For those who felt deceived

[Jeff K.]

As did I. There were libraries, there was a plethora of anti Mormon information out there. Print media, news media, micro fische (when you can find it). Even in rural Virginia you could get the information.

[Deborah]

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.

I've always found that rather ironic as well. It's so easy to go on the internet and find the anti stuff and cut and paste. But real study and real struggle in overcoming doubts is much more difficult and requires a great deal more soul-searching.

[OMWO2]

It wasn't impossible. I did it.

As did I. There were libraries, there was a plethora of anti Mormon information out there. Print media, news media, micro fische (when you can find it). Even in rural Virginia you could get the information.

... and here are two of the most informed members of the LDS church... TRUE. I myself stumbled on a book about "Freemasonry" (no I do not know the name of the book) in a library in Georgia in 1996. The pictures of masonic handshakes troubled me, as I had always been "taught" that the temple ordinances (and I 'assumed' the associated handshakes) were 'unique' to Mormon temples. Turns out I was wrong!

[OMWO2]

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

Pahoran - I would like to add that not ALL exmembers leaving the church have "follow(ed) the path of least resistance". I can assure you my relationship with my parents, siblings and in-laws was much easier when we all shared the same religious belief then when I left the LDS church.

[ttribe]

... and here are two of the most informed members of the LDS church... TRUE. I myself stumbled on a book about "Freemasonry" (no I do not know the name of the book) in a library in Georgia in 1996. The pictures of masonic handshakes troubled me, as I had always been "taught" that the temple ordinances (and I 'assumed' the associated handshakes) were 'unique' to Mormon temples. Turns out I was wrong!

This particular statement is the kind of thing that is rather surprising to me. Did I grow up in some place that was more "open" or something? I knew about the freemasonry issues as a teenager...was asked about it more than once on my mission (and I managed a response)...I read History of the Church on my mission (yes all the volumes) and connected some of the dots in that set of books...even had a mason try to give me one of the handshakes because he knew I was Mormon (I'm guessing he wasn't a very good mason to have done that)...heck, I recall rather vividly giving a rather pointed response to a critic when I'd been in the mission field for less than 8 weeks. Why did I have all of this information available to me as a teenager in Arizona, and just a bit later as a missionary in TN, and people act like it was some hidden issue?

[beastie]

Although, due to the internet, these numbers are probably rapidly dwindling, I imagine even today a significant number of active LDS think JS was a monogamist. Now why would a significant number of active LDS believe JS is a monogamist? Here are some possible explanations:

1. The LDS church has a significant number of lazy people who ignore their leadersâ?? counsel to educate themselves about church history.

2. The leaders of the LDS church have made the decision to downplay the aspects of church history that they do not believe are faith promoting. In so doing, while perhaps not actively suppressing history, they create a climate in which erroneous perceptions thrive.

While certainly any large group of people will contain a percentage of lazy people, my impression hasnâ??t been that LDS are prone to laziness. In fact, I have the exact opposite impression. Within the active population, my impression is that a significant majority really do try to follow their leadersâ?? counsel. Members are strongly encouraged, even pushed, to engage in certain activities: home and visit-teaching, fulfilling other callings, paying a full tithe, being fully active in church meetings, doing genealogical work, doing temple work, missionary work, having several children and being fully engaged with them, reading the scriptures regularly and the words of the modern prophetsâ?¦.I donâ??t remember â??studying church history outside of approved sourcesâ? being on that list. Many members do rely largely on the church itself to provide important information.

The question for me is why should members â?? or, for heavenâ??s sake, investigators - have to become hobbyist historians in order to find out information that seems pretty basic and, in the end, very important to many individuals?

Why does the church find plenty of time to tell faith promoting stories about the prophets over and over in classes, and yet doesnâ??t directly address polygamy â?? which was, after all, an extremely important part of the early LDS church? Of course this is a rhetorical question that contains the answer itself â?? faith-promoting. And I suspect every poster on this thread knows how easy it is to find statements by GAs that refer to that explanation as well â?? share what is faith promoting.

[ttribe]

Although, due to the internet, these numbers are probably rapidly dwindling, I imagine even today a significant number of active LDS think JS was a monogamist. Now why would a significant number of active LDS believe JS is a monogamist? Here are some possible explanations:

1. The LDS church has a significant number of lazy people who ignore their leadersâ?? counsel to educate themselves about church history.

2. The leaders of the LDS church have made the decision to downplay the aspects of church history that they do not believe are faith promoting. In so doing, while perhaps not actively suppressing history, they create a climate in which erroneous perceptions thrive.

While certainly any large group of people will contain a percentage of lazy people, my impression hasnâ??t been that LDS are prone to laziness. In fact, I have the exact opposite impression. Within the active population, my impression is that a significant majority really do try to follow their leadersâ?? counsel. Members are strongly encouraged, even pushed, to engage in certain activities: home and visit-teaching, fulfilling other callings, paying a full tithe, being fully active in church meetings, doing genealogical work, doing temple work, missionary work, having several children and being fully engaged with them, reading the scriptures regularly and the words of the modern prophetsâ?¦.I donâ??t remember â??studying church history outside of approved sourcesâ? being on that list. Many members do rely largely on the church itself to provide important information.

The question for me is why should members â?? or, for heavenâ??s sake, investigators - have to become hobbyist historians in order to find out information that seems pretty basic and, in the end, very important to many individuals?

Why does the church find plenty of time to tell faith promoting stories about the prophets over and over in classes, and yet doesnâ??t directly address polygamy â?? which was, after all, an extremely important part of the early LDS church? Of course this is a rhetorical question that contains the answer itself â?? faith-promoting. And I suspect every poster on this thread knows how easy it is to find statements by GAs that refer to that explanation as well â?? share what is faith promoting.

That's interesting, I openly discussed JS' involvement in polygamy with investigators on my mission...when I've taught Sunday School...with my children...and I'm still amazed when anyone says: 1) they'd never heard it; and 2) the Church "covers it up".

[beastie]

It wasn't impossible. I did it.

You werenâ??t an investigator who literally knew next to nothing about Mormonism.

It would be a rare investigator who would know to access the sources you accessed. And it would be an even rarer missionary who would encourage such research â?? and the time it would require â?? in an investigator.

Iâ??m having a very hard time taking these responses seriously. An investigator is supposed to subscribe to the Ensign, and read it for years until they happen upon one of these articles. Or the Dialogue. Or study microfiches????

Oh, wait, I know one place that an investigator can find plenty of information about Mormonism in rural Virginia â?? an Evangelical bookstore. Iâ??m sure the missionaries would love that. When I committed to be baptized, one of the first words out of my missionariesâ?? mouths were â??you have to be careful, now, because Satan will really try to get you to change your mind.â? Yes, they would have been very supportive of me telling them I needed to delay my baptism in order to study church history more intensely.

That's interesting, I openly discussed JS' involvement in polygamy with investigators on my mission...when I've taught Sunday School...with my children...and I'm still amazed when anyone says: 1) they'd never heard it; and 2) the Church "covers it up".

When I was a missionary we were instructed to not range far from the scripted lessons. My, how times have changed. Now missionaries are allowed to talk about JS' polygamy with investigators? Interesting. Did you happen to mention that he married other men's wives in those lessons? And who instigated these conversations? Did you happen to be responding to an investigator's questions about polygamy, or did you bring up the topic yourself?

[ttribe]

When I was a missionary we were instructed to not range far from the scripted lessons. My, how times have changed. Now missionaries are allowed to talk about JS' polygamy with investigators?

I was "allowed" to talk about whatever I wanted...what's the deal with your ascerbic retort? BTW, we're talking about 17 years ago...I served from '91-'93...it's not like it was yesterday.

Interesting. Did you happen to mention that he married other men's wives in those lessons?

Is this going to devolve into an argument regarding "marry" and "seal"...because, that's where we're headed with that question of yours.

And who instigated these conversations?

Do I have to recall every single instance in order to provide an answer which will satisfy you?

Did you happen to be responding to an investigator's questions about polygamy, or did you bring up the topic yourself?

The fact is, it was OFTEN a question out of people's mouths the first time we met them...I did, after all, serve in the States where we Mormons are pretty well-known for the whole polygamy thing.

I get the idea that you don't believe me...oh well.

BTW, I do agree with you that none of your actions in investigating the Church were unreasonable. I don't think that justifies charges of "deception", but I don't think your experience was atypical.

[beastie]

ttribe -

I didn't mean to imply I didn't believe you, and I apologize for my acerbic tone. The responses I've gotten to my questions about investigators educating themselves on this issue have left a bad taste in my mouth. But I think it's reasonable for me to guess that your discussion of JS' polygamy was probably instigated by investigators. I can't believe things have changed THAT much in the church that missionaries would be encouraged to instigate conversations about polygamy. I actually asked my missionaries about polygamy, as well, after an EV friend told me about it, and the missionaries told me it was practiced during a very limited time to take care of widows and children. JS was never mentioned, it was solely in the context of Utah polgyamy.

However, I appreciate that you recognize my experience was not atypical.

Here's a talk by Mike Quinn that some may find interesting:

http://www.mormonismi.net/kirjoitukset/qui...rioitsija.shtml

[ttribe]

ttribe -

I didn't mean to imply I didn't believe you, and I apologize for my acerbic tone. The responses I've gotten to my questions about investigators educating themselves on this issue have left a bad taste in my mouth. But I think it's reasonable for me to guess that your discussion of JS' polygamy was probably instigated by investigators. I can't believe things have changed THAT much in the church that missionaries would be encouraged to instigate conversations about polygamy. I actually asked my missionaries about polygamy, as well, after an EV friend told me about it, and the missionaries told me it was practiced during a very limited time to take care of widows and children. JS was never mentioned, it was solely in the context of Utah polgyamy.

However, I appreciate that you recognize my experience was not atypical.

Here's a talk by Mike Quinn that some may find interesting:

http://www.mormonismi.net/kirjoitukset/qui...rioitsija.shtml

How can someone, who's been a member of the Church for any period of time, read this:

"Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501â??507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831. " (Source Link)

and think that the Church is somehow trying to hide Joseph Smith's involvement with polygamy? It's as plain as day THAT HE STARTED IT! The discussion of this very revelation on The History of the Church is interesting, to say the least...but certainly NOT hidden.

[beastie]

and think that the Church is somehow trying to hide Joseph Smith's involvement with polygamy? It's as plain as day THAT HE STARTED IT! The discussion of this very revelation on The History of the Church is interesting, to say the least...but certainly NOT hidden.

"He started it" simply means he received the revelation that opened the door to polygamy. It does not necessarily mean that he, himself, practiced it, particularly when Emma was so opposed to it. For some crazy reason, many believers actually think the first wife has to give her permission for additional wives to be taken.

[ttribe]

"He started it" simply means he received the revelation that opened the door to polygamy. It does not necessarily mean that he, himself, practiced it, particularly when Emma was so opposed to it. For some crazy reason, many believers actually think the first wife has to give her permission for additional wives to be taken.

That's a rather legalistic interpretation of what the D&C heading says. Furthermore, I read, with great interest, the discussion between Joseph and Hyrum about this revelation and Hyrum's determined attitude to get Emma to "understand" the doctrine...to which Joseph responded - "You don't know my Emma." She knew about the principle before the revelation was even published; she'd already destroyed at least one copy of it before it's publication (if I remember right). I also recall being taught about her later acquiescence on the matter (although...I will admit...acceptance would be an overstatement...she did seem to vacillate some...and understandably so).

Edited to add: Verse 52 completely belies the interpretation that JS "opened the door" but didn't practice polygamy.

[beastie]

That's a rather legalistic interpretation of what the D&C heading says. Furthermore, I read, with great interest, the discussion between Joseph and Hyrum about this revelation and Hyrum's determined attitude to get Emma to "understand" the doctrine...to which Joseph responded - "You don't know my Emma." She knew about the principle before the revelation was even published; she'd already destroyed at least one copy of it before it's publication (if I remember right). I also recall being taught about her later acquiescence on the matter (although...I will admit...acceptance would be an overstatement...she did seem to vacillate some...and understandable so).

In my experience, Emma's opposition to polygamy was well known.

I'm curious: do you disagree with me that a significant portion of active LDS believe JS was monogamous?

Do you disagree with me that a significant number of active LDS believe the first wife had to give her permission for the husband to take other wives?

(edit on:

Verse 52:

52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, areceive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

It's understood in church that God condemned Emma for her rejection of polygamy. JS said he'd go to hell to get her, if necessary. This supports the impression that Emma, despite God's warning, rejected polygamy.)

[ttribe]

In my experience, Emma's opposition to polygamy was well known. I'm curious: do you disagree with me that a significant portion of active LDS believe JS was monogamous?

Forgive me if I am hesitant to invoke the word "significant"...occupational hazard. I will say I've never had an encounter with someone not on the Internet who makes that claim and I continue to be surprised when I hear this...especially if they've read Section 132, v. 52.

Do you disagree with me that a significant number of active LDS believe the first wife had to give her permission for the husband to take other wives?

I might agree with you that there is a persistent belief along those lines, yes. I wouldn't call it a "Church teaching", however.

Verse 52: 52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, areceive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God. It's understood in church that God condemned Emma for her rejection of polygamy. JS said he'd go to hell to get her, if necessary. This supports the impression that Emma, despite God's warning, rejected polygamy.)

Sorry, I don't see any other way to read - "...receive ALL THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN unto my servant Joseph....[emphasis added]." Sounds like past tense to me.

[beastie]

Forgive me if I am hesitant to invoke the word "significant"...occupation hazard. I will say I've never had an encounter with someone not on the Internet who makes that claim and I continue to be surprised when I hear this...especially if they've read Section 132, v. 52.

No, I've never met anyone on the internet either who isn't aware that JS had plural wives, but the internet is a self-selected group that provides access to this sort of information. In my experience in "real life" mormonism, though, I knew many members who did not know JS actually practiced polygamy - including my sisters and mother, who discovered it at the same time I did, through Mormon Enigma. Of course, we were all converts living back east with minimal mormon population. I think it's possible folks who have generational background in the church may be more likely to know this information.

I might agree with you that there is a persistent belief along those lines, yes. I wouldn't call it a "Church teaching", however.

It certainly was - and is â?? a persistent belief, even repeated in The Encylopedia of Mormonism, repeated here:

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/people/brigham_young.html

Brigham Young with pictures of 21 of his wives. Permission from the first wife was sought and approval from the appropriate leader was required to practice plural marriage. Many had only one or two wives; it was unusual to have more than four. The Manifesto of 1890 officially ended the Church practice of plural marriages. Photograph created 1901, Johnson Co.

It was, however, debunked in court testimony, in the Reed Smoot hearings, when President Joseph F Smith admitted that a womanâ??s consent amounted to nothing more than her consent, and a man could obtain other wives without her consent.

But I think it is very fair to say that many LDS believe the first wife had to give her consent.

Sorry, I don't see any other way to read - "...receive ALL THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN unto my servant Joseph....[emphasis added]." Sounds like past tense to me.

Sure, itâ??s past tense in that the Lord â??gaveâ? some women to Joseph, but that doesnâ??t mean that Emma accepted it. If a member believes that the first wife had to give her permission, it is easy to conclude that since Emma did not approve, she did not give her permission, and JS didnâ??t â??takeâ? the ones â??givenâ? to him. The fact that the church idealizes the romance between Joseph and Emma tends to support this idea â?? that Joseph would not defy Emma, even knowing this would land her in hell, and he would go get her himself.

[ttribe]

No, I've never met anyone on the internet either who isn't aware that JS had plural wives, but the internet is a self-selected group that provides access to this sort of information. In my experience in "real life" mormonism, though, I knew many members who did not know JS actually practiced polygamy - including my sisters and mother, who discovered it at the same time I did, through Mormon Enigma. Of course, we were all converts living back east with minimal mormon population. I think it's possible folks who have generational background in the church may be more likely to know this information.

You misunderstood me...perhaps it would be more clear if I say - I have ONLY met people making these claims on the Internet. No "in person" conversation has resulted in someone telling me they didn't know.

It certainly was - and is – a persistent belief, even repeated in The Encylopedia of Mormonism, repeated here:

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/people/brigham_young.html

It was, however, debunked in court testimony, in the Reed Smoot hearings, when President Joseph F Smith admitted that a woman’s consent amounted to nothing more than her consent, and a man could obtain other wives without her consent.

But I think it is very fair to say that many LDS believe the first wife had to give her consent.

Okay. That there are misconceptions in a large organization isn't exactly shocking. Are you saying this is "evidence" of wrong-doing?

Sure, it’s past tense in that the Lord “gave” some women to Joseph, but that doesn’t mean that Emma accepted it. If a member believes that the first wife had to give her permission, it is easy to conclude that since Emma did not approve, she did not give her permission, and JS didn’t “take” the ones “given” to him. The fact that the church idealizes the romance between Joseph and Emma tends to support this idea – that Joseph would not defy Emma, even knowing this would land her in hell, and he would go get her himself.

Look, if you're saying this is what went through your head to get over the idea that JS had more than one wife when you were a member, then I'll take that at face value. I'm simply saying this set of gymnastics you are putting me through doesn't jive with my experience as a member of this Church on this topic. I can't recall when I didn't know that JS had more than one wife.

[Jeff K.]

You werenâ??t an investigator who literally knew next to nothing about Mormonism.

It would be a rare investigator who would know to access the sources you accessed. And it would be an even rarer missionary who would encourage such research â?? and the time it would require â?? in an investigator.

Iâ??m having a very hard time taking these responses seriously. An investigator is supposed to subscribe to the Ensign, and read it for years until they happen upon one of these articles. Or the Dialogue. Or study microfiches????

Oh, wait, I know one place that an investigator can find plenty of information about Mormonism in rural Virginia â?? an Evangelical bookstore. Iâ??m sure the missionaries would love that. When I committed to be baptized, one of the first words out of my missionariesâ?? mouths were â??you have to be careful, now, because Satan will really try to get you to change your mind.â? Yes, they would have been very supportive of me telling them I needed to delay my baptism in order to study church history more intensely.

When I was a missionary we were instructed to not range far from the scripted lessons. My, how times have changed. Now missionaries are allowed to talk about JS' polygamy with investigators? Interesting. Did you happen to mention that he married other men's wives in those lessons? And who instigated these conversations? Did you happen to be responding to an investigator's questions about polygamy, or did you bring up the topic yourself?

I lived in the south, you want isolation from Mormonism, rural VA was that.

Perhaps you have such a hard time taking such a thing seriously because your own attempts at research were or are inadequate for the task. People generally call things they cannot do well, difficult, or if not at all, they tend to say "impossible".

And yes there were EV bookstores and preachers who talked to me about Mormonism, guess what? What they said wasn't good. I weighed the many questions and explanations provided to me by all sides. Consider how outnumbered the Mormons speaking to me were relative to the other side of the coin.

As a missionary we did indeed keep to a script (when I served my mission). Because we were missionaries teaching the basics about Mormonism, not the mysteries of God. Frankly wherever I taught there were a ton of people offering a counter point of view. And I guarrantee you that we missionaries were indeed asked a great deal about polygamy. And all kinds of charges were made, funny how after all these decades the majority of the charges are still repeated no matter how often refuted.

I joined the church in 77, as a teen, alone in my family. I heard it all. I served my mission, partially in CA and then later in Peru, I heard a heck of alot more.

I was also baptised by Elder Bernard B Brockbank III who was patient and answered every question he could, along with the Branch President. I didn't get all the answers I wanted, but I never expected every charge to be refuted, nor should any reasonable human being. I prayed about it, and against my friends wishes and my familiy's desires I decided that I wanted to join the church because prayer confirmed it.

I would bet that I put a great deal more thought and effort into investigating and understanding the church before I joined as a convert than you did in leaving the church. Since all you needed was benign neglect.

[ttribe]

[details snipped]

I would bet that I put a great deal more thought and effort into investigating and understanding the church before I joined as a convert than you did in leaving the church. Since all you needed was benign neglect.

Okay...the rest of the post (that I removed for brevity's sake), but the bolded part was a bit much...I'm willing to take beastie at her word when she says she struggled mightily with her decision to leave; regardless of whether I disagree with her on her reasons.

[Jeff K.]

Everyone says they struggle mightily when they fail to do something.

And really, to lose your testimony all you need is benign neglect, or moral issues, or hurt feelings because one's pride is stepped on.

Really if beastie has a hard time taking a poster seriously in their conversion, why should we assume any more of her "great struggle"?

[beastie]

Okay...the rest of the post (that I removed for brevity's sake), but the bolded part was a bit much...I'm willing to take beastie at her word when she says she struggled mightily with her decision to leave; regardless of whether I disagree with her on her reasons.

Thank you, ttribe. I did struggle with this for years. It was the most traumatic experience of my life.

As far as the accusations that I was somehow negligent as an investigator....all I can say it that it's outrageous. I did exactly what the missionaries instructed me to do. The last thing they would have encouraged was for me to delay my baptism to study church history more.

Apparently, my negligence lay in not hunting up an EV bookstore to try and find books on mormonism. Of course, I had no more reason, at that time, to suspect such bookstores existed than I had to know about the Ensign. Oh, yes, I was supposed to subscribe to the Dialogue, and hunt microfiches.. from who knows where.

If a lurker didn't know better, one could almost believe the LDS church encourages long investigations of the church's truth claims, complete with encouragement to hunt up information about church history.

[Jeff K.]

As far as the accusations that I was somehow negligent as an investigator....all I can say it that it's outrageous. I did exactly what the missionaries instructed me to do. The last thing they would have encouraged was for me to delay my baptism to study church history more.

I would bet that I put a great deal more thought and effort into investigating and understanding the church before I joined as a convert than you did in leaving the church. Since all you needed was benign neglect.

Versus

Iâ??m having a very hard time taking these responses seriously. An investigator is supposed to subscribe to the Ensign, and read it for years until they happen upon one of these articles. Or the Dialogue. Or study microfiches????

So you expect every charity given to you while you hurl your own "can't take it seriously" upon others? Sorry, goose, next time don't try to be a gander.

[beastie]

Everyone says they struggle mightily when they fail to do something.

And really, to lose your testimony all you need is benign neglect, or moral issues, or hurt feelings because one's pride is stepped on.

Really if beastie has a hard time taking a poster seriously in their conversion, why should we assume any more of her "great struggle"?

Who said I have a hard time taking a poster seriously in their conversion???

So, once again, we hear the same old refrain: the loss of one's testimony is due to neglect, sin, or hurt feelings.

Funny, those are the same reasons JWs say JW apostates lose their faith, too.

So you expect every charity given to you while you hurl your own "can't take it seriously" upon others? Sorry, goose, next time don't try to be a gander.

I'm sorry, this comment doesn't make any sense in the context of my statements you quoted.

Yes, knowing how the missionary system works, I have a very hard time taking responses seriously that say, as an investigator, I should have subscribed to the Ensign, the Dialogue, and hunted for material on microfiches before joining the church. If you've been a missionary, you know as well as I do that missionaries try to commit people to baptism as fast as possible, and would be dismayed to hear an investigator was postponing joining the church in order to research church history.

[Jeff K.]

Apparently, my negligence lay in not hunting up an EV bookstore to try and find books on mormonism. Of course, I had no more reason, at that time, to suspect such bookstores existed than I had to know about the Ensign. Oh, yes, I was supposed to subscribe to the Dialogue, and hunt microfiches.. from who knows where.

You don't get off that easy kid. Plenty of people on both sides of the coin, and maybe a public library is rare or yours is uniquely ancient, but even in rural VA we had access to micro fische pre internet all you had to do was ask.

Who said I have a hard time taking a poster seriously in their conversion???So, once again, we hear the same old refrain: the loss of one's testimony is due to neglect, sin, or hurt feelings. Funny, those are the same reasons JWs say JW apostates lose their faith, too.

Reread the quote kid.

[beastie]

You don't get off that easy kid. Plenty of people on both sides of the coin, and maybe a public library is rare or yours is uniquely ancient, but even in rural VA we had access to micro fische pre internet all you had to do was ask.

Ask for microfiches about what, exactly??? What microfiches do you imagine the library in my private Methodist college would have that had to do with these issues? And how the heck would I have known what to ask for???