Do unto others as you would have them do unto you…

Incredible Commentary on Prop. 8.

A MUST watch.


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.

92 Responses to Do unto others as you would have them do unto you…

  1. azteclady says:

    I have been watching it and weeping each time.

    Recognizing other people’s rights–which they HAVE as human beings–doesn’t take anything from YOUR rights. Why insist on making other people miserable?

    And they call themselves Christian or whatever, and feel all self righteous and pious while hurting their fellow humans.

    Gee, wonder why there are so many of us with a hard on for organized religion, huh?


  2. K*tty says:

    Wow! Nothing more needs to be said. I have, however sent this link to a few of my stalwart Mormon friends.


  3. tb says:

    Great post, Brat!


  4. Todd says:

    Wickedness never was happiness.

    Keith Olbermann is the most divisive liberal wack-job commentator on TV. So, despite his trained delivery, his impassioned pleas are transparently insincere. He cares nada about spreading love and happiness.

    Nobody is taking away the right of gays to love and happiness. Just the priviledge to call it marriage.

    Best Regards,


  5. WendyP. says:


    Wickedness? Kindly, fuck off.

    Best Regards,


  6. Natalie says:

    I wrote this whole long empassioned and angry comment in response to Todd’s dismissal of all humans except his “so superior” self, and then deleted it.

    Because I read Wendy’s reply. Quite frankly, it says it all.

    I would add just one thing. If you really WERE as superior as you think, Todd, you would be able to spell the word “privilege” correctly, a word which you think APPLIES only to your arrogant, pompous, self-righteous self.


  7. Todd says:

    Pot? Meet kettle…

    It’s a two-way street ladies…

    BTW, thanks for the privilege (hey Nat, note the correct spelling!) to refute your arrogant, pompous, self-righteous and angry selves.



  8. Natalie says:

    Todd? Nobody is fooled. Including you. Good try, though.


  9. azteclady says:

    Well, that’s all right. Todd and his ilk can sit in judgement for the time being and feel superior and righteous.

    There will be appointments to the Supreme Court soon enough, and the issue of equal rights for human beings *will* get there. and all the assholes–Todd and his ilk front and center–will have to swallow their distaste and live in the country where “wickedness” is protected by law.

    I can smile thinking about it, petty sinner that I am.

    Oh and language: one refutes arguments not people. Check your dictionary, you imbecile.


  10. Todd says:

    Refute: to prove (a person) to be in error. Look it up sweety. 🙂

    We’ve been swallowing our distaste and living in a country where “wickedness” has been protected by law for generations. Only an imbecile would think for a second that we don’t know where this is headed. There are dark days ahead.

    Problem is, girl… Good will ultimately triumph over evil.

    Live by faith, not fear!

    Your humble servant,


  11. Natalie says:

    Ah, the true colors. Todd, you are a sad and very ignorant man. A lot of lessons are headed your way. And you are right, good will ultimately triumph over evil. I’ve seen a lot of hypocrisy in your posts, and let most of it slide by, but you both sadden and anger me.

    For someone who was once so smart and filled with promise to have become such a closet bigot… well, I am astonished. And left to ask, how does this happen?

    Who is “we?” Where did you get the idea you were in on some Secret Superiority Society that ranks higher than the rest of us mere mortals. Oh yeah, Church.

    But see, here’s the thing. Jesus did NOT teach what you are preaching, Brother Todd.

    Bigotry and hatred spoken in God’s name is a great offense, and you are guilty of it in the worst way.

    Mat 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
    Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
    Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.


  12. Todd says:

    Y’all are taking me waaaaaayyyyyy too seriously.

    So, take a deep breath… untwist your panties… take a trip to the big easy… smoke a joint… drink some whiskey… snort some crack… relax a bit…

    It’s all in good fun! 🙂


    With Love,


  13. tb says:

    Just for kicks, Todd, please elaborate on where this “wickedness” is heading. Since you already have labeled me a total bonehead then telling me where it’s heading may just lead me to the righteous path. Please enlighten me.

    Will all the evil liberals band together and march on your ward casting angry gay stares at you and your children turning all of you into homosexuals?

    Will democracy crumble?

    Will our tax base collapse?

    Will allowing the word marriage to be incorporated into a same sex civil union change anything other than making others happy?

    C’mon, Todd . . . enlighten me.

    BTW, I was once a Mormon. Not by choice, luckily I escaped. My brother baptized me – he’s now an agnostic. Not one member of my immediate family is a Mormon any longer. One is agnostic, another a Catholic, another undecided and me, well . . . . I must be wicked. But I can change. If only someone would enlighten me . . .


  14. tb says:

    Todd, keep wearing your helmet because I know you like to lick the windows on the bus. You could really hurt yourself without the right protection!


  15. Todd says:


    I don’t do things just for kicks. I take this stuff way too seriously for that. 😉

    Besides, it gets Natalie and her spinsters way to uptight.

    I’m not getting the helmut and licking the bus window smear… must be my ignorance or bigotry showing through.



  16. Natalie says:

    “Y’all are taking me waaaaaayyyyyy too seriously.

    So, take a deep breath… untwist your panties… take a trip to the big easy… smoke a joint… drink some whiskey… snort some crack… relax a bit…

    It’s all in good fun! 🙂


    With Love,”

    Good fun? Untwist your panties, Todd. I’m well aware you were not kidding. By the way: I don’t smoke anything, except salmon. Well, I don’t actually smoke it myself, but I AM fond of it. I also do not drink whiskey. Yuck and puke. I prefer Frodkas. I don’t snort crack, and to relax I usually listen to music and write. Oh, and play Scrabble. I know, I’m so, so, so wicked.


  17. Natalie says:

    Spinsters? Now I have SPINSTERS? LOL. Do you even know what that means?


  18. tb says:

    It seems as though Brother Todd just likes to skirt issues without ever having to defend his positions. Could it be that he doesn’t really have a reason to oppose gay marriage? Which brings us right back to the helmet. Wear it and wear it proudly!

    BTW, Todd, Helmut is a German first name. Spell check.


  19. Natalie says:

    You know, let’s step back from the anger, for a minute, and I’d like to ask Todd a VERY serious question. How does this affect YOU personally, Todd. How would allowing gay people the same rights you take for granted affect YOU?

    No slams, no insults, just answer the question.


  20. Kelly says:

    Hi All,
    Well like I said in a previous post all religions that supposedly
    speak in the name of the Lord because of doctrines or living
    profits, uhhhhh, I mean prophets. Can’t defend their doctrines
    and articles of faith because they’re false, and can easily be
    proven to be false. BUT the hypocrisy they put forth as truth
    is damn hard to kill. That’s why those reactionary religions are
    constantly on moral crusades. Keep the flocks busy so that
    people like Todd have things to focus on other than the real truth
    about their church and the real pain and bigotry that they really
    represent. We don’t hate gays, We have nothing against blacks,
    We don’t condone polygamy except in this case and that instance,
    and how about all the times the LDS church sits down with Jewish
    members of holocaust victims and tell them the Church will stop
    all babtisms for the dead for holocaust victims. Just to turn around
    and keep on doing so. Todd you make hypocrisy a true work of art.
    But that’s what makes up the true doctrines of the LDS church so I
    guess you are a true believer.


  21. azteclady says:

    I just read some interesting statistics on the actual vote percentages for and against Prop 8. I’m particularly tickled by this phrase,

    The good news for supporters of marriage equity is that — and there’s no polite way to put this — the older voters aren’t going to be around for all that much longer, and they’ll gradually be cycled out and replaced by younger voters who grew up in a more tolerant era.

    Yes, there is really no delicate way of saying that, but it’s nonetheless true.


  22. Cele says:

    Wow, great words by Keith Oberman, I’d wish I’d been wise enough to have written that myself.

    To Todd, I wish you peace, you need a lot of peace. I suggest another round of scriptures. May I suggest starting with the phrase, “Judge not, least ye be judged yourself.” Words so important they were included in the Gospels not just once, but twice. If you can’t find it in Matthew, look in Luke. Simple really, quite simple treat others as you would wish to be treated. Instead of slapping people with your arrogance, ignorance, and self servitude soak in the love and forgiveness of the Lord Jesus Christ. You remember him, right?

    And while you probably consider me a crack snorting, whiskey guzzling drunk, spinster whore because I’ve not drunk your Koolaid, I will survive, thrive, and be a better person for my experiences and beliefs.



  23. Todd says:

    In all seriousness…

    Does SSM have to affect ME personally today before I can believe it’s bad for society long-term? Why such a short-sighted perspective? Can’t incremental shifts in attitudes towards sin ultimately be disastrous?

    The poet said it well:

    Sin is a monster of such frightful mien,
    As to be hated needs but to be seen,
    Yet seen too often, familiar with her face,
    We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

    To support my argument, please see azteclady’s reference above about the more “tolerant” younger generation. BTW, “Tolerance” should not be confused with “Acceptance.”

    It’s easy to give in to temptation to pacify the wicked. I choose to do the harder thing and stand up for what’s right.

    Kindest Regards,

    Natalie – SPINSTER: one who’s occupation is spinning. I just couldn’t help but see the humor in it’s usage for you and your minions.

    Cele – Peace to you too! I can speak out against behavior without judging the individual. If that’s not possible, then how can you speak out against me, without judging me? Hmm… there’s a dilemma for you. Oh, I get it… The scriptures only apply to me!


  24. Todd says:


    I challenge you to prove the Articles of Faith are false.

    (Of course to do so, you might have to actually read them.)

    All ‘cept one begins with “We believe”. Has it been proven that we don’t believe those things?

    Your ignorance betrays you.



  25. tb says:

    Tool . . . uh, Todd,

    Again you didn’t answer a very simple question. How does this affect you? Talk about spin. Get a smaller helmet. Obviously, the one you have now is entirely too large and crucial damage is being inflicted. Maybe an aisle seat would be a good idea.



  26. WendyP. says:

    Check it out Todd! Whenever you’re spouting off your nonsense, I picture you much like the “Saints” in the picture.

    Also, not all Mormons blindly follow whatever the GAs tell them and actually think for themselves. I was pleasantly surprised to read this about Bill Marriott:


  27. Cele says:

    Get me clear Todd, I did not judge you. I disagree with your view point, theories, and beliefs. Beginning wth sexual preference is a choice instead of the biological fact. Yes the facts of the matter are still up in the air scientifically, but there is still scientific evidence that strongly leans towards sexual preference as being biological. Does that mean that I don’t think some people’s sexual preference is enviromental? Yeah I think some people choose to play around, but I think people who live a gay life do so because they have no choice other than to be true to themselves. They are gay. Who am I? Who are you? Who is anyone on this earth to say they are second class?

    If God has a problem with this then he should have made humans differently, the good book says he made man in the likeness of himself. That says a lot. I do believe in God, I contend that I am a Christian and I try to live my life accordingly. Do I screw up, you betcha, but I do they best I can to not hate, to not be mean, to not be willful. To give the world the best of me. But if God is hateful and unloving, if God goes back on his word and the sins of man are NOT washed clean through the sacrifice, salvation, and love of Jesus Christ. Well then count me out.


  28. K*tty says:

    Todd, do you see the irony of the archaic term spinsters? Because I have to say, a major turn-off of Mormonism, is the spin that is put on most of the questionable doctrines and past practices. Brigham Young said that if a black man married a white woman, the punishment was death.
    Now the church accepts their marriage, but like the voting on SSM, it is the youth that have an easier time being more tolerant. Even though the church pretends not be racist, they still are, especially the older members. My V.T. told me months ago that she considered Obama the anti-christ. We have not spoken since, but only because she won’t remove her proverbial fingers from her ears or the stick up her behind. She is like most Mormons when they are confronted, they chant and tune out. Where do they teach that? Oh, never mind I answered it myself, the missionaries.
    It reminds me of you whenever someone points out allegations of Smith, which by your own admission, is easy. Todd says on at least 3 occasions, “It’s easy to make allegations against Joseph Smith. That proves neither perversion nor impropriety.” REALLY? So you are never going to be open to anything improper about Smith, you simply won’t listen. That’s okay. it’s what makes you so uniquely, Todd. There is nothing improper about Smith, there is nothing improper about Smith, there is nothing…………………………….


  29. Todd says:

    bonehead… uh, TB

    I did answer the very simple question. The simple fact that you don’t get it says more about you than about me. Maybe you’re just a simpleton! 🙂

    How about this one?

    By allowing SSM, the devil gains substantial ground in his unrelenting attack on the family, which in turn has the potential to negatively influence the society in which I and my posterity live, increasing the chances that someone in my posterity won’t make it home, potentially affecting billions in my direct line.

    Wow! The implications are staggering!

    It’s all about eternity…



  30. WendyP. says:


    Same sex marriage is legal in many countries. Canada is still thriving! The sky will not fall. God will not smite. Your posterity will be fine. Give people their free will and worry about your own marriage.


  31. Todd says:


    Your point about judging is exactly my point. You cited biblical references against judging and accused me of it. Am I not allowed to disagree with your viewpoint, theories and beliefs without judging you? hmm…. a double standard…

    I’ve never taken the position that sexual preference is a choice. I’m not smart enough to know. I have taken the position that homosexual behavior is a choice, as is illicit heterosexual behavior.

    Best Regards,


  32. KH says:

    I don’t watch Keith Olberman, or know his personal/political views, and frankly I don’t care what they are. It’s people like Todd who NEEDED to listen, and didn’t, instead focusing on the delivery. I like this saying, I AM ALWAYS ONLY THE MESSENGER, AND NEVER, NEVER, THE MESSAGE. Who cares who said it, or wrote it, or how it was delivered, it needed to be said.

    I hope someone can “spin” back to the spirit of the commentary, and take the focus off of Todd and his…dare I say it?…biased opinion.

    Love always,

    P.S. Todd, I opt to apply that saying to many of your comments. I am thankful you don’t speak for ALL mormons.


  33. Todd says:


    You’ll get a kick out of this….

    I got a phone call from my daughter, who is attending BYU, just before the election asking me what I though about Obama being the anti-Christ. She had gotten one of these pass-along-to-all-your-friends emails showing the parallels. I had to laugh out loud. I had seen similar stuff and dismissed it at far right-wing wacko. So when I saw your comment about your VT, it reminded me of the phone call.

    FWIW, I told her that I didn’t believe that Obama was the anti-Christ and that, during an election, wackos from each side make outlandish allegations about the opposing candidate in the hopes that something will stick and ultimately sway votes.

    I know we disagree substantially on some issues and each have fun hurling barbs at each other, but I think we can agree that Obama is NOT the anti-Christ.

    So, let’s repeat together…
    Obama is not the anti-Christ…Obama is not the anti-Christ…Obama is not the anti-Christ…



  34. Todd says:


    Let me further clarify that my opinions are solely my own. Any resemblance to the official position of the Mormons or ANY of it’s members is purely coincidental. I speak only for myself.

    Since I do watch Keith Olbermann (not religiously, but often enough), there’s probably some truth to your “the messenger has tainted the message” accusation. Mr. Olbermann is famously far-left wacko. It’s pretty humorous to see him and Bill O’Reilly hurling barbs at each other. That said, I still disagree with much of the content of the message.

    Kindest Regards,


  35. Renee says:

    I don’t know that this is any consolation K*tty, and I’m not sticking up for Todd per se…but my cousin, who isn’t Mormon (hell, she isn’t anything, I’m far more religious than she is), sent me that damn Obama e-mail saying he was the anti-Christ and I know she believed it. Now, if only she knew who the anti-Christ was.

    Anyhow, stupid people come from all places and all churches (or not). And Todd, I really feel like God can take care of this situation if Sam marries Dan when THEY die. I think if they are good people etc. etc. he’ll welcome them in Heaven. You believe they’ll burn in hell. Oh wait, Mormons don’t believe in hell, do I have that right?

    At any rate, it’s still no skin off your nose, either way. Unless you choose to make it so.


  36. Cele says:

    Todd do you even hear the words you write. You write, not what I write, not what I said you write, but what you write? I’m amazed, boggled, and baffled.

    And I have to ask you, in all sincerity, how is a homosexual marriage an assualt against the institution of marriage? Does one heterosexual marriage fail every time a same sex marriage is make legal? Is your marriage the next to fail because two women before country and God pledged their eternal love and devotion to each other?

    I will say you talk in circles, answer no questions, which means you use no factual basis for the answers you don’t give, you fling insults, and I have to ask you, how would a same sex marriage have ANY effect on you? Is your personal foundation so in question that someone else’s situation effects or affects you?


  37. Kelly says:

    Hi All,
    Todd I’ll see if can clarify my previous statements just for you.
    “All religions” means christian and non-christian. “That supposedly
    speaks for the Lord” This means that their religion, doctines and
    articles of faith are the only true ones and everyone elses is false.
    God’s restored gospel or God only speaks through their prophet or
    leaders how ever you want to put it. Their church and doctrines are
    the only true church ordained by God himself.
    All religions have “articles of faith”. We believe this we believe that.
    They are all based on their doctrines that come from their holy scripture
    of choice. So if those doctrines are false then so is their articles
    of faith. Now before you go there Todd with a “How can we believe in
    God our father be a false statement?” That statement alone means
    nothing and is neither true or false. But doctrine about who or what that
    god is and and how it relates to us lowly mortals will make it into a true
    or false statement.
    I didn’t say Mormons don’t believe in their articles of faith so please
    don’t put words in my mouth just to spin this away from false religions
    and doctrines that promote hypocrisy, hate and bigotry.
    Also Todd as to my not reading the LDS Articles of Faith and a very
    christian statement about my ignorance. I have read them and I do
    have a copy of them in my little punkin hands as I speak. But I do
    wonder if you have because I count thirteen and all of them start with
    We, not all but one like you said. But God’s true words and doctrines do
    seam to change quite abit in the LDS church. So maybe God changed his
    mind once again.
    So in answer to your challenge Todd. There are too many LDS doctrines
    that are false so there for your articles of faith are to.



  38. Todd says:


    What are you talking about? I respond to practically every topic proffered. I don’t feel an obligation to answer every question.

    Okay, I’ll answer all of YOUR questions. I hate to disappoint.

    1) You remember him, right?

    You asked this question about Jesus when you were quoting Matthew (and Luke) about not judging each other. I thought the question was rhetorical. The answer is, of course, yes. BTW, I did respond to your point regarding judging.

    2) Does that mean that I don’t think some people’s sexual preference is environmental?

    This question was also rhetorical and was in regards to the born-that-way vs. environmental influences on gays. You answered it in the next sentence of your post, so I didn’t feel the need to tell you what you think. But, please, if you’d like me to give you your opinion; just say the word!

    3) Who am I? You are Cele. At least that’s how you represent yourself.

    4) Who are you? I am Todd. Yes, it’s my real name.

    5) Who is anyone on this earth to say they are second class?

    Airlines, trains and cruise ships each have second class categories, I believe. There are probably a few more. Of course, my tongue is in my cheek.

    No one is to say gays are second class. I can still disagree with SSM while believing that gays are not relegated to be second class citizens. I can disagree with SSM and not be bigoted or hateful or pompous or self-righteous. Yes, even reasonable, normal, everyday, hard-working, decent people can believe such things.

    6) How is a homosexual marriage an assault against the institution of marriage?

    Because it makes a mockery of the God sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman. Because it propagates the perception in society that homosexual behavior is acceptable which tilts the moral compass that should guide us. Etc. Of course, these are my opinions (to which I’m legally as well as morally entitled). See the previous disclaimer about for whom I speak.

    7) Does one heterosexual marriage fail every time a same sex marriage is make legal?

    Good question. How many SSMs have been performed? How many HSMs failed? The rest is math. I leave the details to you. My guess is: no.

    8) Is your marriage the next to fail because two women before country and God pledged their eternal love and devotion to each other?

    No. I’ve had this debate before on this blog. Check the archives for my response. I have no problem with anybody expressing their eternal love and devotion to each other. Marriage is a helluva lot more than that!

    9) How would a same sex marriage have ANY effect on you?

    I answered this question already. See my previous post about my posterity and eternity.

    10) Is your personal foundation so in question that someone else’s situation effects or affects you? No.

    Hey! That was like the game 20 questions. Except there were only 10! 🙂

    Kindest Regards,

    P.S. Natalie – This response was intended to be a little pompous and smart-alecky. I hope you appreciate the humor!


  39. JulieAnn says:

    *cheesy music*

    “It’s the Todd Show, starring Todd and Todd! It’s the Todd show, doing lots of good stuff! dum dee dum dum dum…!”

    Seriously, you are enjoying this way too much, Big T. Don’t you have small animals to torture? Just kidding. But I will say that your tenacity is inspiring to a degree. However, I don’t think anything you write will turn the hearts of these (and my) wicked souls. So what is your payoff? Ahh, the ego gets stroked as you take on each comment and turn it around, deftly displaying your spin-ability, verbosity and pseudo-intellectualism. I believe that’s called pride. But I wouldn’t know, being a heathen and the wicked person that I am. 🙂

    And I don’t believe, all you luscious comment-chicks (better than spinsters, no?) will change Todd’s mind.

    You see, you are all unknowingly part of a twisted experiment to see if Todd can ACTUALLY get off by question avoidance. Right now he’s tapping on his keyboard and little beads of sweat are on his upper lip as he reads all of these personalized comments….just for him.

    People! JUST SAY NO to being Todd’s mental masturbatory tool!!

    Todd, start your own blog. You can call it Todd’s Tedius Tautological Talk-Fest, and you can make up stuff and argue on your home field….not as much fun as hijacking Nat’s blog, but hey, you’d get to jack off to personalized comments all day and not clog up the comment field on another person’s blog.

    I do agree with one thing; panties need to get untwisted. He is deriving sick pleasure from it and you need to take away the lube and let him find some other place to hump.

    Tongue, out of cheek–JulieAnn OUT!


  40. Natalie says:

    JulieAnn…. Muwwahhhahhhhaaa. Funny stuff. Still laughing.


  41. tb says:

    Oh Nat, this guy is a whack job. No need to entertain any response to him. Devil, evil, posterity and billions in his line. Shouldn’t he have to pass a test to be allowed out?! Glad I’m several states away. He’s just getting off on the attention. Acting the fool is no stretch for him. How do you deal with it, interacting with his ilk on a daily basis? Don’t ever stop blogging- you’d lose your mind! Posterity! I’m amazed he found a woman that would have sex with him.


  42. tb says:

    Just read JuliAnn’s comment, very funny and accurate.

    He protests just a little too much about gay marriage. Is wanton Todd in denial?

    Well Nat, I’m done. Whack Job was fun to poke but now he’s just a waste of my time. Posterity! If I was that guy I’d have all my kids take a paternity test.



  43. azteclady says:

    JulieAnn, I head La Cucaracha as background music, is that sort of what you had in mind?


  44. Todd says:


    I’m rolling on the floor laughing my butt off! That was hilarious! I think I’m attracted to you! You’re posts are way better and oodles more funny than any of Nat’s and her entourage of spinster’s.

    Please, please…. give me more! more! MORE!

    What does Hammurabi’s Code say about this sort of stuff? Am I sentenced to eat camel dung and live a hermit’s life in the Arabian desert?

    Why does there have to be a payoff?

    But if there must, how about this one:

    D&C 18:15
    “And if it so be that you should labor all your days in crying repentance unto this people, and bring, save it be one soul unto me, how great shall be your joy with him in the kingdom of my Father!”

    I want great joy!

    There’s got to be somebody…


    P.S. The cheesy music was actually the Carpenter’s “We’ve Only Just Begun”


  45. azteclady says:

    Lets see if I get it…

    Be condescending, insulting, patronizing, self righteous and superior while never actually answering the questions posed. Accuse everyone disagreeing with you of pissiness and twisted panties. When called on your bigotry and other sinful, unchristian behaviour, say you were kidding. Go back to insulting everyone around you.


    So, how about those forthcoming appointments to the Supreme Court, Natalie? What’s your take on the effect of an Obama administration on the vaunted and much violated right now separation of church and state in the USA?


  46. tex841 says:

    Maybe someone needs his own blog?


  47. JulieAnn says:

    Lucious azteclady:

    Actually, the tune I had in mind was a game show ditty, You know….like The Price is Right–or maybe a cheesy late-night talk show a la Johnny Carson.

    Oh, and this is bugging me….I misspelled ‘tedious’ in my comment earlier. I was just so excited….
    Welp, I have my own blog to attend to; not as much fun as this one, but hey, at least I have something to say that isn’t sprung from someone else’s blog. 🙂



  48. Todd says:

    As usual azteclady, you don’t get it…

    The condescending, insulting, patronizing, self-righteous and superior tone comes from your side. Would you like references? I’d be happy to take up even more of Natalie’s precious server space highlighting examples for you.

    I don’t accuse others of disagreeing with me, I expect it. If I wanted everyone to agree with me, I wouldn’t post here. You seem to have a problem when I express my disagreement and then back it up. I don’t care if you disagree with me.

    I never said I was kidding, only that you shouldn’t take me soooooo seriously. I’m not backing down on ANYTHING I said. Your panties have permanent wrinkles in them. Lighten up a bit.

    I’ve been insulted more than anyone on this blog, and quite often by you. What’s the matter? You seem to be able to dish it out… Having a hard time taking it?

    And for the record, the twisted panties barb originated with you, not me. See my previous point regarding your inability to take what you dish out.

    Maybe you just can’t handle the truth…

    Do you really think that having Obama as president that you’re going to silence those that oppose you? The beautiful thing about our system of government is that nobody has that much power. The power lies with the people collectively. Take Kent’s advice and take a 7th grade Civics class.



  49. KM says:

    Check out the Mormon hate machine in Rexburg.


  50. KM says:

    Joseph Smith came from a family of grifters. Their favorite con? Claiming they could find buried treasure on someone’s land. Joseph Smith’s first arrest was for, along with his father, conning an old guy out of his life savings for services rendered ‘witching’ for treasure. He then came up with a better con that incorporated the whole buried treasure angle along with kooky spiritualism. We now call that con Mormonism.


  51. Elaine says:

    Okay, Todd. This is the thing that is still bothering me. Well, there are a lot of things still bothering me, but this is the one that I think is appropriate here.

    What in the hell gives Mormons, or Christians in general, the idea that they have some holy right to decide what the definitions of “marriage” and “family” are and then try to codify them into civil law?

    Isn’t that pretty much choosing, as Mormon doctrine has it, Lucifer’s plan to force everyone to follow the plan of salvation, rather than taking Jesus’ tack and allowing folks free agency?

    I just don’t understand why the LDS church can’t keep its hands off other people’s private lives.


  52. Todd says:


    The right to decide these and other issues rests with the people who are governed by the laws. So, I guess that since the US is predominantly a Christian country, Christians get to decide. It’s not always right, it’s not always fair, it just is.

    I would turn the table on your argument and ask why you believe gays should get to define marriage and the civil laws governing it.

    I would also argue that the LDS church isn’t trying to interfere with anybody’s private life, despite very inflammatory propaganda from SSM proponents to the contrary. Preaching against homosexual behavior isn’t interfering in your private life. You have the choice to ignore that preaching and choose your own course.

    If I understand it correctly, Lucifer’s plan didn’t even allow you the opportunity to choose at all.

    The good news is that when Christ is king, and it’s no longer majority rule; everything will be fair, good and well. Until then, we live in an imperfect world.



  53. K*tty says:

    Todd, I will go out on a limb and say I love the yen/yang you bring to this blog. IMHO, you certainly add to it and you are tenacious in your beliefs. I think for all of us, when we get to belittling the person and not the tenet, we show our frustration. We all have to contemplate why we feel the urge to blog out our feelings, not just Todd. And for those of you who keep telling Todd to go away, please remember he was invited by Natalie. I for one, would miss his wit and comments, even if I don’t always agree.


  54. Elaine says:

    Todd…A) This is a pluralistic nation, not a Christian nation. How would it go down with the LDS church if the rest of the Christians, who clearly outnumber Mormons, tried to put a measure on the ballot in some state that would remove the validity of marriages performed in the temple?

    I’ll tell you. The first thing that would happen would be that the LDS would start screaming that their civil rights were being violated and that they were being persecuted. And I would agree with that. How does same-sex marriage differ from that? By removing the right of same-sex couples to marry legally is a violation of their civil rights and they are being persecuted. Which brings me to my next point:

    B) The minority was meant to be protected from the tyranny of the majority in this country.

    C) The LDS weren’t interfering in anyone’s private life? Excuse me. I don’t know what else you would call spearheading (although hiding behind the members when doing it) a campaign to take away the human and civil rights of an entire segment of the population, and not giving a shit whose lives they tear up in the effort is most certainly interfering in people’s private lives.

    D) Just for information’s sake, they aren’t interfering in MY private life, as I’m not gay. But they are interfering in the private lives of people I know and love and who don’t deserve to be jerked around like that.

    E) There are now people who, at least in the state of California, cannot chose their own course – marrying the same-sex partner they are attracted to and love – due in no small measure to the concentrated efforts of the LDS church. I’ve heard several proponents of Prop. 8 say that its passage helps gays to live the “right way”, in other words, in the way the LDS church thinks they ought to live. As I see it, that isn’t allowing them their free agency, which the church claims to believe in. It isn’t like murder or rape or anything…it is two consenting adults entering into a marriage, which will not harm anyone else.

    F) It was always my understanding that Christ’s kingdom is not a political one but a spiritual one. I wish that certain religious organizations (and not just the LDS, but others as well) would figure that out and quit trying to impose their social beliefs on others. You know, if the LDS don’t want to allow their members in good standing to enter into same-sex marriages, fine. I still don’t see where they have any jurisdiction to interfere with the behavior of those who are not members of the church and who don’t hold the same social beliefs that the LDS do.

    As far as I’m concerned, the LDS can preach all they want. They can stand up and say that they don’t believe in same-sex marriages until they can’t talk anymore. That’s their right. But when they start engaging in political action, or telling their members that they should engage in political action to stop people who were minding their own business from doing something as harmless to others as getting married, then they’ve crossed the line, as far as I’m concerned.

    Aside from the religious aspect of this, I guess I’ve just never understood why some people never seem happy unless they are trying to force everyone else to do just exactly the same things they do, in exactly the same way they do them. I read science fiction. I don’t try to tell everyone I come in contact with that they should read science fiction. I don’t drink coffee, not because the Word of Wisdom prohibits it, but because I don’t like it. I don’t try to tell anyone else that they shouldn’t drink coffee. In things that are purely a matter of choice, as marriage is…whether to marry or not, as well as who to marry or not to marry…what one couple does is nobody else’s business. Period.


  55. Natalie says:


    LOOK OUT. Todd wants Julie-Ann.

    And Todd? If I’m so boring and dull and UNwitty, why the hell do you keep coming back? Don’t lie, baby. It doesn’t suit you. Stick with self-delusion. Then you won’t REALIZE you’re lying.


  56. Todd says:


    Like I said, it’s an imperfect world we live in. I know we’re a pluralistic nation. You asked why Christians get to decide, and I tried to give you an explanation. I’m sorry you don’t like the answer. I still think it’s the correct answer. The people have the power, the people are predominately Christian, therefore Christians have the power.

    I wouldn’t classify denying SSM as tyranny, but I understand your point. The CA Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of Prop 22 was essentially a ruling protecting minority rights. Prop 8 essentially redefines what the minority rights are. Unfortunately for your cause, SSM is no longer a right in CA.

    I don’t think the Mormons “spearheaded” the effort. They were invited to join a coalition and support a moral cause. They did. There was very little if any direct LDS contributions. Reports ranged from $0 to $2k of the over $20,000k raised. That is less than 0.001%. Of course, many members of the LDS church also signed on and supported the coalition with both “time and means.” I don’t think the church was hiding behind the members. The actions they took were very public. They’re not ashamed of speaking out on moral issues, nor should they be.

    I believe that the LDS church is concerned with the lives of gays. I just think they are more concerned with the sanctity of the family and the effect SSM would have on society. I’m sorry you see it differently.

    The total LDS vote on prop 8 was around 2-3%. Apparently there are a LOT of non-mormons who voted YES. So, don’t fool yourself into thinking this is an LDS church vs. gays issue. 7 of 10 of blacks (presumably Obama supporters) supported the measure as did something like 8 of 10 hispanics (presumably Catholic). Those two demographics were the primary factors, not the LDS church.

    So when Christ is reigning on the earth, what will the political situation look like? Aren’t all things spiritual to God?

    Kindest Regards,


  57. Todd says:


    Whoa there… I never said anything about you being boring and unwitty, just that JulieAnn’s posts were… okay… better. And that word she likes to use… masturbatory… Wow! Kent is a lucky man!

    I thought K*tty’s last post was outstanding. Didn’t you?

    Thanks for tolerating me…



  58. Alicia says:

    Okay I’m sorry but I gotta butt in now. I was trying to stay out of this mess but with Todd blaming minorities for the passing of Prop H8 I’m beyond pissed, especially since it’s complete and utter crap.

    “The total LDS vote on prop 8 was around 2-3%. Apparently there are a LOT of non-mormons who voted YES. So, don’t fool yourself into thinking this is an LDS church vs. gays issue. 7 of 10 of blacks (presumably Obama supporters) supported the measure as did something like 8 of 10 hispanics (presumably Catholic). Those two demographics were the primary factors, not the LDS church.”

    1) It doesn’t matter how many of members of the LDS church voted for it, LDS members provided ~40% of the funding for Prop 8. From outside California (which should be illegal in itself. Local issues should be funded by local money/people) so yes, they are blame-worthy.
    2) Just because Obama is black does not mean most/every black person in California voted for him. That’s, to be frank, a stupid and racist idea.
    3) How are blacks part of the demographics of the primary factors? They are only at most 8% (6%-ish as of 2000 but I’m being really generous here) of the ENTIRE population of California (Only around 700,000 of these are voting age according to the last census). Of course facts are way too inconvenient, let’s instead blame the minorities.

    In any case, the truth is white people are the majority in California so please stop blaming us OMG T3H EBIL minorities for everything that goes wrong. (It’s a trend that’s really disheartening: mortgage industry bombing? minorities. Pick a problem, we’re to blame.) The big problem here is the confusion. The wording was not clear on what yes/no meant so a lot of people ended up just guessing and hoping their vote went the right way. Also, the Yes on H8 people operated on using peoples’ fear of homosexuals, while the No people were using reason/logic and not trying beyond that until the last few days when it was too late. Fear generally trumps reason.

    Anyway whatever your thoughts on the issue Prop 8 should not have been allowed to be voted on in the first place since it creates three classes of Californians: 1) heterosexuals who can marry 2) homosexuals who are already legally married 3) homosexuals who cannot get married at all. To me that’s the disgusting thing of it all. Either they allow the rest of the homosexual couples who want to get married to do it or they take away the currently married ones marriages (which should be illegal and at the very least immoral).

    Honestly the arguments used against gay marriage are the same as the ones against interracial marriages back in the day. Bigots just aren’t happy unless they have something to work themselves up into a rabid frenzy over anyway.


    *Information taken from the DailyKos journal:


  59. JulieAnn says:

    Bear with me, I’m typing with one hand….all of this hootin’ and holleren’ has got me all hot ‘n bothered (I think I have officially been consumed by the Great Basin rural dialect…somebody help me please)

    Ah, I digress.

    Let’s macro out a bit, shall we?

    I think debating all of these microscopic points is fascinating (yawn) but it boils down to one thing really….Todd is blog humping, and all of us providing the porn.

    Now, don’t get me wrong, I think the group thing is hot (Todd, you’re with me on this, right? I mean it’s all about the hereafter and you’ve probably already got your sights set on the spinsters who will never marry sitting in the front pew at the ward on Sunday–am I right? Am I right? ) Yeah, I know you, Todd…derisively calling everyone here ‘spinsters’–that was just Mormon-ese for “Yeah, take it like this you hot juicy bi***.” You sweaty little horn dog.

    I digressed again.

    See…. here’s what I’m seeing. I’m seeing all of you good, succulent people getting sucked into emotional responses and agitation, and all you’re really doing is giving Big T the fodder to wriggle it around, turn it inside out and present it as his own slippery version of fact.

    Now, this is not to say we don’t welcome Big T and his slippery arguments–I know I do–but I think to be more effective, we need to check the emotion at the door and concentrate on logic and actual facts.

    Oh and insult flinging does nothing–nothing to a narcissist; it only fuels his megalomaniacal ideation that he’s the Savior, here to save the souls of the wicked spinsters (elongate the “s” and Todd’s hands will start to shake with nefarious pleasure).

    Fact: The LDS Church has lotsa money.

    Fact: It opposes gay marriage.

    Fact according to Todd: the LDS church opposes gay marriage because it will

    a) threaten the sanctity of traditional marriage
    b) threaten their freedom of religion (am I getting this right, Big T?)
    c) threaten the future of society as a whole

    Fact according to Todd: the LDS church opposes gay marriage further because
    a) America is mostly a ‘christian nation’
    b) they can.

    Now as I see it, we have all been assuming that Todd is arguing ‘morality’ while we are arguing fact, law and constitutional rights. But I can see clearly now what the problem is.

    The problem is that we are actually the ones arguing morals. We all KNOW that disallowing SSM is morally wrong (except you, Todd). Todd is arguing from a vanquishers seat. He and the ubiquitous ‘they’ have temporarily won an immoral victory. But Big T doesn’t argue morals, not really. He argues from the winner’s seat. He argues with sleight of hand and mind-numbing details, twisted and turned to his advantage.

    A German proverb states that “The devil is in the details.”

    Now, I have never met a proverb I didn’t like, nor have I met one that isn’t right on the money. Ergo, the Detailed Unctuous Manipulator (aka Todd, we’ll call him DUM for short) is….THE DEVIL! (exaggerated screams all around!)

    Another saying I like by Helen Keller: “It is wonderful how much time good people spend fighting the devil. If they would only expend the same amount of energy loving their fellow men, the devil would die in his own tracks of ennui.”

    So good people, will you continue to give the DUM Devil power over your time, emotions and souls? Or will you, as the great Gandhi said “be the change you want to see in the world.”?

    See, my ‘bible’ is universal Truth with a capital “T”. Not truth borne out of fear or bigotry, but truth derived from the human soul and human experience.

    Let’s revisit the facts above. If you really look at them (and I know you did, Big T and you agreed with them all, didn’t you?) you will discover that every single reason the mormon church opposes SSM is out of fear. Fear of the future and for the future (their god must not be All That if he needs a bunch of constipaeted old guys in suits to control society’s future), fear for the safety of their marriages, fear of losing power and control, and fear of appearing morally weak to the other christians on the playground.

    I am as guilty, oh Commiserating Commenters, as you are in this; but I am choosing the path of love. Love for my fellow human beings: gay, straight, minority, and even you, Todd. Yes, I can even love you. Not as much as YOU love you, mind you, but I can love nonetheless.

    I am spending my time, energy and yes, money, on the fight to overturn the passing of Prop 8.

    For information and ways to help, please go to this site:

    Now, I’m not saying you ought to not read Nat’s blog or comment, don’t get me wrong….I’m just exhorting you to stop dancing with the DUM Devil and DO something! Faith without works, is dead.

    JulieAnn– OUT!


  60. Elaine says:

    Todd. I’m out of this argument after I say one thing.

    It all comes down to this: It isn’t any or your, or my, or any church’s business if same-sex couples want to get married. That the LDS church, the Catholic Church, and the Muslims (the mosque down the street from my place had six or seven “Yes on 8” yard signs up on their property on election day) and some of those who belong to those and other religious groups seem to think it is their business just goes to show that some people and some organizations have serious boundary issues that they need to get over.

    I’m going to go write about the investment markets now. Less angst there, even in these troubled times for the economy.


  61. Cele says:

    Oh mi God JA you always underscore why I love you. We (and Kent) need to get together for maragitas, I hope a trip west is in the future.


  62. JulieAnn says:

    ((hugs)) Cele

    Why don’t you come out for my b-day shin dig? Nov 29th baby….


  63. Natalie says:

    JulieAnn, GREAT, great post. Loves it! Hey, I want margaritas!


  64. JulieAnn says:

    You’re invited, too Nat. Muah.


  65. Cele says:

    Yes Natalie you need to run away and come to my slice of heaven. It’s much… quieter


  66. What I don’t get is why Mormons care. The civil service isn’t important to you for any other reason than to ensure couples don’t fornicate while they are trying to give up coffee. No one was trying to force the church into allowing gays to be married in the temple. The Church seems to be ok with civil unions (albeit grudgingly). Why not civil marriage? Why would any Mormon look at civil marriage differently than he or she would view civil unions. Has the prophet suddenly decided that the church should encourage couples to be married in civil ceremonies? Is temple marriage just an add on now?

    It reminds me of a joke for which a cabinet member (was it Earl Butz?) Speaking of the Pope, he said, “you don’t playa the game; you don’t maka the rules.”


  67. Natalie says:

    LOL, JC. But the joke makes SENSE, and that certainly doesn’t seem to play into this argument the Mos have against gay marriage.


  68. Todd says:

    I’ve been psychoanalyzed! Whoo hoo! And by the Grand-Spinster herself, no less; who, ironically, cautions against providing me with the Freudian “porn” I need to sustain my blog humping ways, while concurrently spewing the same.

    I knew I liked you JulieAnn, and now I know exactly why. You’re the queen of blog-humping porn. I just can’t get enough of your sleezy, twisted logic.

    So, let’s check the facts…

    Yes, SSM

    a) threatens the sanctity of traditional marriage
    b) threaten freedom of religion
    c) threaten the future of society as a whole

    No, mormons don’t oppose SSM because

    a) America is mostly a ‘christian nation’
    b) they can.

    The fact that America is mostly a “christian” nation means the majority has the power to enact laws and write constitutions that reflect traditional “christian” values. The fact that mormons “can” oppose SSM isn’t (necessarily) the reason why they “do.”

    Ahhh, Truth…

    The fact that your Truth (with a capital “T”) is based on the philosophy of humans is very telling. However, I will agree with you in principle that our mortal experience is vital to our eternal progression, for within it we come to fully understand and appreciate God’s wisdom and by extension eternal Truth. We begin to see things as they really are.


    Your impassioned pleas for love do not fall on deaf ears, for that is the attribute for which I and my fellow christians seek. Okay, actually it’s “charity” or the “pure love of Christ,” but we’re still on the same page. Fortunately, I learned at a very young age that love doesn’t mean acquiescence. My parents stood firm in their resolve to teach me correct principles through my tumultuous and often rebellious teenage years, even when I thought I knew best. I honor them for that. They knew better, they had a better perspective, they were right.


    Ah, yes, the freedom argument. If we can’t marry who we want we’re not truly free, and that is immoral. But mommy, I really want to eat candy for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. My dear child, I love you too much to give into that childish logic.

    And finally, Fear…

    Live by faith, not fear. Faith that God knows best and we’ll all agree in the end that He truly does.

    Yours truly,


  69. Kelly says:

    Hi All,

    OK Todd here’s your chance.

    Yes, SSM

    a) threatens the sanctity of traditional marriage
    b) threaten freedom of religion
    c) threaten the future of society as a whole

    Could you please give examples of just how SSM
    threatens your statements A, B and C. Those are
    three pretty direct and to the point statements that
    ya’ll have put up there. So you must have some pretty
    exact proof and evidence to back them up. So Todd here’s
    your chance to put forth proof.



  70. Todd says:


    I’ll rest my case on the examples I’ve already given. Of course, that might require you to scroll up the page.

    For further reading, the LDS website has a very succinct document outlining their position, including many footnotes supporting their claims. Just in case you have trouble finding the correct reference, I’ve included it here for you.

    The Divine Institution of Marriage

    And for those of you who still believe that SSM doesn’t infringe upon the free practice of religion, this additional reference regarding the government’s role in enforcing anti-discrimination laws from a SSM supporter makes a compelling case.


    Best Regards,


  71. Kelly says:

    Hi All,

    Well Todd you’ve out done yourself with your usual nonreply
    reply. Instead of having the guts and the facts to reply with
    “I believe A, B and C because of this, this and this. You tell
    me to go to a website that’s based on fairy tale stories and a
    long 36 page website that states that the Klu Klux Klan and
    the Nazi Party should have tax exempt status.
    To the first point. Science through genetics has proven that
    Adam and Eve is a total fairy tale. Science as proven that Man
    began on the plains of central Africa and through genetics can
    trace the progress of mankind as we moved out across the earth.
    It’s these same genetic studies that forced the LDS church to
    change their false claims that Lamanites are the principal ancestors
    to native americans. The first claim of proof against SSM in the
    “The Divine Institution of Marriage” is based on Adam and Eve, a
    total myth and fairy tale. The vast majority of the so called proof
    in that LDS statement comes from the Book of Mormon, the Bible
    and numerous LDS officials. What kind of empirical proof is that!
    Todd would you use the Koran as proof of anything because it’s a
    book of God! Ya I know, “Oh but that’s different.”
    To your second website of 36 pages of proof. SSM will destroy
    religions because of losing their tax exempt status. If your faith
    is true Todd then stand by your convictions. Why care if you loose
    your tax except status. The FLDS Church doesn’t care if they have
    tax exempt status. Their only concern is following the teachings of
    Joseph Smith. How about the true convictions of the LDS Church?
    Let’s see, change doctrine on polygamy, change doctrine on Blacks
    holding the preisthood all because of outside pressure and the almighty
    dollar. Plus your 36 page of proof also states that all religions and
    social organizations like the KKK, the Nazi’s, whoever, should have
    tax free status. No matter what the level of hate and bigotry they may
    stand for.
    So this is the proof of all the damage that will come from SSM. Give
    me a break Todd. All through the centuries religion as used God’s
    name to beat down groups of people through hatred and bigotry. Your
    church’s early beginings are a prime example of people being denied
    their basic human rights of freedom from the majority.
    It’s your God given right to believe how you want Todd. Just don’t
    expect the rest of us to help spread your hatred of people who are
    different from you with tax exemption and accepting hoo-doo fairy tale
    stories as empirical proof.



  72. Todd says:


    You’re blind faith in scientific method is very telling. Even the scientists that agree with your fairy tale admit that there is room for discussion due to the extreme extrapolations required for that theory to work. Genetics is not an exact science. You should read more.

    The LDS church embraces scientific knowledge. We don’t fear it. When scientific proof requires us to adjust what we believed to be true, we deal with it and move forward. We just don’t automatically conclude that, just because some point of belief turns out to be incorrect, that our core doctrine is incorrect. Our own faith-based “empirical” evidence contradicts that drastic conclusion, so we look for alternative explanations that are consistent with core doctrine and then we move forward in a line-by-line, precept-by-precept kind of way.

    There is a difference between “doctrine” and “belief” or “practice.”

    You either missed or completely ignored the point of Mr. Turley’s paper. I suspect the latter. Let me clarify it for you, in case it’s indeed the former.

    By deciding which organizations qualify for tax exempt status on the basis of discriminatory values, the government abandons neutrality and begins infringing on the principles of free speech, expressive association, and free exercise. The courts have been shown to be contradictory in their rulings in the past, and SSM opens up other potential conflicts between religions (who by their very nature are discriminatory) and government enforcement of anti-discrimination laws.

    You may not like the KKK or the Nazi’s or the Boy Scouts or the Glee Club or Christianity, because they have discriminatory values. That doesn’t mean that others can’t espouse their values, associate with their number, and donate to their cause without the fear of government censorship via the tax code. That’s what free exercise is really all about: protecting religion from undue government influence. Yes, you get some bad along with the good. That’s what a pluralistic society is all about.

    While it could be considered admirable that the FLDS are sticking to their practices, we don’t follow dead prophets. When the living prophet declares a new course, we follow as a matter of faith; expecting that course to be blessed by God. Our “empirical” evidence suggests that there is wisdom in such a tact.

    Kindest Regards,


  73. Kelly says:

    Hi All,

    (You’re blind faith in scientific method is very telling. Even the scientists that agree with your fairy tale admit that there is room for discussion due to the extreme extrapolations required for that theory to work. Genetics is not an exact science. You should read more.)

    OK Todd let me tighten up my wording a little more for you. Genetics
    I can see is too broad of a term for you. Substitute DNA testing instead.
    I seem to have read somewhere that they are using DNA testing in our
    courts of law, because it is an exact science that can prove someone’s
    guilt or innocence. But like you said I better go read some more.

    (The LDS church embraces scientific knowledge. We don’t fear it. When scientific proof requires us to adjust what we believed to be true, we deal with it and move forward. We just don’t automatically conclude that, just because some point of belief turns out to be incorrect, that our core doctrine is incorrect.)

    So let me get this straight. The Lord’s true and restored gospel as
    was translated by Joseph Smith from the gold plates comes with a
    disclaimer attached to it. “These are the true words of God who
    speaks through our living prophet cuz the old dead ones might have
    been wrong. But we know for a fact that our living prophet speaks for
    the Lord unless sometime in the future when this prophet is dead or
    because science can prove other wise. We can change what we say
    is true without a doubt, because sometimes the Lord and/or our prophet
    just screwed up.”

    I’ve got to get back to work so I’ll continue with this later on, UNLESS
    the Lord All Mighty changes his mind again and makes all of your empirical
    evidence and truth change to some other empirical enidence.



  74. Todd says:


    Please provide a Book of Mormon or authoritative LDS citation that precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin.

    There’s a huge difference between matching DNA from a crime scene to a suspect’s own DNA, and proving through DNA analysis the validity of, say, the Book of Mormon. There are just too many uncontrolled variables in the latter, such as the possibility of interaction with existing peoples, to claim absolute certainty. So, with faith, we press on firm in the belief that the Book of Mormon is the word of God.

    Which Book of Mormon doctrine are you claiming has been changed by a living prophet? We believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God and, thus, would consider it core doctrine. Your previous post mentioned blacks and the priesthood and polygamy, neither of which are mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Makes me wonder if you’ve ever even read the Book of Mormon.

    Kindest Regards,


  75. Kelly says:

    Hi All,

    Well Todd sayeth,

    (Please provide a Book of Mormon or authoritative LDS citation that precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin.)

    Ok Mr. Todd here it is. My Book of Mormon, printed in 1985, states

    ” About this edition: Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated
    in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections
    that seem approriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication
    manusripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith.”

    That to me says that this printing of the Book of Mormon has been thoroughly
    check out by the LDS church as to its content and truth.

    In the introduction it states that “This record gives an account of two great
    civilizations.” “After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the
    Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.”

    Also over the years all I ever heard from LDS members was that Native
    Americans are the direct desendants of the Lamanites. I took a Comparitive
    Religions of the World class at Weber State’s LDS Institute. I sat next to
    a Navajo native american and very clearly remember our teacher referring
    to him as a direct desendent of the Laminites. So now Todd you claim that
    this was never taught or in print by the LDS Church.
    So let me ask you a question. You’re saying that all through sunday
    school, seminary and what ever other formal LDS schooling you recieved
    while growing up. That all they taught was that native americans were of
    Asiatic origin and came here by way of the Bering Straight.
    That sure is news to me Mr. Todd.



  76. Todd says:


    A reference in the introduction to the Book of Mormon regarding the “belief” that the Lamanites are the principle ancestors of the American Indians is all you’ve got? That’s not “core” doctrine, my friend; even though many high ranking mormons actually believed (and my still believe) it.

    Has it been definitively proved that the American Indians can’t have semitic ancestors? If you’ve got a reference, I’d be interested in reading it.

    Best Regards,


  77. Kelly says:

    Hi All,

    Todd says:

    (A reference in the introduction to the Book of Mormon regarding the “belief” that the Lamanites are the principle ancestors of the American Indians is all you’ve got? That’s not “core” doctrine, my friend; even though many high ranking mormons actually believed (and my still believe) it.)

    I just thought that the introduction in the most sacred of
    books to the LDS church, you know Todd, God’s restored and
    chosen church. Would be maybe a little more exact about
    LDS beliefs. I guess I was wrong. Oh and past prophets, many
    high ranking mormons and most of the brethern of the church
    also got that one wrong. How did God’s true church screw that
    one up.

    You also never answered my question about how you were
    taught while growing up that native americans were of Asian
    origins, by the LDS church.

    (Has it been definitively proved that the American Indians can’t have semitic ancestors? If you’ve got a reference, I’d be interested in reading it.)

    I’m not the one making statements about semitic ancestors Todd.
    You are! Show me the proof. Science has proven that the ancestors
    of native americans came from Asia. You’d think that with all the
    genetic testing using DNA, that if any of them had semitic ancestors
    it would have shown up by now. Where’s your proof Todd?



  78. Todd says:


    Oh, they are exact about LDS beliefs. But they’re just that: beliefs.

    Maybe I’m confused about the statement you made,

    It’s these same genetic studies that forced the LDS church to
    change their false claims that Lamanites are the principal ancestors
    to native americans.

    Your statement is what prompted my question regarding a reference supporting your claim that “genetic studies” have proven that the American Indians can’t have semitic ancestors, and have thus forced the LDS church to change it’s claims.

    If you’d like a reference supporting my claim that genetics can’t prove such a thing, here’s one for you:

    Why we’re all Jesus’ children

    Especially note the comment,

    Geneticists like to point out that people don’t get their DNA in equal proportions from our shared ancestors. From many of them, we have inherited no DNA.

    which pretty well sums up that genetics and specifically DNA science can’t (at least for now) prove ancestral relationships.

    Kindest Regards,


  79. JulieAnn says:


    I am not addicted to this blog; I can quit anytime.


    And spell sleazy correctly, Big T. If my logic is going to be called something, it should be spelled correctly.

    You are a silly man who is underscoring for me and everyone here the meaninglessness of all of this.

    Keep up the ‘good works’, T. There’s a place for you in heaven blah blah blah.

    Is anyone else tired?

    I am.



  80. Todd says:

    It looks like I’m addicted to those sleazy spell checkers… 🙂

    But thanks to all the help, I am becoming a better speller.

    I also don’t seem to notice any of my darned typos, despite fairly careful proofreading, until after I hit the “Submit Comment” button. Why is that? A character flaw perhaps? Silly me…

    Have a happy Thanksgiving y’all! I promise to not post for at least a week.



  81. azteclady says:

    JulieAnn, I’ve felt like giving Kelly a trophy for persistence. As for me, it’s more boredom than anything else. Circular talking and condescension just aren’t that interesting.


  82. Kelly says:

    Hi All,

    Good try at deflecting the truth Todd. I’m talking apples
    and your trying to use oranges for your proof. You talk about
    studies that use a mothers DNA to track a family’s ancestory.
    You’re right. You can’t use that to track and map groups of
    That’s why geneticists and anthropologist track a male Y
    chromosome. These link groups of people together and by
    looking at markers that get attached to the DNA they can
    track groups of people over thousands of years. This has
    made it possible to establish how man migrated out across the
    planet from central Africa. All genetic mapping has shown that
    North, Central and South Amercan native ancestors came from
    Asia. Not one source of semitic DNA markers have been found.

    You still haven’t answered my question about what you were taught
    in sunday school and seminary about the Laminites and Native
    Americans Todd.



  83. Kelly says:

    Hi Azteclady,

    ( azteclady Says:

    JulieAnn, I’ve felt like giving Kelly a trophy for persistence. As for me, it’s more boredom than anything else. Circular talking and condescension just aren’t that interesting. )

    I appologize to the “Spinsters” (Todd’s words not mine) for
    inflicting our little male pissing match on ya’ll. I’m real tired
    of it all also. I just can’t stand it when people like Todd and the
    “The Church” dish out bigotry and hatred in the name God. Their
    god or anybody’s god.



  84. Kelly says:

    Hi All,

    Here’s a peace offering for ya’ll because i’ve been using
    up so much band width in me and Todd’s little male pissing
    It’s a really great sounding Thanksgiving dinner recipe that
    I heard from Sister Dotti S. Jensen on KRCL radio today. I
    think Martha Stewart would wet her knickers with this recipe.
    Sister Dotti got this recipe from enrichment night at her local
    ward. Here’s the recipe:

    Place 1 to 2 inches of Stove Top dressing on the bottom of
    your roasting pan.

    Then put on a layer of Ore-Ida tater gems or hash brown taters.

    Pour on 9 cups of water, 4 table spoons of salt and layer on 4
    sticks of butter.

    Open up 8 packs of Oscar Meyer turkey breasts and layer those
    on as well.

    Pour on 4 cans of Campbells mushroom soup and one packet of
    Liptons onion soup.

    Cover all this with 1 box of Kelloggs corn flakes.

    Cover this with a layer of Twinkies and a layer of Ocean Spray
    cranberry sauce.

    Now finish with a layer of miniture marshmellows the kind with
    all different colors.

    Bake at 350 degrees for 1 hour

    Reduce heat to 200 and bake another 4 hours.

    Let cool and serve with a dolop of fat free sour cream or
    suger free Cool Whip on your finest Chinette paper plates.

    Boy o Boy that sounds like a great Thanksgiving feast.

    Enjoy this recipe and each of you send me $1.00.
    Then E-mail this to 10 of your friends and family and
    get a $1.00 from them. Soon we’ll all be rich and eating
    some good turkey chow.

    Kindest regards,



  85. T.B. says:

    As soon as I get my paddles charged up I’m going to make that recipe!


  86. Kelly says:

    Hi T.B.

    Gee I forgot one key ingredient so it’s not so bland.

    Place a layer of thick cut bacon between the corn flakes
    and the Twinkies. That’ll kick it up a notch or two.



  87. Natalie says:


    You had me going until you got to the freaking Twinkies. LOL.


  88. Kelly says:


    I was laughing my guts out when I heard Sister Dotti
    giving this recipe on KRCL. How many recipes have we
    all heard over the years that are local culture based that
    sound just like that. My wife’s funeral taters have chopped
    up pieces of bacon in them. I just love um but they do take
    3 to 6 months of my life.
    My sister in law exchanged a cook book from her church
    with her neighbor, who is LDS, whose local ward put out a
    cookbook. They both laughed at the fact that the wards
    cookbook you mostly needed a can opener and a BIG
    casserole dish. The other cookbook you mostly needed a
    knife and red wine.



  89. T.B. says:

    Believe it or not I’ve put bacon on Costco Vanilla Ice Cream before and it’s very tasty. Then again, I’m going to purchase a bacon air freshener.

    Try peanut butter on a bacon burger. Yum!

    Next is bacon sprinkles over C.V.I.C. with a peanut butter swirl.

    Gotta go, another one of those pesky rolling clots is advancing up my thigh!

    Is it any wonder that I’m single?


  90. Natalie says:

    BACON??? On ICE CREAM? Blasphemy. Someone get the pellet gun, that man needs to be shot. Oh wait. Maybe a jolt with the paddles will suffice….


  91. Victoria says:

    I feel sorry for Todd.

    I feel sorry for anyone that restricted to one simple belief system.

    The world is so much better outside the box.


  92. Aaron says:

    olbermann’s a clown. no logic. just emotion. nice try, keith.


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