A few things first.

I am SOOOO amused that Todd has “responded” to K, but isn’t the slightest bit curious about who he is. Is that the difference between men and women? I’d be Googling the hell out of my computer, trying to figure it out.

Also, I LOVE this comment by Emily Pearson.

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.

Excellent comments and sentiments, Emily, and I think I shall embrace them. The truth is as you state it. Anti-Mormons equated rabid kitten killers, at least in our experience. LOVE that.

Now, on to Todd. (FYI, I waited a few days before responding out of respect for Todd, respect which he thinks I don’t have. He is wrong.) But the truth is, I am disappointed with his response. I expected some valid arguments and facts that I would have to at LEAST research and back up. None of that in this. Just more of the same. Talk in circles, and make accusations, instead of addressing the FACTS.

Of course, when you can’t front a solid argument, there is nothing left BUT to try the smoke and mirrors.

I also find it interesting that it seems to bother Todd that I am very GOOD at what I do here. Of course, if I were NOT good at it, none of this would have come about. What fun would that be? If it makes you feel any better, Todd, I cannot sew very well, and my baking skills are minimal. If we were having a bake off, I would lose. So, on to the argument.

Natalie,

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.

Let’s start at the very beginning. A very good place to start… When you read you begin… Uh, sorry. I’ll try not to lapse into musicals. Spinning? I get motion sickness fairly easily, so believe me, I do not spin much. In FACT, one would think I would be better at it, having been raised in the SPIN GRAND MASTER CHURCH of the world. Remember that cute little quote, “Some things that are true are not very useful.” You remember the speaker, Boyd K. Packer. Mormon apostle? Todd, the reality is I don’t spin. I just tell the truth. You’re just pissed off because I bring up the “not very useful” facts. And the “fact” they aren’t “USEFUL” doesn’t make them untruths or spinning. They just happen to be the portion YOU don’t want to hear or want out there. Sorry, I’m a whole package kind of girl. As for “disrespecting,” I only owe respect to those who respect me back. PLEASE give me enough respect to treat me like I have half a brain. Oh wait, there’s that whole patriarchy thingie. A man is supposed to be the other half of my brain, right?

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.

Well, thanks! All the comments are not “useful,” but comments they are, so I leave them there. Some of them even call me names and accuse me of rabid kitten killing (hee hee, thanks Emily). But guess what? They are part of the picture, so I don’t delete them. The only ones I have deleted are those of trolls, people who thrive on just destroying boards, blogs, etc. I agree, they are not useful, and perhaps that could tie in with Boyd K. Packer’s “not useful” idea, except I am very upfront about the fact I have deleted them.

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.

I will never wave someone else’s underwear around in a public setting. You have my complete and total word that I will NEVER do this. I don’t say “never” very often, but I know this will never happen. As for your comment, I take exception to your words, harp, and spew. See, those are not “nice” words, and you are using them to try to degrade my behavior. I know a bit about language. I suspect this harkens back to the fact you don’t like that I tell the truth, and tell it well. So I’ll ignore it for now.

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.

So you are saying these things are NOT true? That these are “lies, half truths, and spinning?” The problem here, Todd, is that you have practiced the good old “LOOK OVER THERE” tactic. You aren’t addressing the actual TOPIC, and instead, are trying to just dismiss my concerns, by calling them transparent anti-Mormon themes. Does this again go back to the “useful truth” theory? Because you have not proved that what I said was WRONG, but just that you think it is an anti-Mormon theme. Until you prove me wrong, you have no basis in fact, so I cannot give this argument credence. You just don’t want this stuff out, so you call it anti when someone brings it up. I note you don’t say these things AREN’T true. You just try to say it’s an “anti” theme. But that doesn’t make them LIES or spinning.

Let’s talk about Adam/God, shall we? Now that might be a debate. This is 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.

Nope. Sorry, doesn’t fly. I do NOT EVER go to the Church and try to get them, their children, their pets, and the mold growing in their refrigerator to come back to church. NOT ONCE. And yet, it does not stop THE CHURCH from coming after me. You, yourself, Todd are part of that “agenda.” How many times have you made your sly little comments about having “the truth” and wanting to “share” it. The “Church” is the aggressor here, therefore, they have the agenda. Otherwise, you are saying that THEY have the right to pursue me, but I do not have the right to reject it. If the Church ever left me alone, I wouldn’t write about it, because I would have nothing to write about, now would I? They call. They come to my house. They pursue my children. They do NOT respect my wishes, yet you expect ME to respect them? How does that work?

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?

This requires some explanation. Please, show me what it is that I misinterpreted. I certainly don’t lie, and the fact you just ACCUSED me of lying? Well, that does not make me feel all warm and fuzzy toward you. That aside, you are very VAGUE. Please, give me exact details. What did I say that was A BLATANT lie?

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.

You want I should be bad at it? If, say, I was not so good with words, would we even be having this discussion? It would be oh so easy for you to dismiss me if I were not a decent writer. And I only lambaste those (please note spelling!) who choose to make fools of themselves and come to me on the attack. What substance have I ignored? Yet again you are being very vague, and not giving examples. SHOW ME THE SUBSTANCE…..

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.

Um, Todd? Where? Tell me WHERE that evidence is, because it sure as hell isn’t available anywhere but on a few Mormon Web sites. There simply is NO factual basis for the Book of Mormon, and plenty to disprove it, and if you want to go further with that, you are going to have to give me example. Simply SAYING there is a body of evidence means nothing. You show me your evidence, and back it up. Then we’ll talk. There is also plenty to prove that Joseph Smith was a con man, and he molded THIS CHURCH in his own image. After all, how ELSE do you explain THREE DIFFERENT versions of the First Vision? Please, address that. No more skirting around the truth.

This, Todd, is no debate. You have barely touched on any actual subject, and instead are using the “smoke and mirrors” act to try to make me look bad. You MUST give us the substance, and the truth. Oh, if only that were so easy, because the TRUTH is, you don’t have it.

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

Because I don’t agree with it, as I stated. A “disagreement” does not make one anti. Of course, we could turn the tables here. The Mormon Church has spent MILLIONS of dollars to defeat equality in marriage for everyone. That, of course, is directed at the gays. So, should we say the Mormon Church is anti-homosexual? (Please note, I do not have millions of dollars, and if I did, they would not be wasted fighting proxy baptism.)

And how YOU cannot see the arrogance of baptizing thousands of holocaust victims in the same waters as those of their murderer, Adolph Hitler, is beyond me.

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 the fact that it IS practiced, every day, in Mormon temples is irrelevant? How is my statement a blatant lie? You can’t seriously be trying to say that men do not go into the temple and get sealed to more than one wife every day, because IF you are saying this, YOU are the one who is lying. And a bit delusional to boot.

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.

And what shall we call you, Todd? A few things come to mind, but I will refrain. What I will say is this response from you makes me sad beyond words. I remember you as a happy, smiling, intelligent boy. I don’t remember the arrogance and the pompous self-righteousness. How sad. You obviously have done very little research into the history of the Mormon Church, and instead have chosen to accept the spin-doctored version of “absolute truth.”

This could not, in any shape or form, be considered a debate. You never addressed facts. You just generalized.

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

Your old friend,
Todd

I am completely certain that I never knew the real you. While you are supporting this Church that claims not to get involved in politics, yet has spent MILLIONS of dollars to defeat Proposition 8 in California, consider the honesty of that, please. Are you capable of that?

Or is your mind hopelessly, irrevocably sewn shut. Tight.

I suspect the latter.

Farewell.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.