For those who felt deceived

[talisyn]

Perhaps your test is not if you could practice polygamy or polyandry but if you would be able to accept that God asked of it in biblical times and as well as when His church was reestablished in its fullness for the last time. Perhaps your trial of faith is; could you accept it was commanded of God. I have asked myself these things and believe it was commanded by Him, therefore I stay, therefore I grow and learn and blessed abundantly with spiritual confirmation that the choice I made is right and it pleases Him.

I agree, totally

Maybe we asked the right questions?

[Honorentheos]

I agree with the above - asking the right questions in the right frame of mind will increase your chances of receiveing a possible spiritual witness that may bolster one up when confronting the challenging issues with LDS history.

Asking different questions or asking the same questions in a different frame of mind may lead to different results.

What this suggests is that the mind is part of the process. I personally like the example of the split brain patient who, when being asked if there is a God answered with his mouth "yes" (speech being controled by the left side of the brain) while the right side of the brain used signs to indicate "no".

Back to the OP - personally I think that the church only benefits when it brings these matters forward in a controled environment. And I do not see this as devious - for an earthly institution. Education tends to be that way. I'm glad I was able to discover things and work through the matter. Frankly, it took the right set of circumstances that shook my worldview for me to be able to even consider that the church may be anything other than what I believed it to be. A lot of this had to do with avoidance, but also with just how a mind works when it confronts information that conficts with the individual's worldview.

I find it interesting that so many, such as Dr. Peterson, suggest that they learned of this material during their teen years. Given the nature of the physical brain during this period (second largest period of brain development, judgment centers functioning differently than when one is an adult, etc.) I suspect it would take serious worldview trauma for such a person to be able to consider that the church is not true as an adult.

Anyway, the point being that the information alone is not enough to bring this about.

Should the church make this information more available to its lay members than it does? I guess that depends on if one views it as a font of truth or just another institution that teaches generally good values with bad facts...

[suem]

How do you know that "MOST stay because they do not look at controversial information...."? Do you have empirical evidence to support this statement, or is it simply your opinion?

I don't care if that's your opinion, you're entitiled to it, but you have set it up in absolute terms such that anyone who disagrees with you is, buy definition, wrong. Sorry. We just don't have much more to say to each other if you refuse to come off your high horse.

Hmmm...I remain unconvinced.

"Most" is the impirical evidence of what IS. Ask the hard questions to every person in your ward. How many are open to the conversation? How many walk away with a look in their eye like you have fallen off the deep end? How many immediately consider you "apostate" for asking such questions? How soon after this experiment are you called into the bishops office?

Although I have enjoyed our interaction here, YOU responded to me first. You could have quit the conversation before it ever started if you did not like what I was saying.

[LifeOnaPlate]

A person who follows a course of self-education on church history and determines for themselves that the church is not the kingdom of god on earth seems to have followed the path your post outlined above (give or take the part about the role of God in the process). If such a person felt that they were given false information, partial information that reflects a bias favorable to the institution over full disclosure, or discouraged from seeking out less favorable material, do they then no longer qualify as educated?

I never said anything of the sort. I don't denote the "educated" as only those who agree with my views. (I've spoken with many former members of the Church who seem to denote the educated in that fashion, though. )

Is it the results that are at issue or the process itself?

It's about personal responsibility. My post itself answers this question.

While it does not seem to be the point of your post, your observation seems to apply more to the Sunday bench warmers within the church than it does to the educated disserters who have left the church.

Seems? Agree to disagree. I believe there are very educated people who leave the church upon or after trying to delve further into church history or doctrine. I believe honest and responsible, reasonable people can do so. I never meant to imply otherwise (and don't believe I did, by the way.)

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hey LoaP,

I fully agree with what you have written.

Then I say I approve of you as being "educated," and you have my permission to consider yourself "educated."

It is an individual responsibility to expand one's knowledge. And on a topic such as one's eternal salvation this is especially so. I read Brodie's book a few years ago, it was an old copy and had been in the library since the 70s, so yes there was stuff available to those who looked, even here downunda. And the Ensign had written about things like the rock in the hat, and I am sure polygamy is in there too. I was reading Friend at that time, but my mother read every word in the Ensign, and was still surprised when I told her about the seerstone, I had to dig out the Ensign reference online before she would believe it. Same with JSjr's plural marriages - I had to show her the entries online at familysearch because not one bookshelf in the wall of books mentioned it - at least in a fashion enabling ready recall to my mother's mind.

My guess is your mother was remembering the things that affected her most, or mattered to her most.

The problem is that references to 'odd' material are brief and fleeting, and are countered by a barrage of contradictory information. How many times did the Ensign mention the seerstone? There were many many pictures and descriptions featuring JSjr studying the plates directly, with Oliver sitting at the same table.

I, too, favor more articles in official organs on issues members may not be familiar with but that may seem strange or different to them. And don't get me started on Church art.

A brief passing sentence of truth is just overwhelmed by the weight of untrue "artist's renderings".

OK, well, you got me started. I'll try to keep this short, though. I'd love a seerstone in hat picture in Church materials. I believe, however, that most artists simply paint what they see in their mind's eye regarding the translation and aren't paying as much attention to strict historical accuracy. Unfortunately, many people will remember a painting before they remember a quote.

A discrepant item is just tagged "incorrect" - if the reader stops to think about it, it is assessed as an error, or misquote based on the weight of multiple memories of the received view of things. A lot of times tiny discrepancies are just skimmed over - possibly unconsciously. (I am not plucking this out of thin air, in my previous life I often wrote or helped write military exercises, we frequently made use of this tendency in order to: a] amuse the directing staff, and b] help army officers to become aware that they thought like this. I left the army to study this aspect of learning and recall, before my son was diagnosed and I switched focus)

Indeed, as my post to which you responded noted, there are levels of awareness in study.

Why does this happen? Why do mormon artists depict JSjr reading the plates?

My honest opinion is that they are trying to paint a good picture with little historical reference. I don't see it as a dishonest cover up. It's a reticence to the unfamiliar in some cases. Joseph himself didn't really discuss the seerstone method.

Why do countless bishops (like several of mine) deny that JSjr had plural wives?

Countless is right; I don't know how many there are. But your question seems to assume that a Bishop's responsibility is to know a lot about Church history, including aspects of the gospel that we no longer practice. How many Bishops know that the Aaronic Priesthood wasn't always given at age 12 for example? Or that prayer circles occurred outside the Temple? Bishops are the president of the Aaronic priesthood. They have a lot to deal with. Unfortunately for some of them they might not be fully schooled in Church history. I would think they would know about JS and plural marriage, but apparently some don't. That's too bad.

Your final note is the key point I think:

Between the first presidency and the members is a plethora of well-meaning leaders and teachers, and other members providing the multiple source, multiple modality, false information which crams up one's head and causes truthful snippets to bounce straight back out again. And well-meaning people who create faith-promoting but false stories. A system has evolved which allows faith-promoting falsehoods to predominate. I doubt this was planned from the outset, but it is successful at creating and maintaining growth (or was till the internet made a serious weight of counter-information available) so, it thrives and replicates as today's convert becomes tomorrows teacher.

Since behavior, faith, and Christian living are paramount, I personally think those things predominate rather than superfluous stories and rumors. So we disagree there.

Is the church responsible for this? Should those who finally realise some strange fact is true, like the seerstone issue, blame the church for hiding the information in plain sight? or for allowing an unpaid lay clergy to teach falsehoods? or for allowing church artists to use artistic license?

Again, everyone is encouraged to seek revelation and truth from God. I have never been told "just sit back and take my word for it." Ever.

I think the church does have some responsibility for the lack of well-informed professional clergy at ground level. Maybe less-than faith promoting stuff does not need to be emphasized. But at least someone should have some professional responsibility for the information disseminated. At the moment, the situation of "all authority, but no responsibility" allows all manner of nonsense to be spread at the whim of local leaders - with official entities able to claim plausible deniability. It may have been OK in Kirtland, but an unpaid clergy is not a good thing in an organisation of this size. Authority is being delegated with no parallel channel of responsibility. Responsibility requires professional training.

And I am unsure you appreciate the logistics involved in your suggestions.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It's past midnight, so here's the Cliff Notes version of my experience:

Until the age of 20, I had never committed much of a sin, and I repented and confessed those I committed to my Priesthood authority; I had graduated from Seminary; I never missed a day of church (that I can remember), never missed mutual, never missed any obligation; I had read the New Testament, Pearl of Great Price and Book of Mormon before my mission, and had read the Book of Mormon probably half a dozen times during the first year of my mission; and I never felt the Spirit, not a single time, despite pleading for a testimony. I asked my Bishop about it at my pre-mission interview, and he told me just to keep trying. At my missionary farewell, my brother (who would essentially disown me for a decade after I left the Church) told a story about catching me several times praying at my bedside when I was a teenager, scriptures at my side--and I remember vividly thinking that it wasn't such a touching story, because whatever prayer of many that was, it didn't do a bit of good because I never received an answer.

With that foundation, several events caused an extraordinarily rapid decline in my willingness to abide God's silence--feeling more uncomfortable than I can possibly describe when I first went through the temple; happening upon a first edition Mormon Doctrine about halfway through my mission; and learning about halfway through my mission that Joseph Smith was a mason, and the temple based in large part on masonry. I went from "willing to stick it out" to "looking elsewhere for God" just about overnight--I remember making the break on a specific day, as I knelt in prayer for the umpteenth time, frustrated and I suppose pretty angry at that point. I spent the last half of my mission obeying all the rules and working hard, but going through the motions spiritually, and investigating other religions as worked for my benefit. I served in a very cosmopolitan European city, so I would take any opportunity to learn from Muslims, Taoists, etc... That pursuit continued for several years after my mission--and from there the story gets complicated, and would require far more explanation than I can give before falling asleep (and I don't know that a message board would do it justice, anyway).

As it relates to your blog, I did what you suggest--I searched what was right in front of my face for 20 years. But I wasn't looking to make sense of Joseph Smith marrying other men's wives, I was merely hoping that Moroni's Promise would ring true. I did everything I possibly could to acquire a belief that would make my life significantly less complicated, but it simply didn't work for me. If I had received an answer to my prayers and truly had a testimony that was more than just a Fast Sunday routine, maybe the history I found so troubling wouldn't have caused a stir. Maybe, as with many faithful Mormons on this board, a failure to discern some logical explanation wouldn't have bothered me, because I could have relied on such a strong spiritual witness that no matter how unseemly a bit of history might be, the Church is true, so ultimately that history just doesn't matter. But I've never been capable of taking that position, despite my efforts to be able to.

And with that, I'm going to bed. Thanks for pointing out the blog.

If you feel like you made the best honest effort and didn't feel anything from God then that's between you and God. At the same time I'd also encourage you to do your best to move on instead of looking in the rear view mirror spending so much time criticizing the faith of others.

[Honorentheos]

I never said anything of the sort. I don't denote the "educated" as only those who agree with my views. (I've spoken with many former members of the Church who seem to denote the educated in that fashion, though. )

Fair enough, though the later portion of your statement is suggestive of something that you may not mean as well. i.e. - that intellectual hubris among former members is an exclusive trait rather than one shared by many if not all human beings in general of all cultures. So no need for winks here or nudge-nudges.

It's about personal responsibility. My post itself answers this question.

Seems? Agree to disagree. I believe there are very educated people who leave the church upon or after trying to delve further into church history or doctrine. I believe honest and responsible, reasonable people can do so. I never meant to imply otherwise (and don't believe I did, by the way.)

It may be me, which is entirely possible, but it seems to be more than a nuanced suggestion that the fault lies in the member and not in the material they were presented with when an adult who has grown-up within the church culture, hits the expected mileposts such as seminary, mission, institute, temple marriage, etc., becomes aware of aspects of LDS history from outside sources rather than church ones and questions why they never heard about this before. I understand that many here were given this information, or found it in church approved material such as the ensign or the BYU bookstore. Certainly, it is out there and written on by church-sympathetic authors.

But I think that one can forgive someone who does the math, compares the amount of time that they have spent in various lesson situations including many, many redunant ones, listened to many, many general conference talks, and given many, many lessons out of church-approved resources and found the depth of material available lacking once they realize what is NOT included.

Is this information essential to the plan of salvation? Maybe not specifically. But similar behavior in an individual would lead to questions on most peoples part regarding whether or not to do business with them. The church, being in the salvation business, has control over what it says about itself and bears institutional responsibilty for the information it determines is not important for all members to know for their salvation.

And that is the other side of the coin.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Fair enough, though the later portion of your statement is suggestive of something that you may not mean as well. i.e. - that intellectual hubris among former members is an exclusive trait rather than one shared by many if not all human beings in general of all cultures. So no need for winks here or nudge-nudges.

Hubris comes from many sides. Not just Mormons.

It may be me, which is entirely possible, but it seems to be more than a nuanced suggestion that the fault lies in the member and not in the material they were presented with when an adult who has grown-up within the church culture, hits the expected mileposts such as seminary, mission, institute, temple marriage, etc., becomes aware of aspects of LDS history from outside sources rather than church ones and questions why they never heard about this before. I understand that many here were given this information, or found it in church approved material such as the ensign or the BYU bookstore. Certainly, it is out there and written on by church-sympathetic authors.

From this it seems you mist the gist of my original long post. I have my complaints. I also am trying to appreciate the logistics of the thing and the purposes, intentions, desires of those involved.

Is this information essential to the plan of salvation? Maybe not specifically. But similar behavior in an individual would lead to questions on most peoples part regarding whether or not to do business with them. The church, being in the salvation business, has control over what it says about itself and bears institutional responsibilty for the information it determines is not important for all members to know for their salvation.

And that is the other side of the coin.

Institutional responsibility involves, most especially and above all, witnessing of Christ and inviting people to make covenants with him.

[Honorentheos]

Institutional responsibility involves, most especially and above all, witnessing of Christ and inviting people to make covenants with him.

As a test sample, perhaps I could ask the trivia question, "How many ear-ring piercings are appropriate for a lady" and see how generally well disseminated this information is through-out the church as well as how it corresponds with the more offical version to ensure accuracy of intent? Since the number of ear-piercings a person has do not, fundimentally, change a person's ability to accept the witness of Christ or make covenants with him (no one is denied baptism or a temple recommend based on this to my knowledge) maybe we can see how other material may fair if given similar brief but effective coverage that apparently is not distracting from the core message?

[ttribe]

"Most" is the impirical evidence of what IS.

Empirical evidence would be based on statistical sampling based on sound methodology and which is representative of the population. Anecdotal evidence is walking around and asking people. Yours is NOT empirical evidence and your "MOST" statement is nothing more than an educated guess.

Ask the hard questions to every person in your ward.

Even the Sunbeams?!

How many are open to the conversation? How many walk away with a look in their eye like you have fallen off the deep end? How many immediately consider you "apostate" for asking such questions? How soon after this experiment are you called into the bishops office?

Don't know...haven't lived in my current ward that long (just built a new house). But, I did bring up polyandry in Elder's Quorum the other day and no one freaked. Furthermore, I was a Gospel Doctrine teacher for 2.5 years in my last ward and never shied away from the controversial in my teaching and guess what...people LIKED my class. Shocking, I know.

Although I have enjoyed our interaction here, YOU responded to me first. You could have quit the conversation before it ever started if you did not like what I was saying.

Apparently, you don't seem to get why I said what I said...it was in the interest of trying to get you to see how your chosen language on the topic is just as damaging to dialogue as anything a believer could say.

[suem]

Empirical evidence would be based on statistical sampling based on sound methodology and which is representative of the population. Anecdotal evidence is walking around and asking people. Yours is NOT empirical evidence and your "MOST" statement is nothing more than an educated guess.

Even the Sunbeams?!

Don't know...haven't lived in my current ward that long (just built a new house). But, I did bring up polyandry in Elder's Quorum the other day and no one freaked. Furthermore, I was a Gospel Doctrine teacher for 2.5 years in my last ward and never shied away from the controversial in my teaching and guess what...people LIKED my class. Shocking, I know.

Apparently, you don't seem to get why I said what I said...it was in the interest of trying to get you to see how your chosen language on the topic is just as damaging to dialogue as anything a believer could say.

I should probably not be posting here. I have a trip to Utah next week that has triggered me to visit this site. I aopologize for any offending words.

The church is the people. Because people are full of faults, "the church" cannot be true. "The church" is just what it is... a congregation of people believing similarly. The gospel, doctrines, and teachings are spoken words that are an attempt to describe the truth. They are in and of themselves... NOT the truth. They can point toward the truth, but they will never BE the truth. Even my words here are not the TRUTH, they are simply words attempting to describe it.

[ttribe]

I should probably not be posting here.

Why?

I have a trip to Utah next week that has triggered me to visit this site.

Gotcha.

I aopologize for any offending words.

Duly noted and thank you.

The church is the people. Because people are full of faults, "the church" cannot be true. "The church" is just what it is... a congregation of people believing similarly. The gospel, doctrines, and teachings are spoken words that are an attempt to describe the truth. They are in and of themselves... NOT the truth. They can point toward the truth, but they will never BE the truth. Even my words here are not the TRUTH, they are simply words attempting to describe it.

Interesting philosophy. Would it be your contention, then, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints espouses at least some teachings which "point toward" truth?

[Mortal Man]

krose, Tarski, Mormon Questioner, Mortal Man, MichaelW and others:

I posted a semi-lengthy response earlier.

Like many of the complex issues people have raised in this thread (plural marriage, for example), my explanation took time to write and was a little long, it would take some time to read.

Still, I hoped to see who would actually take the opportunity to avail themselves of information that is placed right in front of their faces and give me some feedback. That was a little after 9am this morning. People often don't want to put forth the effort when things are right in front of their faces.

Interesting food for thought.

LOAP, Because I like you so much, I went back and read your whole post ("effect salvation" should be "affect salvation".) If your point is that people are intellectually lazy, then I wholeheartedly agree.

[Deborah]

There is no question that the same information affects people differently. It really is like politics. Two people will come away hearing a speech and one will think he has heard the Messiah and another thinking we're doomed.

There is so much information out there but not all of it complete or contextual. Unfortunately too many don't understand this. Furthermore as far as church history there really are a lot of holes in the information we have. Given all the saints were going through I'm surprised we have as much as we do. Unfortunately some like to take the limited factual information we do have and extrapolate from that. The direction the extrapolation takes is based partly on where one is at the time he discovers the information.

None of us who have remained in the church have done so without questioning things, contrary to what many critics like to portray. We are not blindly obedient but rather have our eyes wide open and recognize that under all the colorful history is a church founded by Christ, led by prophets and with doctrines that are beautiful in their simplicity and profound in their ultimate purpose. Even those regular folks that don't get on the internet have been through the doubts and trials. They may not "know" as much as some of the critics as far as history, but they certainly know a lot more about trial by fire and the power of faith.

A lot of us here are converts and attended other churches. I've not heard of anyone who is LDS going back and criticizing their prior churches for giving them wrong information or not telling them the whole history of their churches, warts and all, and condemning their pastors for hiding information. They accept the new truths they've found and move forward, but we don't see that with many who leave the LDS church over doctrine or history. There seems to be a need to constantly reinforce their choice not by uplifing each other but by tearing down what they once believed. I'm sure some of you will be hostile to this, but honestly I don't know what other conclusion can be drawn when you look at some of the hate-filled comments on these ex-Mo sites.

[LifeOnaPlate]

LOAP, Because I like you so much, I went back and read your whole post ("effect salvation" should be "affect salvation".) If your point is that people are intellectually lazy, then I wholeheartedly agree.

Thanks for catching that, I changed it on my blog.

[suem]

Why?

Gotcha.

Duly noted and thank you.

Interesting philosophy. Would it be your contention, then, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints espouses at least some teachings which "point toward" truth?

Yes. Which is what I meant earlier when I said that it stabs in the direction of the truth.

[Mortal Man]

I have known more peace, contentment, and joy after having left the church and becoming an atheist than I ever knew as a mormon.

You are truly at peace with the knowledge that you will cease to exist when you die? That's something most atheists profess, but which I cannot relate to at all.

[Mortal Man]

I agree 100%. Character does matter, and I judge Joseph's character by the testimonies of those faithful saints who were closest to him and knew him as a man of impeccable character and charity, not by people a couple of hundred years later who take little known incidents out of context and thereby assume things about him that people who actually knew him would never conclude (including even many non-LDS who met him).

I think it was his character that led him to marry those women as opposed to simply having affairs with them.

[Mortal Man]

See...there's no way I would be welcome back at church with views like this....

You can sit by me Mary.

[Mortal Man]

There is no question that the same information affects people differently. It really is like politics. Two people will come away hearing a speech and one will think he has heard the Messiah and another thinking we're doomed.

We are doomed.

There is so much information out there but not all of it complete or contextual. Unfortunately too many don't understand this. Furthermore as far as church history there really are a lot of holes in the information we have. Given all the saints were going through I'm surprised we have as much as we do. Unfortunately some like to take the limited factual information we do have and extrapolate from that. The direction the extrapolation takes is based partly on where one is at the time he discovers the information.

It's hard to move this discussion forward by speaking only in generalities; so let's talk specifics. How much do you personally know about the Kirtland Egyptian Papers? How many Ensign articles have you read concerning them? Can you find images of them on lds.org? Do you think that members should be taught that Joseph Smith produced an Egyptian alphabet and grammar independent of Champollion?

Consider this 1975 Ensign article with Church Historian L. J. Arrington.

Ensign: As people study Church history, are there some areas that seem to cause theological problems for them?

Brother Arrington: There are some questions that come up quite often. As I speak at firesides and seminars, the number one question is nearly always polygamy: What was it like? When did it start? How many were involved? Then they also want to know how the Saints responded over the years to the Word of Wisdom. They want to know if records in the Church Archives are available for the use of scholars and students in preparing papers, and nearly always someone wants to know if the Church would be interested in their grandfatherâ??s diary, even though he wasnâ??t a General Authority or even a bishop. Other questions involve the history of the black man and the Church, and how accurate the translation of the Book of Abraham is. Young people also want to know why we donâ??t write more Church history aimed at teenagers.

Clearly, church members in 1975 had questions concerning the BoA. So what were the church's plans to address these concerns?

Ensign: Is that part of your plans?

Brother Arrington: Itâ??s true that we donâ??t have much for teenagers. We usually talk about Church leaders after they become prophets and leaders, but I think itâ??s important to show them as young people with the problems that young people have. It brings us all closer to the realities of our history. Our series of biographies will include the early stages of some of these leadersâ?? lives. For instance, Joseph F. Smith was called on a mission to Hawaii when he was 15 and he stayed there for five years. We have much of his correspondence during that time, and now that weâ??re close to finishing cataloging his papers, weâ??re thinking about using some of that material.

[Deborah]

It's hard to move this discussion forward by speaking only in generalities; so let's talk specifics. How much do you personally know about the Kirtland Egyptian Papers?

Enough not to be bothered by them. Besides which it's the text of the BOA itself which convinces me of its authenticity, not how it came about. I think that's what matters to most of us. I think we have had some pretty good discussions at Fair Conference on this issue and I think the critics are making mountains out of scraps of paper which may or may not be what Joseph actually had.

[MichaelW]

If you feel like you made the best honest effort and didn't feel anything from God then that's between you and God. At the same time I'd also encourage you to do your best to move on instead of looking in the rear view mirror spending so much time criticizing the faith of others.

I don't think I'm all that critical--and 68 posts in 10 months isn't exactly "spending so much time" . . . And assuming he or she or it or they do exist in some form with which I can communicate after I die (presuming I'll have the capacity to do so), God and I do have quite a bit to talk about.

And in your blog, "effect salvation" and "affect salvation" both work, but I like "effect" better--by that reading, there's no salvation at all for the clueless.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I don't think I'm all that critical--and 68 posts in 10 months isn't exactly "spending so much time" . . . And assuming he or she or it or they do exist in some form with which I can communicate after I die (presuming I'll have the capacity to do so), God and I do have quite a bit to talk about.

And in your blog, "effect salvation" and "affect salvation" both work, but I like "effect" better--by that reading, there's no salvation at all for the clueless.

I thought of putting (or effect) in parenthesis but decided against it, though you and I thought alike.

[Pahoran]

No offense intended but this is ridiculous. If you really believe all those people are blind little sheep you would be very wrong. Most of these people have been through trials of faith. Just because they don't go around telling everyone about it doesn't mean they haven't been through it. I've talked to many people who seem to be just happy followers and they can tell some amazing stories about their struggles and the answers they've gotten.

Deborah,

you are much more patient than I am. Given that suem's characterisation was deliberately offensive, I would not have bothered with the "no offense" bit. People who come here to trash the Latter-day Saints ought not to expect us to handle their precious, fragile little feelings with kid gloves.

And there's something else she doesn't realise: given that she and her ilk have given up the good fight in order to follow the path of least resistance and join the "mainstream," her characterising us as mindless "sheep" is actually rather ironic.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel Peterson]

Perhaps you can explain how I was supposed to educate myself about issues I didn't know existed as an investigator of the church in 1976.

It wasn't impossible. I did it.