Trisha Erickson: Newest Addition To The Counter-Cult Rougue'S Gallery

[Loran Blood]

http://triciaerickson.tumblr.com/

Its difficult to say, at this point, if Trisha Erickson is simply looking for her fifteen seconds as a landmark election looms on the horizon, of if she's actually animated by something deeper than well timed opportunism. In any case, as I haven't followed EV anti-Mormonism for many years now, having developed much more concern regarding the secularist intellectual variety that proceeds forth from primarily within the church, which I think has actually eclipsed the older, conservative fundamentalist article as an actual threat to the faith of members and the public perception the Church and its teachings have within the broader culture.

This said, this material ranks with the most utterly stupefying demagoguery ever produced in decades past by the likes of Martin or Decker, and even some of the more extreme polemicists of less stature within the evangelical counter-cult. In particular, as both a Latter day Saint and a modern conservative, I find this material pretty much as offensive, intellectually useless, and malignant as anything I've ever seen thus far.

What one is really not sure of, at the outset, is how Erickson expects people who actually know, work with, and are friends with committed, practicing Mormons, to accept the fantastic claims she makes about them, their religion, and its beliefs. For example:

Tricia, as a former Mormon Bishop’s daughter and Mormon wife, went through the cultic, violent and bizarre Mormon secret temple ceremonies of which Mitt and Ann Romney continue to attend to this day. As a former Mormon, it took Tricia many years to deprogram herself from the lies, strange ceremonies and strategic misinformation that continue to be fed to all Mormons.

So here we have a number of elements of the traditional "coming out" narrative of many of the more extreme elements of the religiously based anti-Mormon movement within Evangelical Protestantism. One will also take note of the level of intellectual/logical rigor Erickson brings to her criticism. The Temple ordinances are "cultic" (which, of course, they and all other similar religious observances/rituals are, by definition), "bizarre" and violent. Yes, the Endowment and other ordinances involve physical violence. Anticlimactically, they are also "strange." Years of "deprogramming" ("recovery") were necessary, in the manner one might need intense psychotherapy to return to normality after a stint with the Manson Family or the Bhagwan Rajneesh.

She, like a number of other "expert on the cults" appears to be an expert in just about everything, including Mormonism, Islam, "all things political," and other subjects (including being an "image and political consultant" and an expert in "crisis management"). One interesting aspect of her history is that, although odd for a self confessing conservative, she is deeply enmeshed with the Hollywood and entertainment media culture.

There is little at her websites regarding the contents of her book, but some degree of convolution seems inevitable. As an example, we have this quip regarding the book:

If Part I does not shake you, Part II will, by exposing the reality of what Romney has “done” in his political career, versus the conservative façade that we are led to believe. Will his rhetoric match his deeds as President? One look at his record herewith will cause great concern.

What is this trying to say? Is she concerned that Romney is a closet liberal? Well, many other people are as well. Is she implying that the Church has something to do with that? What does Romney's political policies have to do with the Temple ceremony? How is Romneycare connected to the Endowment? If Mormons, on a regular basis, undergo degrading, strange, bizarre, and violent religious rituals, why, or perhaps more appropriately, how have most Mormons become known for their general uprightness, solid citizenship, honesty, and integrity? Three years ago, National Review came out for Romney as the candidate for President of the United States, which is to say, a conservative publication with a strong internal Roman Catholic leaning came out in support of a Latter day Saint for the position of the presidency. Romney also, even then, had decent number of evangelicals behind him, which is to say that either Erickson knows something much of the rest of the non-Mormon world does not, or she is being driven by an agenda of another kind entirely.

What then, could be driving what could only be called Erickson's rants? A pattern has already emerged of the "recovering from Mormonism" variety with which we are all well acquainted, that, very unfortunately, if it is called out for what it is, cannot mince words as to the real nature of the mentality in question. The claims about the Temple are clearly either flat footed deceptions, or the passing on of the deceptions of others (has Erickson ever actually been in the Temple? I don't know). The idea that a Latter day Saint, who considers the Constitution not only brilliant but a divinely inspired political document, is somehow a threat to that very constitution and its principles might strike some who actually have some substantive knowledge of the Church and its teachings as...strange and bizarre.

The book itself does have the look of a typical Christian bookstore cult section potboiler, and doubtless, one would not be disappointed were one to be in the market for that kind of intellectual stimulation.

She may or may not be someone to watch in the future. Just food, or grist, for thought.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Loran Blood

[thesometimesaint]

Loran Blood:

It always amuses me that any one would care what my religion is as long as I feed them when they're hungry, clothe them when they're naked, give them medicine when they're sick, and visit them when they're imprisoned.

[bluebell]

She completely lost me when she claimed that the temple ceremonies were violent. Since there is absolutely no violence in them, there are only two explanations for her words: either she's a liar or she's mentally deluded.

Either way, she's proven she's ignorable.

[DarkScythe]

don't take them seriously then again Nationial Enquierer is just as serious as they are.

[annewandering]

The violent part kinda got me too. I guess I suffered brain damage because I just dont remember that part. Or even the bizarre part. Hmmm obviously my memory is even worse than I had thought.

[Zakuska]

Id say she's been defanged...

Anti-Mormon Bigot Tricia Erickson Outed As A Former Professional Scam Artist; Settled With Federal Trade Commission In 1999

The efforts of a vitriolic anti-Mormon bigot to smear and defame the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on CNN's "In The Arena" blog have seriously backfired as commenters to the post exposed the fact that the bigot was caught red-handed in a marketing scam and was forced to settle with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) back in 1999.

In a column entitled "An indoctrinated Mormon should never be elected as President", anti-Mormon hatemonger Tricia Erickson, who like so many self-proclaimed "consultants", peddles the typical porridge of ambiguous hopes and dreams through a couple of entities called Crisis Management, Incorporated and Angel Pictures & Publicity, claims that Mitt Romney is unsuitable for the Presidency of the United States. However, the true purpose of her column is to shill her upcoming book entitled "Can Mitt Romney serve two masters", in which she attacks Mitt Romney's religion. Her book is divided into two parts; Part I covers the spiritual aspect, while Part II covers the political.

<snip>

But even without Bushman's response, Tricia Erickson's hysteria actually alienated much of the public as reflected in the comments to the post. Furthermore, comments alleging Erickson's unsavory business past began to pop up:

Anthony:

Why don't you tell all of these readers about how you were charged by the Feds back in the late 1990's in Virginia. It seems that a lot of Christain families that you served felt that you ran an organization that scammed them out of a lot of money. Sorry to bring this up, but when you bash on others on a national stage, your past can haunt you. I am suprised CNN did not do a thorough background check on you! (Google it (Erickson Agency, VA))

CHermansen:

ANTHONY, thanks for bringing that to light. After reading many articles about this, such as,

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/modeling_scam.htm

I can only reiterate my previous comment. Funny, I can't find any articles like this about Mitt Romney. I did find one about him shutting down Bain Capital for a couple of days to help search the streets of NYC for a missing girl. To bad he belongs to a cult or you may have to say that sounds pretty Christlike and shows forth love.

You're unbelievable!

Daryl Denney:

Yep. As suspected, she is in it for the money. Credibility gone. Take a look at this. Looks like she is/was a scam artist. Google: Consumer Affairs Modeling Scam Settlement Patricia Erickson

http://mormonism-unv...kson-outed.html

Patricia Erickson is a convicted former scam artist, who settled outside of court back in 1999.

http://inthearena.bl...d-as-president/

Edited October 16, 2011 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

Perhaps we should, aprise people of this fact.

http://www.christian...eport_8006.html

Edited October 16, 2011 by Zakuska

[Storm Rider]

I had the distinct honor of seeing this...whacko is the term I have used before, on television. She did not come across as being stable to me.

As far as violence and the endowment goes, I suspect she is talking about some of the things that were previously included int he endowment, but are no longer there. Given her neurotic approach to these topics, my guess is this will be her five minutes of fame and then she will be quitely swept under the carpet where all whackos are kept.

[Zakuska]

Oh my!? This is the mission statement of Ms. Ericksons "business".

Our Work

• Circumvent press distortion and misinformation by controlled dissemination of accurate and truthful information. Shift the negative current of the press to a positive flow through effective and strategic communications while managing the in and out flow of information.
  
• Maintain a consistent public relations and communications strategy.
  
• Maintain the ability to assess situations and quickly determine what needs to be done both publicly and privately. Plan on any contingency that may occur. Organize think tanks on strategy.
  
• Shape public perceptions and opinions by presenting the issues in the most favorable and truthful terms possible, given the circumstances. Maintain Image Strategy and Control.
  
• Control the damage to clients on all fronts through strategic communications in TV, radio, print and legal means, when necessary.
  
• Legal liaison: Hire and direct specialized attorneys for the protection of the victim, corporation or issue of the crisis at hand.
  
• Assess the opposition by gathering background information. Ascertain the strategy and motives of the opposing camp. Maintain a “no surprises” course.
  
• Expose journalistic bias by working with bureau chiefs and editors pertaining to accountability. Maintain friendly, yet firm relations with the media, given the circumstances. Understand the “business” of the press or the opponents, inside and out (much more to be discussed on this subject).
  
• Maintain sound judgment and instinct by staying focused and informed on all fronts.
  
• Negotiate as much up front control as possible for clients before giving interviews with the media. Arrange “woodshed” sessions in which trusted experts advise and prepare the client before any communication with the press.
  
• Image advice on wardrobe, styling, communications skills, posture, stance, projection, speech articulation, voice quality, mannerisms and proper conveyance techniques.
  
• Confidentiality is a given.
  
• Preserve and protect options and alternatives, both private and professional.
  
• Work to maintain personal privacy of clients, their families, issues and closely held corporate information.

http://crisismanagem...corporated.com/

She's doing just the opposite.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Zakuska

[ldsfaqs]

Perhaps we should, aprise people of this fact.

http://www.christian...eport_8006.html

The interviewer Thom Hartmann is clearly also an anti-mormon to the degree who knows, for he said we don't actually believe in a "Virgin Birth", which as we all know is completely false. LDS Theology most certainly does believe in the Virgin Birth.

[thesometimesaint]

ldsfaq:

Having a false idea about someone else's beliefs doesn't make them Anti-anything.

Tricia Erickson is an Anti. Anti-sanity.

[Loran Blood]

Id say she's been defanged...

http://mormonism-unv...kson-outed.html

Patricia Erickson is a convicted scam artist, who serttled outside of court.

http://inthearena.bl...d-as-president/

Thanks, Zakuska, and quite interesting. It appears that Erickson is the anti-Mormon equivalent of Kevin Trudeau. How her vitriolic anti-Mormonism fits into the entire mix isn't exactly clear, but that it fits in some manner is hardly shocking, from this perspective.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

ldsfaq:

Having a false idea about someone else's beliefs doesn't make them Anti-anything.

Tricia Erickson is an Anti. Anti-sanity.

Thom Hartmann is a secular atheist who's general worldview tends to the far to the left of the philosophical spectrum, and using the term "anti-Mormon" to describe him might not be too far off the beaten path.

)

There is little excuse for Hartmann and his guests here for lumping all contemporary polygamous cults and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints together under the single rubric of "Mormons" as if Mormonism was like Protestantism and could be understood to be a single core edifice having various "denominations" within it. Of course, the Church does not understand the various peripheral apostate offshoots of itself, started, in most cases, by single individuals in the historical past at some point, as being any part of itself. People who have never been members of the Church, just as excommunicated members are as if they had never been members at all, are not "Mormons." The term "Mormon" has always, and is today understood by the vast majority to mean the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, who's headquarters are located in Salt Lake City, UT. When one thinks of "Mormonism," one thinks of that church, not the RLDS, or Warren Jeffs.

Both Hartmann and his guest, Sanjiv Bhattacharya, speak of the existing various polygamous sects and the Salt Lake church as "Mormonism," as if it was a unified entity featuring associated sects or denominations, all of which can be usefully stuffed under the definitional umbrella of "Mormons" and all of which share polygamy as a salient feature. That's an intellectual trick, not a serious analysis, and Hartmann, a leading fixture in leftist journalism and with a high profile talk show on Free Speech TV, should have known better. Indeed, Bhattacharya's book is entitled The Secret World of Mormon Polygamy, as if there was such a thing in the 20th century as Mormon polygamy. But, of course, all these sects and cults, including the Salt Lake church, are Mormons.

Or are they?

Note that Hartmann begins his piece here by declaiming, "A new lawsuit in Utah seeks to decriminalize polygamy for Mormons." He even identifies Jeff's as a "Mormon." Hartmann seems innocent of the reality that, for the Church itself, there is no such thing as a "Mormon" outside the LDS church. We normally call all non-members of the church, well, non-members - non-Mormons. That others wish to use the term in their own self identification changes nothing here. We can all call ourselves whatever we so choose, but that, by itself, does not sanctify any claims to legitimacy carried by our language usage.

Presently, Bhattacharya speaks at some length about, not polygamous cults descended through some dissenter and his followers, or mentally unstable fanatic, from the Mormon church in the historic past, but Mormonism itself, which he terms "strong potion" and a form of 'fundamentalism" that exists "outside the law." No attempt is made to carefully separate out "Mormonism" (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints) as a system of religion having a vast and deep body of concepts and perceptions regarding the nature of mankind and our place in the universe, from even the most bizarre, idiosyncratic offshoots of that religion as practiced by isolated sociopaths. Nice work, actually, because that way Hartmann gets to smear this overtly conservative religion, with its high profile interest in and concentration on family, marriage, sexual morality, and traditional gender roles as a qausi-lawless fundamentalist cauldron of sexual perversion. Not, it should be noted, that Hartmann is against that, as he's long been an aggressive supporter of homosexual marriage and a past master of casting the term "bigot" at all those who oppose that massive program of social restructuring

http://www.youtube.c...?v=ki6ciLAYbLU.

One might well take note of the bundle of standard cliche arguments Hartmann trots out here that we, in this forum, have fielded again and again and again over as many years.

To be fair to Bhattacharya, he actually takes a rather neutral view, morally speaking (although he does at one point call polygamy "dysfunctional") of the entire phenomena and comes out in favor of decriminalization (and in neither case, as to morality or social acceptance would the LDS church or its (faithful) members agree). Bhattacharya also claims that the Church is given to "paranoia" regarding polygamy. This struck me as a bit odd, as, as a lifelong member, I had never noticed any such thing, save among its critics.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Loran Blood

[thesometimesaint]

Loran Blood:

Thom Hartmann is a Christian.

[selek1]

Loran Blood:

Thom Hartmann is a Christian.

A "Christian-Christian", "Mormon-Christian", "Jefress-Christian", or "Easter'n'Christmas-Christian"?

Apparently, these distinctions have become more important than the "butt-in-the-pew,good-deeds-in-their-hands, chartity-in-their-hearts, and gospel-on-their-lips" qualifiers we normally use.

Edited October 17, 2011 by selek1

[ldsfaqs]

ldsfaq:

Having a false idea about someone else's beliefs doesn't make them Anti-anything.

Tricia Erickson is an Anti. Anti-sanity.

That's why I said "to the degree who knows".....

However the degree of anti in him, the fact he regurgitated something that is so blatantly false, which only comes from anti-mormons by the way, gives tell where his "allegiance" resides.

But, you are correct, she is the "true" anti. He may just be a useful idiot sheep who swallows the anti propaganda.

Anyway, you need to read peoples words more carefully. I wasn't sure the degree of anti he was, so I delineated that point.

However, per the above post by Loran, it's clear he is pretty anti.

Ah, now I see why you're defending him, he's a liberal.

Edited October 17, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[Loran Blood]

A "Christian-Christian", "Mormon-Christian", "Jefress-Christian", or "Easter'n'Christman-Christian"?

Apparently, these distinctions have become more important than the "butt-in-the-pew,good-deeds-in-their-hands, chartity-in-their-hearts, and gospel-on-their-lips" qualifiers we normally use.

STS is going to jump on me because he shares Hartmann's politics, but I'll accept Hartmann's self description, even given that the vast majority of Hartmann's views are decidedly problematic in a traditional Christian sense. One would still have to ask in what way is Hartmann a "Christian," or what does that mean when applied to his particular worldview?

My major concern here was his general approach to this particular issue, not his ideology.