Is it acceptable for a Mormon to learn about the Catholic church, but still not want to join?

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Concerning the faith of our OP, @Ogie_Reeves , the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which I am also a member, this study of other faiths is fine and many folks study of other faiths. BYU university requires study of other faiths, and attendance of their services too, for some of its classes.

My personal understanding of “learning” about a religious sect requires becoming involved with the group, making friends with some of them, taking part in their activities, etc.

I agree.
That being said there are some commitments to one’s faith that can preclude some participation in other faiths AND some respect one should afforded the faith one seeks to learn.
I do not think the investigators of the Catholic Church should partake of the Eucharist dishonestly professing a faith and communion they do not possess. I do not think investigators of the CoJCoLDS should lie their way into the temple dishonestly professing a faith and communion they do not possess.
One of things I admire about Jehovah’s Witnesses is that all members do their monthly proselyting. To me this seems like a integral part of being a Jehovah’s Witness. While I could probably participate in this and may even be able to do it without lying to anyone, I do not think it would be consistent with my beliefs in my faith.
The Catholicism I learned from Catholic Answers teaches that a faithful Catholic shouldn’t attend a same-sex marriage.
So I think learning about other faiths is wonderful, but I would place some limits on what I do both out of respect for the faith I am exploring AND out of commitment to my faith.
Charity, TOm

 

[Delphinus]

I converted to Catholicism around the same time my brother went to the LDS church. I can say that we put our journeys side-by-side a lot and one thing we BOTH found was his intro to his fold was “you must grow in holiness to have our teaching revealed” whereas Catholicism says “You’re interested? Okay, here’s everything including our dirty laundry! Take it all and make up your own mind!” So, naturally, our ideas about studying other faiths was very different. That said - it makes perfect sense to me that you’d ask this question, certainly not silly at all! Secondly, the answer is no. It is not in the slightest bit disrespectful in any way. Come, see, taste! The richness in Catholicism is for ALL. The ONLY thing we ask non-Catholics to abstain from is receiving the Eucharist, and that’s really just for your own good.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

Excellent comparison and very true.

 

[TOmNossor]

While I admire your interest in exploring our Catholic religion, as a very new Mormon considering going on a mission to convert other people to Mormonism, I think your time would be better spent getting to know your own religion better. What I can tell you with absolute certainty is that the faith formation you have received thus far from the LDS church is far from the complete story, and before you go out on a mission to convert people, which has life-changing and potentially eternal consequences for your investigators, I think it would behoove you to learn a lot more than your typical 19-year old missionary who is quite clueless about the real story of Mormonism and yet is sent to convert other people.

I’ll give you one hint, which is also a difference between Mormonism and Catholicism BTW: As a Catholic I have never been told or taught to avoid reading things that may be considered to be ‘anti-Catholic.’ I can promise you, however, that if you haven’t been told already, you will be told many times as a Mormon not to read anything that could be construed as anti-Mormon. There is a reason for that, one every LDS should take the time to explore.

I am not sure if you are as informed about anti-Catholic truths as you think.
Patrick Madrid on Catholic Answers (or on his radio show I cannot remember) counseled Catholics not to participate in Protestant Bible studies because they are a “super highway out of the Catholic Church.” In fact, before Catholic Answers and the smaller efforts of some earlier apologists, there were a great deal of unanswered questions used by Protestants to extract folks from the Catholic Church and Catholic Answers came into existence to respond.
It has been about a decade since I have heard anyone council against reading anti-Mormon literature and I responded by telling them that while there is no essential value that can only be had through anti-Mormon literature it is not the poison many fear it to be. I rather enjoy it.
I guess in fairness it was about the same time I heard Patrick Madrid council against non-Catholic Bible studies that I heard a fellow LDS last hype the horror of anti-Mormon literature. It would also be fair to say Patrick Madrid’s comment and one other are the only fairly modern comments I am aware of from a Catholic perspective and I have surely encountered more than this in the fairly modern writings of the CoJCoLDS.
If you wish to be fair you should acknowledge that it was just 50 years ago or so that the Catholic Church stopped publishing a list of “forbidden books” and that over the centuries the Catholic Church has destroyed volumes of writings for the purpose of preserving the Catholic faith unblemished by errors and criticism. It is also true that covering up scandalous information is not a metric a Catholic would want to gauge truth on over the last 50 years either.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I submit my “best to best” is what I have offered before this post. I submit this is my departure from “best to best” and if you would like you and others can return to a “best to best” footing or this thread can follow the path you have laid out to which I just responded. It has never been my position that problems in one’s faith tradition and the faith traditions one is exploring should be ignored. I have called LDS problems, “problems” on this board even. But, I sometimes lament that threads often move to a place where you say, “There is a reason for that, one every LDS should take the time to explore.” All the while seemingly unaware of “forbidden books index” from just 50 years ago and ugly coverups during the last few decades.
Anyway, I will await your response. Is there anything wonderful about the CoJCoLDS you would like to share?
Charity, TOm

 

[NeuroTypical]

however, that if you haven’t been told already, you will be told many times as a Mormon not to read anything that could be construed as anti-Mormon.

Huh. I’ve been LDS for 47 years, and I’ve never been told this by any LDS person. I hear it often, but it’s always from some non-mormon telling me that mormons get told to not read critical material.

I used to be a secretary to my Bishop. I told him I was going to attend our local mega-church’s “are Mormons Christian” class. (The class was deceptively named - it was actually a “why Mormons aren’t Christian” class.)
My bishop was interested, and every bishopric meeting he asked me to give a brief summary on what they were teaching. One would think if Chris-Wa1 was correct, he would have given some sort of indication that he’d prefer I not go at all.

 

[huck]

Is there anything wonderful about the CoJCoLDS you would like to share?

I don’t mind saying something nice.
If we were to visit various classrooms in a school, one might have test tubes and we would conclude that it is used to teach chemistry, another would have formulas written down and have a picture of Einstein and we would conclude that it is used to teach physics. If the universe is the school and the earth is the classroom we are presently in, then what was the earth designed to teach us?
My belief is it was designed to force us to interact with others. When I was a member 45 years ago you had family home evening. Assuming you still have it, that would be a wonderful thing about the COJCLDS.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

I have a very hard time believing you on this one. LDS leaders in venues like General Conference often tell the membership to refrain from looking elsewhere for information. What LDS call ‘anti-Mormon’ materials (which is usually defined as anything not written by the church that casts any kind of negative light about the church) are highly discouraged, and when members do try to share information from those materials they are quickly silenced. Go ahead, bring up anything by Grant Palmer about how the Book of Abraham is a fraud at your next Sunday school class or Priesthood meeting and see how that goes.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

The problem with your “best to best” approach is that it is so incomplete, ignoring very important information particularly in the case of Mormonism. There is so much fraud by Joseph Smith that to ignore it in some kind of effort to appear “charitable” is to bury one’s head in the sand. For instance, I’m pretty sure you know that the Book of Abraham is not what the church claims it to be, yet if we only look at “best to best” this topic gets dropped altogether. To compare best to best, for example, between Catholicism and Mormonism, implies that there is some sort of equal legitimacy between the two. There is not. The former is the church started by Jesus Christ. The latter (no pun intended) is the fraudulent creation of a narcissistic false prophet. It is fraudulent from top to bottom, which is revealed by its own history.

Getting to the truth trumps the “best to best” approach. It’s not charitable to ignore the darker side when that darker side reveals very damning truths, as in the case of Mormonism. And yes, I am aware of all the nasty history in the Catholic Church, but the difference is that nastiness does not disprove its truth claims as is the case with Mormonism. The darker (true) history of Mormonism goes to the very core of its truth claims.

 

[TOmNossor]

Hello Chris-Wa1,

It would seem that we will not return to a best-to-best footing as I feared.

I have a very hard time believing you on this one. LDS leaders in venues like General Conference often tell the membership to refrain from looking elsewhere for information.

If this is true, it would seem that you should be able to produce 2-3 examples from the last 2-3 general conferences were LDS were told to “refrain from looking elsewhere for information.”

I am really not sure this is impossible. You might be able to suggest that this or that bit is among the “often,” but I find it unlikely that your examples will be unambiguously this. Still you made a claim I would like to see what you have?

What LDS call ‘anti-Mormon’ materials (which is usually defined as anything not written by the church that casts any kind of negative light about the church) are highly discouraged, and when members do try to share information from those materials they are quickly silenced. Go ahead, bring up anything by Grant Palmer about how the Book of Abraham is a fraud at your next Sunday school class or Priesthood meeting and see how that goes.

I am sure there has never been any “quickly silenced” in any of the three hour blocks I have attended for some 20+ years. That is about 3000 hours of instruction in an LDS chapel. A member of my Sunday school class had been reading Grant Palmer and he did make some comments which we talked about. There were a few folks who were probably stressed, but I explained that his question were just good questions. Nobody was silenced. I have now reread Grant’s book and I find it to be remarkably one-sided while professing to be balanced. That being said, Grant has never suggested the CoJCoLDS should cease and he certainly never expressed any desire to embrace the authoritarian church to which you belong. Many of his proposed changes within the CoJCoLDS would make it less like Catholicism, but you celebrate him all you like. Anti-Mormonism makes strange bedfellows.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

The problem with your “best to best” approach is that it is so incomplete,

Chris and All,

I will be parodying your post shortly. If you do not want to see me say things about Catholicism that I perhaps should not, but that are 100% consistent with message boards like the old Former Catholics for Christ, the CARM board, or their ilk (places I went to defend Catholicism) do not read. I think Catholic Answers Non-Catholic Forum treats the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (CoJCoLDS) the same way.

Now, contrary to what it seems you read from me, I did say that, “It has never been my position that problems in one’s faith tradition and the faith tradition one is exploring should be ignored. I have called LDS problems, “problems” on this board even.”

Have you Chris-Wa1 ever called a Catholic problem a problem on this board? Or are you blindly pro-Catholic or anti-Mormon or anti-something else in ALL your posts?

This thread was started by a LDS who said he wanted to learn something about Catholicism. Based on your response to him, it would seem you find anti-Mormonism to be the most important thing you have to share about Catholicism. This is especially TELLING in that the LDS believes the CoJCoLDS started because God claimed something was missing from all churches on Earth, including the Catholic Church. An area of inquiry invited by this believe is “What was missing?” If Catholicism is obviously God’s church it would seem that not only would the LDS not be able to define “what was missing,” but the Catholic would only have to expound upon the clear divine origin and continuance of Catholicism (a Best argument BTW), but this not what you do. You tell our new LDS poster that the most important thing he can learn is not about Catholicism, but is about the fraudulent nature of his own church. This is IMO TELLING! Matt Slick would be proud. I was lamenting this and numerous similar descents of dialogue.

I see problems in Catholicism and problems in the CoJCoLDS, but I am not a Catholic because I am a LDS. I see truth and beauty in the CoJCoLDS (and in Catholicism for that matter). I hope your reasons for being a Catholic do not boil down to running from the CoJCoLDS.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

There is so much fraud by Joseph Smith that to ignore it in some kind of effort to appear “charitable” is to bury one’s head in the sand. For instance, I’m pretty sure you know that the Book of Abraham is not what the church claims it to be, yet if we only look at “best to best” this topic gets dropped altogether. To compare best to best, for example, between Catholicism and Mormonism, implies that there is some sort of equal legitimacy between the two. There is not. The former is the church started by Jesus Christ. The latter (no pun intended) is the fraudulent creation of a narcissistic false prophet. It is fraudulent from top to bottom, which is revealed by its own history.

Begin channeling spirit of CARM/FCFC
I encourage all to skip this. I doubt it will cause the stress anti-Mormons plan to cause but usually do not cause, however it is not in the spirit of the OP (italics for CF edits to your words):

There is so much fraud in Catholicism (they would use a pejorative term, but I cannot bring myself to do so – and of course Mormonism began as a pejorative term, but it is less so now) that to ignore it in some kind of effort to appear “charitable” is to bury one’s head in the sand. For instance, you might know that the only record of Peterine authority passing to the Bishop of Rome was a fraudulent document produced in the 4th century and even it claims (as did the LOCAL Roman Church for many centuries) that Clement was Peter’s successor not Linus or Cletus. To compare best to best, for example, between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (CoJCoLDS) and Catholicism implies that there is some sort of equal legitimacy between the two. There is not. The former is the church restored by Jesus Christ. The latter is the fraudulent creation of narcissistic men who consolidated power. First they made the mono-episcopacy, then metropolitan bishops, then patriarchs, and finally the POPE. It is fraudulent from top to bottom, which is revealed by its own history. Contrast this to the CoJCoLDS where a young man named Joseph Smith received revelation from God and as soon as he was guided by God he declared that everyone could receive revelation and he celebrated the expansiveness of this divinely delivered truth. Joseph rejoiced as he shared the load of the restoration of the gospel. It is VERY HUMAN to consolidate power like the early Catholic leaders, it is not likely that a pretender would do what Joseph Smith did. (one should add here that God restored His way of leading His church through “Public Revelation” which was denied by all other churches, including the RCC at the time)

 

[TOmNossor]

Getting to the truth trumps the “best to best” approach. It’s not charitable to ignore the darker side when that darker side reveals very damning truths, as in the case of Mormonism. And yes, I am aware of all the nasty history in the Catholic Church, but the difference is that nastiness does not disprove its truth claims as is the case with Mormonism. The darker (true) history of Mormonism goes to the very core of its truth claims.

Continue channeling spirit of CARM/FCFC (italics for CF edits to your words):

Getting to the truth trumps the “best to best” approach. Someone should tell the current Pope that changing Catholicism is not charitable to the divorced and remarried or anyone else who is given covert and overt encouragement to continue in sin. It’s not charitable to ignore the darker side when that darker side reveals very damning truths, as in the case of Catholicsm. And yes, I am aware of all the nasty history in the CoJCoLDS, but the difference is that nastiness does not disprove its truth claims. The darker (true) history of Catholicism goes to the very core of its truth claims. World authority developed and does not derive strictly from Peter or the apostles. Doctrines have changed indicating that there is no singular “deposit of the faith” or assurance of infallible truths. Catholicism has fatal flaws in that it claims to have irreformable truths contained in its Tradition, but it moves and flows with society contradicting the unanimous voice of past ages. This happens to a greater degree after Vatican II and to a radical degree under Pope Francis, but it can be detected in more ancient bobbing and weaving too.

If you are Catholic and you didn’t steer clear of the above know a few things. The “facts” I presented above are true IMO. The adjectives were either copied from the anti-Mormon to whom I was responding or added because that’s what CARM would say (at least I hope some or most of the ugliness would not be my average way of dialoguing). In addition to this, I have read Newman’s Essay on the Development of Doctrine and numerous apologetic and scholarly treatments of the above things. I am not convinced that Catholicism emerges from these treatments looking good AND I believe net-net, the CoJCoLDS makes a better case, but I am a LDS so this is to be expected. That being said there is much more nuance to the above presentation than I offered and I can/should admit this. Finally, if you didn’t like what was presented, I think you know how I feel.

Charity, TOm

 

[Pup7]

Patrick Madrid on Catholic Answers (or on his radio show I cannot remember) counseled Catholics not to participate in Protestant Bible studies because they are a “super highway out of the Catholic Church.”

Protestant Bible Study in a Protestant group teaching Protestant thought doesn’t mean they sit around being all anti-Catholic (said the ex-Protestant).

As a now Catholic I can understand why I shouldn’t go to a Protestant Bible study: they don’t teach the Bible the way we do, and their beliefs are different than ours - not to mention the most obvious difference: the Bible isn’t even the same as mine.

Doesn’t make it an anti-Catholic meeting (and believe me, having grown up with a Catholic dad in a part of the country where Catholics were rare, I’ve heard more than my share of anti-Catholicism).

 

[Chris-Wa1]

As usual Tom, you miss the point and go into a deep dive on some weird tangent. My point with the poster is that he plans on going on a mission soon which means he will be attempting to convert others to a religion he doesn’t really know very well aside from the rosy picture he has probably been given up to this point. I know this to be true because I have encountered enough LDS missionaries to see this trend of general ignorance about these things. So it’s not that I don’t want him to learn about Catholicism–I just don’t want him making the big mistake of getting people baptised into a religion he most likely knows little about. There are many exMos who were missionaries who did just that and regret it. It’s very typical for them to feel deceived and betrayed by the LDS church for not being honest about the story of Mormonism as presented in the missionary discussions, in church classes, talks, etc.

All I can say is the more I have learned about Mormonism over the last 30 years or so, the more bizarre it becomes. ExMo’s call it “going down the rabbit hole.” It all boils down to the fact that Joseph Smith was a fraud, the BoM is not a record of ancient inabitants of America, the BoA is not a record of Abraham, etc. I don’t really care so much anymore about all the peripheral issues.

The problem with the Mormon church lies at the very core of its truth claims.

I’ve heard interviews of many LDS who know much of the problems with the truth claims of the church but choose to stay in anyway for a variety of reasons, but invariably all of them have developed a nuanced belief in order to make it work. From reading your posts over the years I think you fall into this category somewhat. For example, as I’ve said before, you know the BoA is not what JS claimed it is, yet you choose to remain LDS. You know it’s a major problem because the church claims it is both a true record and inspired scripture. Only a nuanced approach to the BoA allows a learned person to somehow mentally work around this.

Yes, I have issues with the Catholic Church in some areas, though I find its truth claims much more tenable than those of Mormonism. I don’t “know” it’s true in the way a Mormon would say they “know” their church is true, and I’m totally fine with that because I believe having faith is far more important than “knowing” in the way a Mormon would describe it. There is little room for doubt in Mormonism. Doubts expressed publicly eventually get you excommunicated. And yes, I know hundreds of years ago the Catholic Church did similar things, and worse, but I’m willing to allow for the general ignorance of the time to account for ignorant decisions. There is no excuse for that today.

 

[NeuroTypical]

LDS leaders in venues like General Conference often tell the membership to refrain from looking elsewhere for information.

I second the call for references. You say it happens often, let’s see a few links.

Just for the record, here’s the thing you are having a very hard time believing:
"I used to be a secretary to my Bishop. I told him I was going to attend our local mega-church’s “are Mormons Christian” class. (The class was deceptively named - it was actually a “why Mormons aren’t Christian” class.)
My bishop was interested, and every bishopric meeting he asked me to give a brief summary on what they were teaching. One would think if Chris-Wa1 was correct, he would have given some sort of indication that he’d prefer I not go at all."

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Patrick Madrid on Catholic Answers (or on his radio show I cannot remember) counseled Catholics not to participate in Protestant Bible studies because they are a “super highway out of the Catholic Church.”

Protestant Bible Study in a Protestant group teaching Protestant thought doesn’t mean they sit around being all anti-Catholic (said the ex-Protestant).

As a now Catholic I can understand why I shouldn’t go to a Protestant Bible study: they don’t teach the Bible the way we do, and their beliefs are different than ours - not to mention the most obvious difference: the Bible isn’t even the same as mine.

Doesn’t make it an anti-Catholic meeting (and believe me, having grown up with a Catholic dad in a part of the country where Catholics were rare, I’ve heard more than my share of anti-Catholicism).

Hello Pup7,

I am not an ex-Protestant, but I have been to some Protestant bible studies. That being said, the words I offered were Patrick Madrid’s words. I was able to find a better recollection, he said that Protestant Bible studies were a “four-lane super highway out of the Catholic Church.” My point in bringing it up is that it is an example from 2007 or so where a prominent Catholic apologist encouraged Catholics to not participate in non-Catholic religious learning because it could lead to the rejection of the Catholic faith.

In the 1970’s as Patrick Madrid became prominent, the anti-works gospel taught in many Protestant Bible studies was jarring to the average Catholic. The average Protestant Bible study and the average Catholic have both moved somewhat in how they view these issues over the last 45 years. In 1990 Catholics and Lutherans published a joint statement on justification. Many folks were surprised by this in 1990, but I doubt it could have happened in 1970 (and certainly couldn’t have happened for many most of the history of Catholic and Lutheran relations post Trent.

As I recall it was not that the Protestant Bible study would be custom designed to extract Catholics from Catholicism (they would probably not have a lesson on one of the dumbest anti-Catholic arguments ever, “Call no man Father”). Instead the focus on an anti-works gospel, the focus on me and my Bible, and probably a few other things like this would rock Catholics who decided that perhaps they should study the Bible more than they had in the past. I think he recommended a good Catholic study bible instead.

Charity, TOm

 

[Chris-Wa1]

Easy. Here is Elder Andersen at his 2015 General Conference talk, Faith is Not by Chance, But by Choice:

For example, questions concerning the Prophet Joseph Smith are not new. They have been hurled by his critics since this work began. To those of faith who, looking through the colored glasses of the 21st century, honestly question events or statements of the Prophet Joseph from nearly 200 years ago, may I share some friendly advice: For now, give Brother Joseph a break! In a future day, you will have 100 times more information than from all of today’s search engines combined, and it will come from our all-knowing Father in Heaven. Consider the totality of Joseph’s life—born in poverty and given little formal education, he translated the Book of Mormon in less than 90 days. Tens of thousands of honest, devoted men and women embraced the cause of the Restoration. At age 38, Joseph sealed his witness with his blood. I testify that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Settle this in your mind, and move forward!

In other words, don’t look elsewhere, sweep it under the rug, move on. Stop looking into the troubling aspects of Joseph. Stop looking at the internet for your information. Nothing to see there. Just focus on the gospel. All your questions will be answered in the afterlife. Never mind that Joseph married at least 39 women, some who were already married to other men and some who were as young as 14. Never mind that he lied to Emma about it. Never mind that he conned people out of their money with his treasure digging. Never mind that he mistranslated Egyptian funeral scrolls into the Book of Abraham. Just drop it.

It’s an attempt to minimize the valid concerns of thousands of struggling LDS who rightly have serious questions about Joseph Smith. According to Andersen you should just forget about it and move on.

 

[NeuroTypical]

Oh wow Chris-Wa1.

What you originally said: “LDS leaders in venues like General Conference often tell the membership to refrain from looking elsewhere for information.”

To support your assertion, you quote: “To those of faith who, looking through the colored glasses of the 21st century, honestly question events or statements of the Prophet Joseph from nearly 200 years ago, may I share some friendly advice: For now, give Brother Joseph a break! In a future day, you will have 100 times more information than from all of today’s search engines combined, and it will come from our all-knowing Father in Heaven. Consider the totality of Joseph’s life—born in poverty and given little formal education, he translated the Book of Mormon in less than 90 days. Tens of thousands of honest, devoted men and women embraced the cause of the Restoration. At age 38, Joseph sealed his witness with his blood. I testify that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Settle this in your mind, and move forward!”

Which you disengenuously summarize as: “don’t look elsewhere, sweep it under the rug, move on. Stop looking into the troubling aspects of Joseph. Stop looking at the internet for your information. Nothing to see there.”

Dude. Seriously?

Well, ok. You asserted, I questioned, you provided what you think is evidence that supports your assertion. I don’t find it the slightest bit persuasive. But there it is - folks will read your opinion, and how you back it up, and make up their own mind.

Just one last time, here’s my real-life, 4+ decade experience with the matter:

Huh. I’ve been LDS for 47 years, and I’ve never been told this by any LDS person. I hear it often, but it’s always from some non-mormon telling me that mormons get told to not read critical material.

I used to be a secretary to my Bishop. I told him I was going to attend our local mega-church’s “are Mormons Christian” class. (The class was deceptively named - it was actually a “why Mormons aren’t Christian” class.)
My bishop was interested, and every bishopric meeting he asked me to give a brief summary on what they were teaching. One would think if Chris-Wa1 was correct, he would have given some sort of indication that he’d prefer I not go at all.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

I’m quite confident that those who can read between the lines know exactly what Elder Andersen was saying. My summarization of his meaning is spot on and is typical within Mormon culture when it comes to how LDS view “anti-Mormon” material. I submit that your particular experience is quite rare. Most LDS will attest to the fact that researching material that is critical of the LDS church is highly discouraged, both within the culture and by the leadership. Most LDS automatically dismiss “anti-Mormon” materials outright precisely because of what they have been taught about it within church circles. They are taught it is of the adversary and will lead them into nothing but trouble. As Elder Ballard said, “Stay on the boat.” This was his reference to members leaving the church over these types of issues, basically saying that if you leave the boat (the LDS Church) you will drown. Elder Uchtdorf said pretty much the same thing in one of his recent talks. Internet bad, church good.

These are more recent examples. I’m sure there are plenty more in years past. I’m sure there are ex-LDS here on the forum that can attest to the same thing. Just because you haven’t personally experienced it doesn’t mean it’s not true. Perhaps you haven’t been listening close enough.