This is by design. It's meant to portray outsiders as dangerous and unwelcoming and keep adherents loyal.

They're quite different to JW apparently, but I'm sure in what ways.

One of my neighbours in the UK for 16yrs is a Mormon preacher. It was he who told me how to 'put off' JW visitors. He homes missionaries from the US and used to send them over to knock on my door because I'm a hard nut to crack (allegedly).

Had an incident with some young LDS missionaries about 10yrs ago when they began hassling schoolgirls on the bus home one evening. The driver stopped and I helped him remove them from the bus. Went straight to my neighbour when I got home to let him know. They weren't part of the group staying with him, but he let their host known and they were sent back to the US.

What can I say... I like drama

More open to dialogue, less controlling and cultish, less likely to ostracise those who leave.

My least favourite encounter was with the LDS whilst I was coming out of the emergency vet with an empty cat cage a tears streaming down my face. OK, I know that it’s more effective to strike whilst people are low and vulnerable, but read the room (or street).
My favourite was also with the LDS, coming out of The Book Of Mormon, why they think they’ll get converts who have just been watching that I don’t know.

But at the same time - possessing if anything madder theology.

Quite smart, I think. Better than standing outside with banners protesting. I guess the idea is that people coming out might be more interested in dialogue.

That is true. Handy though if you're tracing your family tree.

True . I guess some people may be wondering how accurate the portrayal was and may be interested in the other side of the story .

Back in the late 60s we used to get them going door to door and my mum used to let them in. She even asked them if she could have a copy of The Book of Mormon to read as she wanted to have a religious debate with them. For the record, she did and told them whilst she found their book interesting she didn't agree with what was in it
She wasn't much of a church goer in middle age, but she was a Scottish Presbyterian all her life as it was what she grew up with.

Wrong I'm afraid. It's a little archaic, but not incorrect.

Hmm. A little archaic. Peak usage according to the google books ngram viewer was around 1750. By 1850 it wasn't really in use. So saying "a little archaic" is somewhat stretching the meaning of "a little".

Merriam-Webster list "surprize", but no other reliable online dictionary does, and my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (600'000+ words) doesn't list it, and it does list plenty of variant and archaic spellings.

It's the derivation that gives you the clue. Many ise/ize words derive from French or Latin iser, izer or izare. But "surprise" comes from supprendre, in the same way "prise" comes from prendre (to take). Since prize is not an alternate spelling of prise, I'll stand by my claim that "surprize" is wrong - even if it was used 200 years ago, and WB still list it. Or at least, it isn't as accepted as a variant as much as words like civilise/civilize.

Anyway, many people on this site aren't native English speakers (I'm guessing you are, however, North American but I didn't check before). My aim was not to shew you up, rather to help. Sorry if you were offended. No offence intended.

__________________
Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!