You called it on….

….So bring it.

Todd, my old high school friend, says:

Name: Todd |

Has feathers, a beak, webbed feet, and quacks….

Would you like links referencing all of the mormon practices you’ve shown in this blog that you oppose?

How come you guys are so anti-being-called-anti-mormon?

BTW, you guys are great at nit-picking around the periphery, whilst never really addressing the substance of an issue. But that goes back to my duck analogy… 🙂


Yup, give me links. Give ME substance. Point out WHERE I have been anti. See, the thing is, just because I don’t BELIEVE something, or find it silly, does NOT MAKE ME anti.

Use your head and get over your persecution complex.

For example, I find Paris Hilton silly. And yet, no one has EVER come to this blog and complained about me being anti-Paris. And it is NOT because I have not written about Paris Hilton, because I HAVE. So don’t try that tack. It won’t work.

I also find Tom Cruise a whackjob, and have been fairly ardent about my desire to free Katie Holmes. Yet no one has EVER come to this blog and accused me of being anti-Tom Cruise. Again, not because I haven’t blogged it, but MAYBE because they realize that just because I think Scientology is silly and Tom Cruise a bit fanatic, it does NOT MAKE ME ANTI ANYTHING.

Ahem. Sorry.

So don’t be stupid. If you want to discuss particular issues, discuss, Todd. But you never do. You just dance around them, with your circular logic, and then call everyone who doesn’t agree with you an ANTI-MORMON. Them’s fighting words, Brother Todd.

Tell me WHAT it is you think I have said that makes me anti-Mormon. Be specific. And I shall respond to your argument, if you should have one, which I doubt you will.

Because, like in a court of law, the BURDEN of proof lies with YOU. YOU are the one claiming to have the only true thing. Not me. So YOU are the one who has to prove it is true. What? What’s that you say? You CAN’T? Or it’s just a burning in the bosom thingie? Give me a break. That’s the stuff that makes people drink cyanide Kool-Aid and throw their children off buildings. All in the name of GOD, because they FELT it in their heart, and they prayed about it, and God TOLD THEM the cyanide was good and the fall wouldn’t hurt.

You don’t GET to tell me that I’m ANTI because I don’t agree with you.

You cannot prove that one thing about Mormonism is true, and yet you never cease to come here and act all smug and self-righteous, and say, “Geez, leave the poor Mormons alone,” when the POOR MORMONS aren’t leaving ANYONE alone. They never HESITATE to claim to have THE ONLY TRUE THING. Of course, they can’t prove it.

Don’t accuse me of doing things I am not doing, and not back them up with an argument.

So bring it, Todd. What ANTI things have I said? Prove they are anti. Prove that YOU are right and I am wrong.

Good luck with that.


About Natalie R. Collins

Natalie has more than 30 years writing, editing, proofreading and design experience. She has written 20 books (and counting), has worked for the Sundance Film Festival, and as an investigative journalist, editor, and proofreader. She embraces her gypsy-heart and is following her new free-thinking journey through life. Follow her as she starts over and learns a bunch of life's lessons--some the hard way.
This entry was posted in Natalie's Posts. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to You called it on….

  1. Todd says:


    If we’re going to have this dialog, I want an un-edited prominent place in a main post.



  2. Becca says:

    I think you are anti-Todd!!! 🙂


  3. K*tty says:

    Todd, you can think something is a little off, with out being anti. I think that Scientology is a weird religion, but I am not anti-S. I also think there are major weird things in Mormonism, but I am not anti-M. I actually like and respect a lot of people who are Scientologists. The same can be said for my several Mormon family and friends. I don’t care what they want to believe and how much faith they have, and even if they are willing to over look truth and make excuses. Good people the world over believe some pretty outlandish things. Live and let live. If it works for them, great.
    If you want to discuss Mormonism, how bout we start with section 132 of the D & C?


  4. Tracy says:


    It’s Natalie’s blog, not yours. If you want to “prove” she’s anti Mormon, do it in reply, or get your own blog.


  5. Todd says:


    If it’s Natalie’s blog, why do you think you can dictate the terms of her’s and my dialog?



  6. Todd says:


    Of course you can do all of those things and not be anti-something. Of course, much of what Natalie writes is related to her experiences, and I applaud that. I know how fanatic and irrational some mormons, including myself, can be. It’s pretty funny to watch from the inside. I can also see how fanatic and irrational ex-mormons can be. And, that is amusing to me as well.

    But you can’t *actively* mock, ridicule, spin half-truths, and twist doctrine; and then pass it off as “Oh, I’m not anti-mormon, it’s just my experience living in Zion.” There is so much blantantly disrespectful anti-mormon stuff on this blog, it’s hilarious to me that you are all so concerned about that title.

    Sure, you don’t mockingly put on a pair of temple garments over your regular clothes and march on Temple square. Sure, you don’t carry signs and go to the Manti or Palmyra pageants and intentionally disrupt someone else’s good time. Sure, you don’t go to extremes. Sure you have friends and family whom you love and that are active mormons. But that doesn’t mean you’re not anti-mormon.

    I’m not out to “prove” you or anyone else is anti-mormon. Quite frankly, I don’t even care. Those are Natalie’s and other’s words, not mine. I don’t feel persecuted. I’m not angry. I don’t feel threatened. I’m quite content. I did offer to provide references from this blog to provide substance for my position. I’m happy to oblige, but now as only an unedited main post rebuttal to Natalie’s post.

    And, lastly, I’m not even out to prove mormonism is true. I just enjoy debates about logic and plausibility. The topic just happens to be near and dear to my heart.

    Kindest Regards,


  7. Natalie says:


    When have I ever edited you? And since this is MY blog, don’t you think a more respectful tack would have been, “Well, how about a rebuttal post?” Instead you TELL me what you need–with conditions–to provide the evidence I asked for.

    Why can’t you just do it? Afraid? Because the truth is, I haven’t offered ANY half truths, nor do I spin. I don’t NEED to do that. It simply isn’t necessary. The Mormon “truth” is mind-boggling enough all by itself.

    But go ahead. Make your case. As always, I will NOT edit you. And I will post it on my main blog. Then be prepared for a rebuttal.


  8. Tracy says:

    Todd, why do you think you can dictate the term Natalie?


  9. Todd says:


    Excellent! I look forward to the dialog.

    And for the record:
    * you’re right, I’ve never been edited by you.
    * yes, it’s YOUR blog, but respectful is something YOU’RE not, especially to mormons, nor was this post to me. But that’s okay, I’m a big boy, I can handle it.
    * I CAN and WILL just do it. Thanks for your generosity.
    * no, I’m not afraid of the truth, even though you’re mind-boggled by it. 😉



  10. Todd says:


    There is so much ridiculing, mocking, disrespecting, half-truth telling and spinning contained in your over five years of blogging that I hardly know where to begin.

    There is also so much insight and stark honesty about mormons and mormon culture, especially in Utah, that I thoroughly enjoyed re-reading your posts. I really should take the time to read all of the comments. Maybe someday.

    So, in all honesty, my opinion of you as an anti-mormon is mixed. You’re certainly not the extreme sign-carrying, garment waving, peace disrupting anti-mormon that you harp against in some of your posts. But, you do spew quite a bit of anti-mormon rhetoric within the walls of this blog.

    Here are a few examples:

    Oct. 7th, 2004 – You list several things the missionaries don’t mention: polygamy (a recurring theme), Brigham’s Adam/God theory (another recurring theme), and Blacks and the Priesthood (Brigham’s racist tendencies is another recurring theme). These are transparent anti-mormon themes. I’m curious to know how you rationalize that they’re not.

    Jul. 25th, 2005 (as one example) – You repeat your slogan: the church won’t leave me alone, so I won’t leave the church alone. This is overt acknowledgement that you (and other ex-mormons) actively pursue an agenda against the church.

    Nov. 26th, 2005 – An example of you lambasting a pro-mormon commentator about misrepresenting some data (in this case church growth figures), and then you proceed to misrepresent the same data. A blatant lie on your part? Maybe you didn’t read the SLTrib article in full? Maybe an honest mistake? The article clearly stated that church membership continues to increase (not decrease as you indicated). The article did indicate that as a percentage of Utah’s population, church membership was declining. A half-truth or simply spin on your part?

    You seem to really like to verbally lambast people, and I must say you’re quite good at it. I really like it when you ignore subtance and lambast people because they cain’t spel.

    Feb. 26th, 2006 – Another blatant half-truth. To be a believing mormon, one doesn’t have to rely on faith and faith alone. If you really claim to have researched mormonism before dropping out, you have to know there is a huge body of solid, tangible evidence for the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s story. That is not to say that faith doesn’t play a huge role, I believe, by design.

    May 28th, 2006 – You dedicate a whole post to actively opposing proxy baptism.

    Aug 30th, 2006 – Another post on polygamy, including the *shocking* revelation that “they practice it everyday, in mormon temples all over the world.” In another post you indicate polygamy is a MAJOR tenet of mormonism. These are blatant lies at worst, and half-truths at best. I refuse to distance the church from polygamous beliefs, but your insinuation that the church is actively practicing and preaching polygamy is simply disingenuous. Or, maybe I just haven’t been paying attention the last four-and-a-half decades.

    So, if it has feathers, a beak, webbed feet, and quacks…. guess what? It’s a duck! And a duck by any other name is still a duck.

    So why exactly do you not like the anti-mormon title? If the spew fits, wear it! 😉

    Your old friend,


  11. azteclady says:

    Any one else senses a whiff of hypocrisy every time Todd signs off, what with the “respectfully” and “regards” and the like?

    Oh look, a duck!


  12. angie says:

    Methinks Mr. Todd needs his own blog.

    Hugs to you, Nat. Drop in and visit sometimes. 🙂


  13. a blatant lambaster says:

    Hey Todd. overuse blatant and lambast lately? Oh, wait…


  14. Todd says:

    my vocab is small and i cain’t spel ither… thanks fer ur thotful retort.


  15. Becca says:

    ” a huge body of solid, tangible evidence for the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s story…”

    seriously? please do show me it. I grew up near Palmyra and I have never seen any evidence of archaeological diggings for BOM artifacts…show me cold hard evidence


  16. Todd says:

    google “evidence for the book of mormon”

    critics are having to get absurdly creative to dismiss the ever increasing amount


  17. Cele says:

    Greetings Todd. I have to ask this to start out with, “Why are you defensive?”

    You didn’t ask me for a rebuttal to your post, you asked Natalie, so I won’t give you one…especially the point by point rebuttal I’d like to give you. But I have to ask you why you accuse Natalie of disrespecting you and Mormonism (which please, Mormon is a proper noun and therefore spelt with a capital M) and then you are wholly disrespectful yourself? Respect is as respect does, give and get, and all that.

    I would prefer to google “evidence of Book of Mormon” and find evidence that comes from a source outside the Mormon religion.

    Am I anti-Mormon? No, I’m not – but the only thing I have in common with Mormon belief is there is only one God, his son is Jesus Christ my Savior, and to treat all people as I wish to be treated myself.


  18. Todd says:


    I think I’m pretty balanced between offensive and defense.

    There are a few reasons why I post here.

    1) I enjoy the give and take of a healthy debate.
    2) Natalie and I go way back, so there’s a personal aspect to this. And,
    3) I hope that others find the dialog thought provoking and interesting, whether they agree or disagree.

    Evidence is evidence. Besides, when you’re talking religion or politics, there is very little neutral territory. It’s nearly impossible to sit on the fence.

    Regarding your “anti” comment, people in general don’t like to be compartmentalized with a label, especially one with a negative connotation; which is why it aggravates critics to be called anti-whatever. Mormons do it to critics by calling them anti-mormon, critics do it to mormons by calling them not-christian.

    And, lastly, unless you know absolutely nothing about mormonism, I’m sure you know we have more in common than just what you mentioned.

    All the best,


  19. Natalie says:

    Um, Todd was that your post? I thought you wanted the big screen for your debut.


  20. Todd says:

    That was my post. I figured you could copy it over. Now that you mention it, maybe I should have sent it over privily. My bad.


  21. azteclady says:

    Evidence is evidence when it can be looked at and examined without bias.

    If the validity of evidence is dependent on an external subjective factor such as “faith” then it’s not evidence but opinion.

    Which, by the way, can also be passive–as in, I believe Joseph Smith was a conman with delusions the grandeur–or active–as in the hypothetical statement (that I am NOT making, notice) that “all people who believe the book of mormon to be true are idiots”.


  22. Tracy says:

    “Evidence is evidence”

    You keep saying that Todd, but you never show any.


  23. Todd says:

    Tracy – You smoking crack again? I just gave several examples of evidence related to the anti-mormon rantings on this site.

    Are you trying to change the topic?



  24. Todd says:


    It’s anti-christian to discount matters of faith to merely an “opinion”.

    Didn’t Paul clearly teach that faith is evidence? (



  25. azteclady says:

    Todd, evidence vs faith… gee.

    And giving evidence on lds through and lds link? Circular reasoning much?


  26. Todd says:

    aztec, I don’t know how to respond…

    You either completely missed the point, or consciously chose to ignore. I suspect the latter.

    The link wasn’t evidence for or against lds, it was a link to the KJV bible passage (which happened to be on supporting my claim that discounting faith as evidence is anti-christian.

    That’s nowhere close to circular reasoning. That’s logic!



  27. azteclady says:

    Todd, sweetie, discounting faith as evidence is not anti-any faith. Requiring empiric and unbiased evidence is not anti-any faith.

    It’s called scientific method.

    Look it up.


  28. Natalie says:

    Excellent points, Kelly! Thanks for delurking to comment.


  29. T.B. says:

    This is just an observation of mine from over 50 years of watching people condemn one another. Religion, dare I say all religion, was created for one thing – control. Control the populace and reap the riches. Start a war, fine. Massacre a wagon train, no problem. Murder 900 men, women and children, sahright. Control an entire country, it’s their right. Force others to march lock step with you or die, hail to the chief. All of the literature is written by men, usually after the said miraculous event, to control others. So, if you want to believe in crosses, hats with golden plates or fairy farts then have a ball. I would much rather thank a loving god for another day and a chance to help my fellows. BTW, I can do that without doctrine and with a nice hot cup of coffee.

    Really have never regretted the decision to move away from Utah!

    Guilt Free,


  30. Renee says:

    My 9 year old went to Scouts at the Ward, because we wanted to be part of the community and I thought Scouts were non-denominational. By the end, we were getting hit every fast offering Sunday because we were on “the list” and no matter who I talked to or who I asked, we never could get off having those sweet kids knock on our door every so often. And yes, it was annoying because I had to make those kids feel uncomfortable by saying “we’re not LDS, thanks” and they would get a weird look on their faces.

    Fade to last Sunday, we’re loading our moving truck and the Bishop comes by to say “last chance to give”. WTF? He wasn’t kidding, either. My husband said, for the fourteenth time, “we’re not members”.

    I’m sorry, that’s a lack of respect for my boundaries. And I don’t think anyone, Mormon or non-Mormon, deserves to have their boundaries disrespected.


  31. Todd says:


    I’m with you 100%. We’re not trying to force anyone to accept LDS doctrine. We think we’ve got something special, and we like to share (actually we believe we’ve been commanded by God to share). Many people disagree with us, and we’ve got no beef with that, really. We’re respectful of a person’s right to worship (or not) how they please. Now, I will not disagree that there are fanatics, on both sides.

    However, I doubt that you mock, ridicule, disrespect, and outright lie about the beliefs of those with whom you disagree. I would suspect that you would find that sort of thing reprehensible.

    I’ve pointed out a few examples of those types of things here. This kind of friendly banter is fun and interesting for me. I hope it stimulates thought and a healthy dialog, and drives a ton of traffic to this blog, so Natalie can get rich!

    All the best,


  32. Todd says:

    azteclady – show me a scientific method that can quantify faith or love or hope (then I’ll show you a religion that increases all three!) 😉


    P.S. I’m in Utah until Monday. Dang this place has grown! I can’t wait to get back to Houston where I’ve got some breathing room!


  33. Renee says:



  34. I resisted the whole “anti-Mormon” label for a long time. And I was doing fairly well with making peace with that silly church and going on my merry emotional way, until Prop 8. Now they have seriously pissed me off. You know the saying, “If you are not for us, you are against us?” Well, I am most definitely NOT for them – I am 100% against them. Since against means anti, I guess I have to accept that I am anti-Mormon. And I have no horns growing out of my head and I only breathe fire on Tuesdays, I am still a good person, I still love, I still have a beautiful and rich spiritual life, and I am, at present, anti-Mormon. Not really anything to be scared or ashamed of – although we grew up equating anti-Mormons with rabid kitten killers. Not so – we are just normal folks who are not FOR.


  35. dragonhlm says:

    O.K. I can not stand it any more!
    Show me a religion that increases love, faith, or hope and I will show you a religion that exploited followers to protect its leaders, members who died senselessly, and once they gained enough power used it to kill innocent men women and children.
    You and any other “followers”(I do not care which denomination) can go on and on and on… about how your religion teaches you to love everyone, help your neighbor, care for the sick. You can have a big cake walk right through “Gods country” I do not care. On the surface religion may seem good, the face they show to the world is “We are here to help.” The problem is deep inside the cannon of every religion are laws and punishments that give the believer the justification to do horrible things. Now while the major religions do not enforce these laws (for now) it only takes a fanatical/fundamental group to resurrect these teachings. When this takes place things happen like the Mountain Meadow Massacre, September 11, the Crusades and many more. When things are good everyone seems to play nice, but when things start to go badly both sides start to point fingers. “God has brought this destruction on gays!”, “God is punishing the sinners!”, “God hates amputees!”(just added this one because God does not seem to care about them 😦 Religion perpetuates these beliefs and they are damaging to humanity. Now I have seen great programs sponsored by religions, but I would argue you do not need a belief system to be kind to your neighbor. We can build a stronger community with out religion. One rule and it is golden “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” that is all we need. Now about all this anti- crap. Religion is the ultimate anti-everything NO….. lobsters, pork, golden statues, cartoons, evolution, skyscrapers, bad thoughts, masturbation, coffee, aspirin, coveting, stairway to heaven(denied), orgies, fun, alcohol, merriment, hot neighbor wives, apples, burnt offerings, no burnt offerings, other religions, this list goes on forever. You can call me Anti-Mormon if you want Todd, but in doing so you are anti everything else including truth. Why all the hate Todd? I would prefer you label me Pro-Humanity.


    P.S. again sorry for using so much space Natalie


  36. Todd says:


    What hate?

    The only hate I sense is yours of organized religion.



  37. dragonhlm says:

    How about the hatred of the gay community, funded by your church to start? or the same thing 40 years ago towards the minority community.


  38. dragonhlm says:

    Also I never said I hated organized religion, just the horrible things done in the name of God 🙂


  39. Todd says:


    You got me there. There have been horrible things done in the name of God.

    I disagree that supporting Prop 8 in California is equal to hatred of the gay community. It’s a very divisive and emotional issue, no doubt; that the people of California will decide next Tuesday.

    Same deal with 40 years ago towards minorities…

    Just because you stand on one side of an issue, and even fund the promotion of such, doesn’t mean you hate the other side.



  40. dragonhlm says:

    No I guess not, it just means that you are ANTI. That means it is OK. Right?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s