Posted on 10/13/2009 9:30:14 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
If you had written that some Mormons shun those who leave the Church, I would agree with you.
Of course there are Mormons who do all sorts of things that they are not supposed to do. That some Mormons persist in committing sin does not mean that other Mormons approve of sin.
The "legalistic definition" of shunning that I posted refers to a specific institutional practice of some groups (most notably the Amish). I interpreted the original question on the subject to refer to that practice, which has no LDS counterpart. I stand by the definition and my comments.
This, in fact, goes perfectly with the mindset of mormons who believe that their "right" to proselytize worldwide is sacrosanct, while in the same breath they rail at those who rebut their message.
If you encounter Mormons possessing such a mindset, feel free to call them on their inconsistencies. I am not one of them, nor do I approve of their bad behavior.
You forget that there are several former mormons on this site who have experience in exactly how much is "practiced without official sanction" among the membership.
I have not forgotten. Some of those former Mormons are well informed and inclined to be fair in their assessment of the LDS Church. I respect their opinions even if I disagree with them. Whatever our differences, I hope that God blesses all of us.
Look, the LDS Church contains all types. Most of the Mormons I know are decent but imperfect people who are trying to live in a covenant relationship with God. Often I shake my head at the things that are said and done in the Church (by the members and the leaders). Nevertheless, I remain a member because I believe God wants me to remain a member.
Covert sanction is quite different from overt and public sanction.
Indeed. It is easy to allege that "covert sanction" occurs but impossible to prove that it doesn't. Therefore, it is a perfect weapon for defamation.
I guess that means they are "disagreeable"?
Again, I refer you to post #23...what I actually wrote was "Not an "official" practice by LDS, but shunning "apostates" is common."
"Not an "official" practice by LDS, but shunning "apostates" is common."
Why? That's simple: Men and women are weak, inconsistent, and prone to commit sin. That does not change when they are called to leadership positions in the Church.
It might be small consolation, but the kinds of problems you describe are more often due to incompetence than to malice.
(Don't get me started about Scouting in the Church.)
Is there any concrete proof it's sanctioned? Probably not. You'll probably only find experiences like ours to refer to. Anecdotal I suppose. But I do find the behavior of the ward/stake leadership questionable in regards to the treatment of the members.
If the situation is as bad as you describe, then it is more than questionable: it is sinful, and the leaders have great need of repentance.
You wife might consider doing what my mother did when one of her leaders offended her. She wrote him a letter detailing her complaint and requesting a meeting with him. The meeting was held, and they resolved the issue.
They certainly can be.
More often, they are naive, ill-informed, or foolish. Since I have at various times in my life been all that and worse, I try to make allowances.
Alas, other posts were unclear that you were referring to some Mormons, not the Church in general. I am glad we have cleared up the ambiguity.
But why the scare quotes ("official")? Such quotes indicate that the word is not to be taken in its literal or conventional meaning.
Well, is shunning an official LDS practice or not? If not, do the leaders of the Church nevertheless approve of the practice unofficially? Or do members engage in the practice against the counsel of their leaders?
And how common is common? Are Mormons more likely than others to avoid persons who disagree with them? Are we more inclined to be rude, inconsiderate, or insensitive than other religious groups?
YEP, Such quotes indicate that the word is not to be taken in its literal or conventional meaning. Because we on FR are continually challenged as you have done, that unless a statement is "Official", from "LDS-approved sources" it is to be disregarded.
From your post #45 on this thread, "What can I say about anonymous anecdotes describing incidents I did not witness, involving persons I do not know? I would prefer to hear the other side(s) of the story before commenting."...If it ain't official it's to be disregarded..in your own words.
Well, is shunning an official LDS practice or not? If not, do the leaders of the Church nevertheless approve of the practice unofficially? Or do members engage in the practice against the counsel of their leaders?
And how common is common? Are Mormons more likely than others to avoid persons who disagree with them? Are we more inclined to be rude, inconsiderate, or insensitive than other religious groups?
You are still trying to deny that mormons shun. Nitpick all you like, rail against "unofficial" sources, twist my words all you like, and reframe your arguments endlessly, unless you are willing to go to This site and enter "shun" in the search function, (Lurkers, take a look) and then accept these stories as valid, I'm through with this particular conversation.
If you think this debate between us has convinced ANYONE that shunning does not take place in mormonism, rest on your laurels.
You can deny all you want, but the act of leaving mormonism is seen by members as a reason to shun the “apostate”.
___________________________________________
Mormons used to murder anyone who left...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.