. but if we lower taxes and disallow the flooding of the US market with cheap imported goods blah blah blah . He really did that. Mitt is a great salesman but President? I think not.
sonnyspats1 on June 15, 2007 at 8:25 PM
If radical jihadists destroy our Civilization, abortions will then be banned.
Along with everything else.
Prioritizing makes abortion about 17th on the list of “vital” concerns for electing a Commander-in-Chief who were want to be energetically trying to preserve our world and our liberties. To argue about the moment when life begins is philosophically interesting (it used thought of as “when the baby took its first breath” that the “inspiration” of a soul entered the body. With this religious logic, a pre-breathing baby was not yet considered validly “human” by early Christian and Hebrew thinkers, so the question of “ensoulment” can worry people for many years to come… if we survive imperialistic Islam.
First, defeat the Imminant and Growing terroristic threat to our lives, then try to solve the inscrutables.
profitsbeard on June 15, 2007 at 8:26 PM
There’ll never be another Reagan, he’s dead. We have to build a new legacy instead of waxing nostalgic regarding past leaders.
Bad Candy on June 15, 2007 at 8:03 PM
Somebody better tell that to Mitt.
sonnyspats1 on June 15, 2007 at 8:26 PM
So conservatism is all about pro-life? Or is it his flip-flopping that’s the issue. The latter bugs me. The former. who cares.
Abortion is an issue that’ll resolve itself, with improved technology (3d ultrasounds) and with better science.
lorien1973 on June 15, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Well said. The war does trump everything for me. None of the four major players, I believe, would hesitate to knock the snot out of any enemy who shows up. That leaves me with looking at what else they are going to bring to the table and yes abortion is a big deal in my book.
Limerick on June 15, 2007 at 8:33 PM
I don’t think it’s a big deal. As I’ve said many times, I’m a McCain supporter who really likes both Rudy and Mitt. My personal feeling is that the Romney campaign is quietly gathering steam and a few months from now might just overtake the whole Republican race. They’re running a very sharp campaign with a very strong candidate.
Baphomet on June 15, 2007 at 8:34 PM
A politician chasing polls SHOCKER.
Rode Werk on June 15, 2007 at 8:51 PM
The latter lorien. Its a trust issue, as Jack M. said, abortion itself is secondary.
Bad Candy on June 15, 2007 at 8:54 PM
Good. Then its settled. Every single politician who has changed his mind on an issue is off the table.
We will vote for nobody and like it. And yea, that includes Fred.
JackStraw on June 15, 2007 at 9:15 PM
“Does anyone seriously think that if we elect this guy, he’s going to shift back the other way?”
No, it’s just more likely that he won’t do anything on the issue, all the while talking about his desire to do something.
Kevin M on June 15, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Fred, who I support, has changed his mind about McCain-Feingold. I don’t hold that against his although I think it was pretty clear that path was flawed from the start.
As far as judging politicians who change position, I would say the scale of the change and the time when the change took place are fairly important to understand whether there is a genuine change or a political calculation. At this point I am suspicious of Romney’s change of heart on abortion not because he said he would keep his pledge to support abortion right. As someone said earlier, this is actually admirable. What I find fishy is that someone could get to be 50+ years old and not understand that abortion is the death of a living person.
Bill C on June 15, 2007 at 9:31 PM
Heh. Isn’t that the way everything happens in Washington until something HAS to happen?
Rommy is pandering to SOMEONE. I personally think it is the people of Mass. and think he’s really conservative on the issue. I’ve always felt that an issue like abortion should be a vote by the people, which way we would like it to be. Call me a fool, but there are some times when I think that the elected should shut up and do what the people want. It is an issue about how we, as a people, “are” in terms of what we believe.
At least Rommy is saying he’s on our side on this issue, where Rudy isn’t. (not ruling Rudy out, he’s got his strengths too) In the end, it will not be this issue that decides who gets my vote because it is not the issue the President will do much about. There are too many fingers in the pot on this issue for any single person to make the difference.
rahjr2k on June 15, 2007 at 9:49 PM
By most accounts Bush was a strong concervative but as Govenor he had no history of battling hard against ideological opponets for concervative ideas . Look what electing him gets you. Romney has a strong history of battling tooth and nail for the policies he said he would fight for when he was campainging.
nebulous principles
Resolute on June 15, 2007 at 10:03 PM
nebulous principles are not as important as actual results
Many take from the current situation that voting for whoever seems the most concervative is what is important. This is backwards since the current probelm with Bush and the RINO phenomenon is not that they don’t claim to be concervative, it is that they don’t have a history of fighting tooth and nail against liberals (like Romney does in contrast)
Resolute on June 15, 2007 at 10:07 PM
I like Mitt and admire his apparent strong family values so I guess I should admire him for keeping his campaign promises. That should kick up my trust for him to do the same if we nominate him for President and later elect him but given my newfound near total distrust for politicians makes that difficult. I have the same problem with trusting Rudy and for the same reasons. Fred a little less so. I know that to get a Republican elected we’re going to have to get comfortable with voting for someone who doesn’t exactly match my core beliefs. Personally I’m more worried that Mitt has a “en espanol” button on his website right now.
Buzzy on June 15, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Oh, STFU! I wasn’t making an absolutist statement, and you bloody well know it! Don’t be disengenuous, nobody’s perfect obviously, but people are gonna go with who acts like they believe what they say and will see it through the most.
Bad Candy on June 15, 2007 at 10:23 PM
Can you say that here? I thought we were only allowed to say balls.
Indeed. And when I stop heating the incessant and mind numbingly stupid “Mitt is a flip flopper!” as if it meant balls then I will stop calling people when they flip flop over to the candidate they adore who flip flops out his balls.
JackStraw on June 15, 2007 at 10:36 PM
Huh? Are you saying they’re all equal in that regard? I don’t think so, but maybe. Look, its irrelevent, perception is often reality in politics, All I said was I agreed with Jack M.
Bad Candy on June 15, 2007 at 10:44 PM
McCain/Feingold. First Amendment. There is no more important right than free speech. STFU?
Why don’t you ask your candidate why he was not only a supporter but a champion of that absurd piece of crap and why he is now running from it as if it was radioactive.
Fred has an amazing record of 8 years in the Senate and having his name on almost zero legislation. Accept this turd. Thats both reality and perception. Amd yea, theres a damn good reason he hasn’t bothered to hit the debate trail yet. He can explain why STFU is not a real good proposition.
JackStraw on June 15, 2007 at 11:04 PM
I think it’s a big deal, actually. We’re having this gut-wrenching fight over illegal aliens because we were willing to pretend Bush was something other than what he is.
Same goes for a whole boat load full of RINOs that we pretended were conservatives.
When this guy nominates his first SCOTUS justice, and she turns out to be Ginsburg in red, remember this day.
Jaibones on June 16, 2007 at 12:00 AM
Dude, IT DOESN’T MATTER! Learn to read! All I said was, Jack was right that the perception the Romney is dishonest and a political opportunist was going to be a big problem for him given the political environment.
Someone asked for a clarification, I clarified, then you went Batsh!t crazy with this “well I guess we should vote no one” crap, and you know bloody well that ain’t what I meant. The perception is, Romney=BS Political Opportunist, Fred=genuine about opinions and policy. And its gonna hurt Romney. I DIDN’T DECIDE THAT, ITS POLITICAL REALITY, and I AM MERELY OBSERVING IT.
Jack, you really are being a pissy jerk today. And a dense one too…
Bad Candy on June 16, 2007 at 12:41 AM
Ugh, the First Jack is JackM, you are number two.
Bad Candy on June 16, 2007 at 12:41 AM
So Mitt talk real pretty and that’s what matters? AP, if this were the credibility and the track record of a Democrat, you’d be crapping all over them and taking to task anyone who ignored it in favor of the candidate. Frankly I’m surprised Romney’s disingenuous on the issue and his tendency to say the right things to get elected in Mass doesn’t disturb you deeply. You sound like you’re reaching simply because you have no other choice, everyone else is too distasteful and maybe, just maybe he really means it this time. All he’s doing is courting the base now but will center up big time if he gets the nod.
SouthernDem on June 16, 2007 at 12:43 AM
Romney is a suit, nothing more. He’d be better than Hitlery for sure but we’d have another 8 years of Bush if Romney is elected. It would be Rino-palooza all over again.
I think that Mitt wants to pad his godhood resumé and what better job to say you deserve to be a god than the U.S. presidency. He doesn’t just want a planet to himself (that he can populate with spirit babies that he makes with his goddesses), he wants a BIG planet.
Mojave Mark on June 16, 2007 at 1:13 AM
It might be a big deal if you don’t want a President who tells voters what they want to hear before they get elected.
Joshua P. Allem on June 16, 2007 at 1:48 AM
It could be a big deal to a significant portion of the people he’s gonna need to get the nomination.
I’ve never been much for one issue politics unless that issue is a matter of honor etc. So, if I had a problem with MITT!, it would be the seriousness of his commitment when he had his conversion. Surprisingly, I respect him for sticking to his campaign promise not to weaken the current MA abortion laws. I guess he never said he would strengthen them, so vetoing new abortion measures would not be breaking his promise.
I can live with the federalist approach to abortion, so this insignificant in the broader qualifications he has to be POTUS. Only he and Rudy are qualified in executive experience, strong against terror, and have shown a real desire to put forth ideas that lead.
I’m sure we haven’t heard the last of it, but eventually, I think Mitt! will weather it just fine.
csdeven on June 16, 2007 at 2:07 AM
Show me a politician who has NOT changed opinions on issues or lied and I will vote for him/her. I will NOT vote for someone solely based on the abortion issue.
calirighty on June 16, 2007 at 2:49 AM
Romney is no Republican. Just like Bloomberg and Trent Lott for that matter, he became one just so he could attain office. There is NO ideological leaf Mitt won’t turn to get elected.
Warner Todd Huston on June 16, 2007 at 6:35 AM
Big A,
Are you saying I don’t need to go dig out my old X-Files “Trust No One” T-Shirt?
major john on June 16, 2007 at 8:44 AM
Well, he can kiss the Mormon vote goodbye. Mormons comprise about 20 percent of the BSA membership. It is a component of their religious formation program, and all LDS males ages 11-15 are automatically registered. While gay leaders are tolerated in Scout programs of other countries, the LDS is a major factor in not allowing them here. I agree with this policy, but if Mitt doesn’t…
That’s one more reason why FRED! is the man.
manwithblackhat on June 16, 2007 at 9:49 AM
These flip-flops of Romney’s have a lot to do with his Mormonism.
For one thing, they change their beliefs every few years, depending on who the “president and prophet of the church” happens to be (polygamy, blacks in the priesthood, etc.).
Second, they’re hesitant to tell you all their beliefs (there are millions of gods, God started out as just a man, we can become gods, etc) up front, because they know that most Christians would reject it in a heartbeat. This is, I believe, why Romney changes his positions so often. It’s an offshoot of his life in the LDS.
BigOrangeAxe on June 16, 2007 at 9:54 AM
You are wrong about this. All LDS males have the choice to enroll or not. Everything else seems accurate except for fred? being the man. fred? is the least qualified candidate to be POTUS. Besides, he a fake.
csdeven on June 16, 2007 at 10:34 AM
This may mean a lot at your coffee klatches with other ’smart’ people, but most people don’t vote this way. They will assume that if someone is running for President, they are ‘qualified’. By your rubric, none of the democrats are qualified. Yet they run. Well, maybe after Hillary wins you can file a lawsuit saying that she wasn’t qualified. By the way, where does it say in the Constitution to be President you have to have been a mayor or Governator (of even a crap state lake Taxachussetts?) Or are you quoting the ‘Smart Persons guide to nominating a Turd Sandwich candidate?’ Give up on Romney. The only steam he’s gathering is when they polish his teeth. He’s an unknown. Executive of a state that gave us the two most annoying senators on the planet (strike 2); most people when asked what they think of him answer: Who? (strike 3) Name recognition matters. Look at John McCain. Everyone knows him. His name is a synonym for ‘back stabbing weasel’. Rudy is the only decent candidate we have..and he’s got issues that are leaving some in the base uninspired. Fred has issues too and if he runs it remains to be seen whether he will overcome them as Rudy is currently attempting to do. Give up the policy wonk pretensions; they all talk a good game but most of them are lying. Think common sense. Our base has been betrayed and demoralized. This is different from the Reagan years; we were ready to take power..it was our turn. What we are battling here is our own party told us ‘F**k you’ over the immigration issue. Many see our own party as little different from the democrats. Why bother to show up? All they’re going to do is screw us anyway. Whoever we nominate has to inspire us and show that things will be different…and Romney doesn’t. Rudy is struggling against his own past…Fred is popular because people recognize him and he’s got the outsider thing going for him at the moment; this could change very quickly. That is reality; our own party has engineered an almost guaranteed victory for who (or what)ever the democrats nominate. Spare us the turd sandwich resume waving.
austinnelly on June 16, 2007 at 10:43 AM
Sometimes that is true and that is because the LDS believe in continued revelation from God.
All LDS beliefs are there for all to see and they are supported in almost all cases with biblical teachings. Most hate-mongering Christians do reject it, but that is rooted in their own personal problems and not specifically in the LDS doctrine. And you would be served to study the facts before spouting anti-mormon rhetoric that you got off a hate site.
Here is a link explaining how the early leaders and believers in Christ understood the principle of the deification of man. Take note of the biblical references.
csdeven on June 16, 2007 at 11:06 AM
If I was speaking in the sense of a general election I would agree, but I was not. The base, who do care about qualifications, will be deciding who is the republican nominee.
Mitt! has plenty of issues that we will explore most vigorously. We will do the same with Rudy. Rudy’s problem is he only has one strong area that people trust him on. Mitt! speaks well to many issues, but isn’t as strong as Rudy on the terror issue. That isn’t to say he isn’t qualified, because I think they both are more than qualified to be POTUS. And I agree that fred? is benefiting from his exposure on some TV show he was on, and as you pointed out, we need a leader. fred? is an actor acting as a leader and trying to do that the way actors do things. With lots of rhetoric and no real experience or qualifications.
Who ever we nominate needs to speak to base principles and be qualified to do the job. I don’t see one candidate that is the complete package….yet. Like I have already stated, I have eliminated all but 2 (Mitt! and Rudy)and maybe a third (fred? IF he ever grows a pair) from consideration. fred? is the longest of shots because he has zero experience and is coming off as a faker.
csdeven on June 16, 2007 at 11:20 AM
You have seriously disappointed me here, CS. Some of my posts have been light-hearted jabs at you. In this one I am dead-serious. I wonder if you can see the incredible irony in your defense of Gov. Romney(above)?
In your relentless attacks on Fred Thompson there are two substantive issues you have pointed to in order to discredit his poetential candidacy.
1. Senator Thompson has no “executive experience.”
2. Senator Thompson has made statements in the past that seem to indicate a pro-choice stance.
That’s it. (The rest of your list of “objections” just loud clanging.)
So. Two issues on which you profess to take a principled stand. Yet here you are giving your preferred candidate, Gov. Romney, a near total pass on abortion - the more serious of the two concerns, saying his pro-choice ACTIONS are “insignificant”.
It’s Gov. Romney who has a history of votes that have failed to protect innocent unborn children. It’s Gov. Romney who instead used his executive position to protect the “right” a liberal SCOTUS conjured out of a twisted reading of the constitution. (By the way, how does that fact square in any way with your alleged libertariansim? It should be anathema to you!)
The irony? Senator Thompson consistently used his office to promote protections for the unborn. Rated 100% by the National Right to Life Committe. Yet you still raise concern over alleged pro-choice leanings? You’ve proven by dismissing Gov. Romney’s abandonment of unborn children that you don’t honestly care about this issue. And your unprincipled position is disgusting.
You incessantly bleat about Sen. Thompson being a “fake” at every opportunity. It is you, sir who is exposed as the FAKE.
By the way, if Gov. Romney’s executive action on this issue is the “experience” you so loudly trumpet, I couldn’t care any less for it. It’s despicable.
Our discussion has ended.
The Ritz on June 17, 2007 at 3:57 PM
There was no discussion between us since this is your very first comment in this thread. So I don’t know where you get the idea it has “ended”. It never began.
I express my criticisms of freddie boy to point out the hypocrisy of the fred?heads who have bagged on Mitt and Rudy for their stances on abortion. fred? is a flip-flopper and I wont give him a pass on it until he explains it. Just like I expect Mitt! and Rudy to explain their “fluid” positions on abortion. Which, by the way, they have had the balls to do while fred? hides behind his wife and kids.
I am glad to see you agree that fred? has no executive experience at all.
As far as substantive issues, you can’t seriously expect me to believe that those are the only problems fred? has.
1) He is a faker. Red pickup truck and other nuances of the truth.
2) His 20+ years as an arm twisting lobbyist is a huge concern. Who were his clients etc.
3) His support of McCain/Feingold. OUCH!
4) His laziness.
5) His refusal to announce a date.
6) He refuses to debate real candidates.
7) He only takes softball interviews.
8) He only uses prepared speeches. His staff says he cannot speak extemporaneously.
9) He has had two dismally pathetic interviews. Leno and Robinson. Softballs.
10) His dismally poor record in the senate.
You can ignore those if you choose, but all those issues offend my conservative values and I am not going to give him one ounce of leeway until he grows some stones and becomes and actual candidate and answers those questions in a hostile environment.
csdeven on June 17, 2007 at 6:27 PM
csdeven said:
Actually, I have studied Mormonism, from both ex-Mormons and the official LDS sites themselves. And contrary to your contention, many of them are actually contradictory to what the Bible says. (I guess these must be the places where they say the Bible was “not correctly translated”)
While they do indeed claim to be getting “continued revelations from GOD”, those “revelations” always seem to contradict themselves. Case in point: Brigham Young said that polygamy was necessary for salvation. Bruce McConkie said that polygamy was never necessary. Go figure.
BigOrangeAxe on June 18, 2007 at 8:29 AM