Daughter of LDS Bishop Warns Against Mormonism and Romney Presidency ['Of two evils...neither']

The daughter of a Latter Day Saints bishop and author of a book on Mitt Romney’s Mormonism says that she has concerns about a Romney presidency.

Tricia Erickson, who is now a professing Christian after being involved in the LDS establishment for 21 years, stated in an article this week entitled The Obamney Twins that while she cannot support Barack Obama, she is unable to vote for Mitt Romney either.

“To me, as a conservative, a Republican and a Christian, I cannot justify a vote for either one of the Obamney baby-killing, annihilators of the family, government healthcare mandated to take over our economy socialist evil twins – and be right with our Creator,” she wrote.

Erickson pointed out that neither seek to ban abortion, and both have shown support for homosexuality.

“Republicans say that they have to vote for Romney because we are losing our country to socialism and after another four years of Obama, there will be nothing left of America. I can’t say that I disagree,” she said. “However, what is never talked about is that Romney has his own goals for the Mormon Church [and] The Mormon Plan for America, and while he is cunning and a good debater, he lacks the judgment to discern that he will not become a ‘god’ in his next life and receive his own planet.”

Erickson has been making the rounds on various talk shows and has been featured in news publications for at least the past year, discussing her concerns with Mormonism and a potential Romney presidency.

“While he attempts to portray Mormonism as just another Christian religion, Mitt Romney counts on his skills to shift our attention away from what he truly believes,” she wrote in her book Can Mitt Romney Serve Two Masters? The Mormon Church Versus the Office of the Presidency of the United States of America.

“It’s like our eyes are glazed over when it comes to the religion of Mitt Romney,” Erickson told talk show host Thomas Hartmann in further discussing the matter. “If you just knew what Mitt Romney believed, you would run far away from this candidate.”

Erickson states that she grew up in a devout Mormon household, and was even married in the LDS temple according to mandated rituals. However, she laments many things that she observed and was subjected to.

“It was horrific,” she told WND. “There I was standing naked [at my wedding]. They brought this bowl of water and started washing my body down, and whispering prayers over my body. They stopped over the right and left breast, the navel and knees and prayed specific prayers.”

Erickson stated that because Mitt Romney is a dedicated Mormon, he espouses beliefs that are very concerning, including that Jesus was not born of a virgin, that Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers, and that Romney will one day become one of many deities.

“Mitt Romney truly, unequivocally believes that when he dies, he is going to become a god in Heaven,” she said. “He is going be given his own kingdom/planet. He will be able to call his wife Ann by the secret name that is only given to him in the Mormon secret ceremonies … When he calls her on to his planet, they will have relations to populate the planet with spirit children, as they believe our God has a wife on His planet, and He did the same, and they believe that we are our God’s spirit children from our god mother and god father.”

“So, all of us here on earth, we existed in a pre-existence with God as a spirit baby, then we came down and inhabited these little babies’ bodies that are here on the earth,” Erickson continued, explaining LDS beliefs. “[This was done] so that we could go through our process to venture into godhood.”

She said that there has been a longstanding agenda in the LDS establishment to place Mormons into governmental offices.

“[The LDS establishment has] been trying since the beginning to get someone in the presidency, because they believe they have to establish their authority so when Jesus comes to earth, the Mormon Church will take control of the government and the Mormons will be the government of God on earth,” Erickson explained.

“They believe that when Jesus comes back to earth in the millennium, that He’s going to come to Jackson County, Missouri, which that’s where they believe the Garden of Eden is,” she added.

Former Mormons Dennis and Rauni Higley of H.I.S. Ministries International in Salt Lake City, Utah concur that these indeed are the beliefs of the LDS establishment. They provided Christian News Network with written outlines of their concerns surrounding what is called the “White Horse Prophesy.”

“From its very beginning, the Mormon plan for America has been to have a Mormon president lead this nation and ultimately the world,” they stated. “The so-called ‘White Horse Prophecy’ of Joseph Smith has been referred to often as a destiny of the Mormon priesthood in saving the United States. This ‘prophecy’ predicts that U.S. government will one day hang as if by a single thread and Mormon elders will step in and save it.”

Erickson said that in Mormon ceremonies, participants must swear to keep secret what goes on behind closed doors. She advised that in rituals that she was involved with, she observed people being forced to make gestures signifying their death if they revealed what takes place.

“They actually had us [symbolically] slashing our guts open and our guts falling to the ground if we told people of the secret dogma of the ceremonies,” she stated.

When asked how Erickson knows that Romney espouses these same beliefs, she replied that Romney has long had high ranking in the LDS establishment, holding office as bishop like her father, and working as a Mormon missionary in France for a time.

“You cannot get more Mormon than Mitt Romney,” she stated. “And I have been through the same temple ceremonies … to follow the church first before anything else.”

“To my way of thinking the idiosyncrasies of Mormon belief and practice are not the issue; Catholic belief in transubstantiation and Protestant belief in the resurrection [of Jesus] can be made to look silly, too,” Romney told CNN last year after being informed of Erickson’s writings and speeches against him.

Because of these concerns, in Erickson’s article this week, she noted that many will vote third party this year or skip the presidential race on the ballot.

“Some have said that they will simply not vote for either establishment candidate, [but] instead, in protest, will write-in another name or candidate if they will vote at all,” she wrote. “I, and approximately 90 million Americans, agree with Charles Spurgeon who says, ‘Of two evils, choose neither.’”

I suppose you want to toss out the US Constitution and establish an Evangelistic theocratic regime? Do you only vote for Evangelicals for office? Is every Evangelical pure as the driven snow and sinless? I suppose you must have voted for George Bush and Jimmy Carter. I don’t know who else would have met your religious test for public office.

No, every Evangelical -- or every Christian -- isn't "pure...snow and sinless."

But at least a fair number of Christian candidates who aren't Christians in wolf suits actually call upon the right God when in a time of crisis...vs. the potential Mormon prez who will call upon a former "man" who got the Mormon god job from a "council of gods" who appointed him...Good "luck" with that actually helping our nation in need -- calling upon some low-level "god" ...

I suppose you want to toss out the US Constitution...I don’t know who else would have met your religious test for public office.

Ya know, U.S...I once read an Lds news release that said: The framers of our constitution included a provision that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (Article VI). That constitutional principle forbids a religious test as a legal requirement...

So, I guess, now you're spewing Mormon public relations on behalf of the Mormon church P.R. team? What? And you're not even asking for a P.R. check from their office?

This Mormon church release was part of a discussion by Lds "apostle" Dallin Oaks.

I'm afraid you -- Unam Sanctam -- like Mr. Oaks...BADLY misconstrues candidacy eligibility issues.

All the constitution says is that an eligible candidate cannot be kept from running on religious test grounds.

Ya know, even Mr. Oaks recognized how ludicrous some of his rhetoric was sounding and needed to offset it a bit with a qualifier: "...but it of course leaves citizens free to cast their votes on the basis of ANY preference they choose."

Would you Unam Sanctam, at least go as far as the Mormon church P.R. release and likewise concede, "...but it of course leaves citizens free to cast their votes on the basis of ANY preference they choose?" Or are you some jack-boot dictator who would come in and force your sorry interpretation of Article VI of the Constitution upon ALL voters?

****************

So...here's a Constitutional "primer" for you so that you don't keep exporting confusion to others:

Point 1- RELIGION: Religion IS NOT a qualification or disqualification for public office; but it's certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc. Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution is aimed at the candidate (must be of a certain age and must have resided in our country for a certain number of years) and the government so that religion does not become a disqualification to keep somebody otherwise eligible for running for public office. Article VI, section 3, is not aimed at the voter. Otherwise, voters would have to 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates.

POINT 2 - ELIGIBILITY: Newsflash!! Every person on the ballot, & even most write-in candidates, have proper "qualifications" to not be excluded from office consideration (based upon religious grounds). Of course, millions of us have the "qualifications" to be considered a potential POTUS & shouldn't be excluded outright from a ballot because of the religion we hold! Nobody has a "Religious Ineligibility" tattoo on their forehead!

POINT 3- BOTTOM LINE: You don't, US, really want to join Lds "apostles" in their confusion by emphasizing words similar to "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with words like "qualities." (language that’s NOT in the Constitution)...do you?

I focus on what voters base their votes on in the "real world": Qualities

Otherwise, Article VI says absolutely...
...nothing...
....nada...
...zero...
...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...

Nowhere does Article VI say that voters MUST 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates!

"Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected.

(Btw, even 88%-95% of Mormons -- most voting upon the fellow personal "qualities" of a candidate like Romney -- can tell you that!)

So...why, therefore aren't you lecturing Lds voters if anywhere from 88% to 95% of Mormons will only vote for a Mormon?

(For some reason, the "Article 6 Religious Test" lecture tour never seems to hit Utah, Eastern Nevada, Southwest Wyoming or Southern Idaho)

Mitt Romney is a “savage wolf” to the Christian Koinonia as referred to by St. Paul? If Mitt Romney were to use his position as President to promote or establish Mormonism, I would agree,
_________________________________________

Every time Willard uses his position as GOP candidate for presidnet to prosytize his Mortmon religion, hes acting like you r savage wolf...

Just as he did at the debate this week when As a Mormon archbishop he preached the Mormon doctrine and said “You are all God’s children...”

No we are not...

Not in Christianity...

We are not born children of God...

As new born again Christians we are grafted into the vine and become adopted children of God through the shed blood of the LORD Jesus Christ...

Until we repent and believe in Jesus and are born again we are not children of God..

Yet to all who received Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. John 1:11-13

Willard himself is not a born again Bible believing Christian and child of God and nor were several in the debate audience...

Everytime Willard speaks he uses the oppotunity to declare Mormon doctrine from his bully pulpit..

Because many who hear him dont know Mormonism, they dont recognize that he is pushing his false religion onto them..

While they wouldnt have let him into their houses as a Mormon obeying his religions demands and knocking on doors to tell them they as Christians were wrong to believe the Bible, and would go to Hell unless they were converted in Mormonism, they accept the same lies from him during his campaign for president...

If he was ever truthful and told them he believed Joseph Smith was the prophet of God and was to be worshiped as a lord and god, what would they do ???

If he was truthful and said hre believed that a male must have multiple “wives” in order to become a god and go to the highest level of the Mormon afterlife, what would they do ???

If he was truthful and said that he believed the Christians amongst them were apostates and beneath him what would they do ???

If he was truthful and admitted he believed he was fullfilling prophecy and would be president-for-life and king over the US if he was elected, what would they do ???

If he was truthful and admotted he hated the Christians amongst them and mocked them in his pagan temple rituals, what would they do ???

Willard has them so bamboozled and sucked in I doubt they would do anything at this point...

Meanwhile he keeps on giving his Mormon “talks” and baby Christian lap it up because they dont know their Bible...

I suppose you want to toss out the US Constitution...I don’t know who else would have met your religious test for public office.

Allow me to "reinforce" my last post by citing two other FREEPERS, Springfield Reformer, and Commerce Comet.

We were having a Constitution Article VI discussion with a fourth FREEPER last April 9...when he likewise raised the faulty Article VI "religious test" argument.

Allow me to quote those two FREEPERS:

...back to Constitution 101 for you. Colofornian is exactly right - this limitation is imposed on the GOVERNMENT, not private citizens. Remember that the original colonies were set up as religious enclaves. The Constitution prevented the state from imposing a religious requirement that its elected officials must be of the recognized state religion. In other words, an elected official in Maryland didn't have to be Catholic, or an official in Rhode Island, Baptist, etc.

So what are the courts going to do if I vote based on religious grounds? Declare me unconstitutional? Nullify my vote? How are they going to know that was my basis for voting? The Founding Fathers wouldn't put something as foolish into the Constitution as your are suggesting. They knew that you can't put unenforceable provisions into a ruling document - it just opens the whole document to be held in contempt.
Source: Commerce Comet's Article VI response

Colofornian is right. Article VI is a limitation on the fed, not on you and I. All it means is that a person of any religion or no religion cannot be blocked by the fed from running for federal office. That means that whether a person believes in the God of Israel or in the tooth fairy or in no god at all, the federal government cannot deny that person a place on the ballot.

However, I venture to guess that if you knew a candidate was on the ballot who seriously believed in the tooth fairy, you might give the other, more, um, traditional candidates a closer look. And you would have a constitutional right to do so. Election law under our Constitution liberates both the candidate and the voter to express their views freely under the First Amendment, whether those views are religious or otherwise. Your advocacy of Article VI as a limitation on what the *voter* may consider is a perfect inversion of that principle, and an argument against those costly liberties, paid for in blood, and enshrined for us in the First Amendment of our Constitution. Your argument has no basis in fact or law, and is not to be taken seriously. We will vote with eyes wide open, but thank you for your concern.
Source: Springfield Reformer's Article VI response

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.