Mormons Disowning Family? Is This Common?

[toon]

Mormons aren't immune from dysfunctional families.  That she's now living with her biological mom that she had apparently never met is a clue that something is up.

 

I've never heard that this is a common thing.

[toon]

At least according to the Gay activists. Of the few (small sample size, I know) LDS teens I know who decided they were gay and told their families, none were disowned or turned out on the streets, though I can't say that their faithful parents were delighted. 

If I may be so bold as to postulate, perhaps their families unwillingness to approve hook, line, and sinker of their lifestyle was interpreted by the son or daughter as the moral equivalent of rendering them homeless when they couldn't hack the home that was still offered, but perhaps with the caveat that their new companions were not welcome to spend the night. Such oppression.

 

My small sample size seems to support this.  I know quite a few LDS families where one of their kids has come out gay, and in every circumstance, the parents have been very loving and supportive.  In fact, in the majority of those circumstances, the parents have come to adopt a much more "liberal" view on gay issues than the Mormon stereotype.

[ERayR]

My experience is, when a Mormon youth rebels, they REBEL. My daughter had such a friend in high school, and I advised her to be her friend, but not join in her rebellion. That girl did everything exactly opposite as Mormonism would teach her, just to show she didn't have to listen. Her parents fed the rebellion beast by reacting very badly, and making a big deal about the smallest of the smallest infractions.

 

This is the same circumstance of my young family member. I think she was trying out everything possible that she had ever been taught was wrong, just because she could, and my family reacted very dramatically. Drama for drama, in a never-ending circle.

 

I think you are painting with a very broad brush.  Mormon families are not much different than families of any other Christian, and perhaps non-christian, denomination.  In the instance given the family had younger children that were being affected badly.  A rebellious child of 18 to 20's in the home lashing out at all things Mormon would leave few choices of action.

[ERayR]

"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

 

Could this temple question support shunning? 

 

No.  It is a question about personal behavior and state of mind.  You do grasp at straws.

[saemo]

I think you are painting with a very broad brush.  Mormon families are not much different than families of any other Christian, and perhaps non-christian, denomination.  In the instance given the family had younger children that were being affected badly.  A rebellious child of 18 to 20's in the home lashing out at all things Mormon would leave few choices of action.

I don't agree. While my dad was bishop, one of my older siblings was drinking Coca Cola and tattooing a cross on his arm! LOL. Drinking cola in our house was considered as bad a drinking alcohol. His behavior didn't affect me. I also had older siblings who were, and still are, militant Mormons (all things according to the rules, please, no exceptions ever). I think the militant Mormonism affected me more negatively than the cola drinking sibling. 

 

But no, I don't believe all Mormon families are the same and never said that I did.

[ERayR]

I don't agree. While my dad was bishop, one of my older siblings was drinking Coca Cola and tattooing a cross on his arm! LOL. Drinking cola in our house was considered as bad a drinking alcohol. His behavior didn't affect me. I also had older siblings who were, and still are, militant Mormons (all things according to the rules, please, no exceptions ever). I think the militant Mormonism affected me more negatively than the cola drinking sibling. 

 

But no, I don't believe all Mormon families are the same and never said that I did.

 

I have a problem with what you call "militant Mormons" myself.  To me it is the way lazy Mormons cope.  Not that I do so well myself but I always tried to teach my children to find the answers themselves and did have some small success in that approach.  It does take some amount of guiding and steering though.

[california boy]

Such as "Go thy way and sin no more?"

Regards,

Pahoran

 

I would love to have a little further explaination on how studying the life  of Christ week after week after week that you came to the conclusion that only those who are sinless should be invited to Thanksgiving dinner.  I have read enough of your post to certainly understand why you feel you are qualified to sit at that table, but where do you find all these other sinless people to dine with you?  Or do you dine alone?

[Kenngo1969]

"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

 

Could this temple question support shunning? 

No.  

[Pahoran]

I would love to have a little further explaination on how studying the life  of Christ week after week after week that you came to the conclusion that only those who are sinless should be invited to Thanksgiving dinner.  I have read enough of your post to certainly understand why you feel you are qualified to sit at that table, but where do you find all these other sinless people to dine with you?  Or do you dine alone?

Your mind-reading is faulty, Cal. I have made no predictions about my own eternal destiny; nor, indeed, about anyone else's.

My point is a simple one: Jesus told us to love one another; he never said we were to accept, enable or encourage sin. Whenever he encountered sinful people, he called them to repentance.

People seem to have an imaginary Jesus in mind: some kind of 1st Century hippie with flowers in his hair who could relate to the idea of "Man, you do your own thing."

But the real Jesus was quite different from the imaginary one.

You said that your study of the life of Jesus led you to expect a certain kind of behaviour. The call to repentance was central to his ministry. I merely reminded you of that fact.

Jesus invites all of us to "Come unto me." But the invitation isn't "Come as you are." There are conditions attached, and we don't get to negotiate them away.

We either accept his invitation on his terms, or we reject it outright. There's ultimately no middle ground.

The idea that "only those who are sinless should be invited to Thanksgiving dinner" is no conclusion of mine. If that were the case, Jesus himself would be dining alone. But I rather think that the invitation to repent is a key part of the invitation to the dinner.

In fact, Jesus told a parable about a wedding feast to which some showed up improperly prepared. Perhaps you may remember how that turned out.

It wasn't exactly compatible with the picture of a Jesus who would never "reject" anyone for any reason, was it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[saemo]

I have a problem with what you call "militant Mormons" myself.  To me it is the way lazy Mormons cope.  Not that I do so well myself but I always tried to teach my children to find the answers themselves and did have some small success in that approach.  It does take some amount of guiding and steering though.

They seem to believe that faith and obedience is commanded of them.

I don't have any idea how a Mormon copes, otherwise. Seems to me, you start asking questions, it is the path to no longer being Mormon, and "guiding and steering" is a synonym for "manipulating".

Maybe that is just my experience.

[ERayR]

They seem to believe that faith and obedience is commanded of them.

I don't have any idea how a Mormon copes, otherwise. Seems to me, you start asking questions, it is the path to no longer being Mormon, and "guiding and steering" is a synonym for "manipulating".

Maybe that is just my experience.

 

Not if you listen to the promptings of the Holy Ghost.  This is my experience and the experience of, I don't know how many, numerous, others of my acquaintance.

[thesometimesaint]

"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

 

Could this temple question support shunning? 

No.

 

No.

[frank_jessop]

So we had a sister missionary go home early and earlier and her family disowned her apparently and now she has to live with her biological Mum whom she has never met. It is so beyond nutty to me to hear about this happening. I have never heard of anyone in the Church disowning family before, I know families that are estranged and stuff but is this common elsewhere? how can this happen? I am wondering too if the parents of this sister qualify for a recommend even?

Love and Law

Elder Oaks

"To pose an even more serious question, if an adult child is living in cohabitation, does the seriousness of sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage require that this child feel the full weight of family disapproval by being excluded from any family contacts, or does parental love require that the fact of cohabitation be ignored?

I have seen both of these extremes, and I believe that both are inappropriate."

[california boy]

Your mind-reading is faulty, Cal. I have made no predictions about my own eternal destiny; nor, indeed, about anyone else's.

My point is a simple one: Jesus told us to love one another; he never said we were to accept, enable or encourage sin. Whenever he encountered sinful people, he called them to repentance.

People seem to have an imaginary Jesus in mind: some kind of 1st Century hippie with flowers in his hair who could relate to the idea of "Man, you do your own thing."

But the real Jesus was quite different from the imaginary one.

You said that your study of the life of Jesus led you to expect a certain kind of behaviour. The call to repentance was central to his ministry. I merely reminded you of that fact.

Jesus invites all of us to "Come unto me." But the invitation isn't "Come as you are." There are conditions attached, and we don't get to negotiate them away.

We either accept his invitation on his terms, or we reject it outright. There's ultimately no middle ground.

The idea that "only those who are sinless should be invited to Thanksgiving dinner" is no conclusion of mine. If that were the case, Jesus himself would be dining alone. But I rather think that the invitation to repent is a key part of the invitation to the dinner.

In fact, Jesus told a parable about a wedding feast to which some showed up improperly prepared. Perhaps you may remember how that turned out.

It wasn't exactly compatible with the picture of a Jesus who would never "reject" anyone for any reason, was it?

Regards,

Pahoran

This thread is about shunning family members.  Deciding whether someone is worthy to sit at the Thanksgiving dinner.  I never said anything about accepting bad behavior in another person.  But neither did Christ ever in my study of Christ's life refuse to sit or invite someone to dinner based on whether they were without sin or whether they were even repenting.  Was Christ accepting, enabling or encouraging sin when He sat with sinners at the table?  NO.  Christ didn't say to the adulteriest, sorry I would help you from being stoned, but, it looks like you are not interested in repntance.  Let the stones fly.  

 

And while repentance is a part of the gospel, deciding whether someone has repented or is even working on repentance  is also not a criteria Christ used in who he associated with.  Not everyone that Christ associated with were on the fast track to the Celestial Kingdom.  

 

The point is, to justify the life of Christ as a reason to shun a family member or anyone else by saying the person has to be working towards the Celestial Kingdom is a false doctrine and a false inturpetation of Christ and how he lived his life.  How somone could justify shunning a family member after years of studying the life of Christ is still beyond me.  You may have come to that conclusion of who Christ was and how he lived his life.  But framkly I don't see that from the scriptures.  

 

You are wrong.  Christ CERTAINLY did teach "Come as you are".   The gospel is for all of us, no matter how weak or where we are in our relation to Him.  It is for every sinner.  Having Thanksgiving dinner does not require a recommend for baptism, or for the temple.  Attending church does not require a recommend either.  You don't have to be baptised to attend church.  EVERYONE is invited.  None are excluded based on their state of sin or even if they are working on repentance.  Christ's love does not have conditions.  It is unconditional love.  This BS statement, love the sinner hate the sin never appears in the bible.  Christ never said that.  A more accurate statement would be "Love the sinner and worry about your own sins."  Now that is definitely taught by Christ.  (Hint mote and beam)   Christ could not be more clear that as you judge, so will you be judged. 

 

Any member of the church who used the life of Christ to justify shunning family members, does not know Christ.  They are following their own self righteous agenda. Calling people to repentance?  Yes. Encouraging others to follow the gospel?  Yes.  Meeting certain requirements for the Celestial Kingdom?  Yes.  Deciding whether someone is worthy enough to attend Thanksgiving dinner?  NO.  Sorry that is not the Christ that is portrayed in the scriptures.  

Edited May 4, 2014 by california boy

[Pahoran]

They seem to believe that faith and obedience is commanded of them.

And are Catholics never asked to have faith or obey anything at all?

Who knew?

I don't have any idea how a Mormon copes, otherwise. Seems to me, you start asking questions, it is the path to no longer being Mormon, and "guiding and steering" is a synonym for "manipulating".

Maybe that is just my experience.

So it is your view that parents should never try to influence their childrens' decisions?

All I can say to that is, "Oh."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

This thread is about shunning family members.

Oh, so I'm supposed to accept a discredited anti-Mormon polemic as a starting point?

Sorry. That doesn't happen.

Deciding whether someone is worthy to sit at the Thanksgiving dinner.  I never said anything about accepting bad behavior in another person.  But neither did Christ ever in my study of Christ's life refuse to sit or invite someone to dinner based on whether they were without sin or whether they were even repenting.  Was Christ accepting, enabling or encouraging sin when He sat with sinners at the table?  NO.  Christ didn't say to the adulteriestrepentance, sorry I would help you from being stoned, but, it looks like you are not interested in repntance.  Let the stones fly.

No, he didn't say anything like that. And to pretend that he did would be as dishonest a caricature of what Jesus did as it is of LDS life and teaching.

And while repentance is a part of the gospel, deciding whether someone has repented or is even working on repentance  is also not a criteria Christ used in who he associated with.  Not everyone that Christ associated with were on the fast track to the Celestial Kingdom.  

 

The point is, to justify the life of Christ as a reason to shun a family member or anyone else by saying the person has to be working towards the Celestial Kingdom is a false doctrine and a false inturpetation of Christ and how he lived his life.  How somone could justify shunning a family member after years of studying the life of Christ is still beyond me.  You may have come to that conclusion of who Christ was and how he lived his life.  But framkly I don't see that from the scriptures.

In case you didn't get it before, let me spell it out to you: I'm not trying to "justify shunning a family member" at all. I flatly deny that it is an LDS teaching, and reject it as a Mormon practice.

Family dynamics are always complex. To reduce them to simplistic group stereotypes is silly and useless at best; at worst, it is manipulative and dishonest.

Once upon an "ex-Mormon" forum, I observed a couple of apostates discussing whether, when invited to family events hosted by their Mormon relatives, they should be polite to their hosts, or disrupt proceedings instead, by such gratuitous gestures as lighting up and talking loudly while prayers are being said. They seemed to agree that their "integrity" required them to be disruptive -- and that their Mormon relatives should simply roll over.

The fact is that, if any of my long-term-inactive family members were to be that rude at a family event I was hosting, it might be a while before they were invited again.

But anyone who would call that "Mormon shunning" would be a brazen, shameless and outright liar. It would simply be the case that someone had made themselves obnoxious to the point where they have made the game no longer worth the candle.

And that is entirely upon them.

 

You are wrong.  Christ CERTAINLY did teach "Come as you are".   The gospel is for all of us, no matter how weak or where we are in our relation to Him.  It is for every sinner.  Having Thanksgiving dinner does not require a recommend for baptism, or for the temple.  Attending church does not require a recommend either.  You don't have to be baptised to attend church.  EVERYONE is invited.  None are excluded based on their state of sin.

You are talking past me again, and it's starting to look like you're not trying very hard not to.

The invitation is extended to all, but it has conditions:

"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden; and I will give you rest.

Take my yoke upon you and learn of me...."

That's what Jesus himself said.

Christ's love does not have conditions.  It is unconditional love.  This BS statement, love the sinner hate the sin never appears in the bible.

Funnily enough, neither does "unconditional love."

Christ never said that.  A more accurate statement would be "Love the sinner and worry about your own sins."  Now that is definitely taught by Christ.  (Hint mote and beam)  Any member of the church who used the life of Christ to justify shunning family members, does not know Christ.  They are following their own self righteous agenda.  Christ could not be more clear that as you judge, so will you be judged. Calling people to repentance?  Yes. Encouraging others to follow the gospel?  Yes.  Meeting certain requirements for the Celestial Kingdom? (the wedding feast).  Yes.  Deciding whether someone is worthy enough to attend Thanksgiving dinner?  NO.  Sorry that is not the Christ that is portrayed in the scriptures.

And I have not the slightest reason to believe that the Church encourages such a thing. Or even that it ever happens.

Actually I don't think you and I really have all that different views on the subject of "shunning." I would certainly not condone shunning my "gay" nephew, who is always polite and respectful in my home. Frankly I think that "Deciding whether someone is worthy enough to attend Thanksgiving dinner" is a silly caricature at best. The most that ever really happens is deciding whether we should invite cousin Frank this time, given that he smuggled marijuana in and tried to give it to our eleven-year old son last time.

Regards,

Pahoran

[frank_jessop]

I'm not trying to "justify shunning a family member" at all. I ... reject it as a Mormon practice...

Or even that it ever happens.

Regards,

Pahoran

Perhaps the words of Elder Oaks will help you to correct your error. Elder Oaks certainly states it is a practice he has seen amongst Mormons.

"To pose an even more serious question, if an adult child is living in cohabitation, does the seriousness of sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage require that this child feel the full weight of family disapproval by being excluded from any family contacts, or does parental love require that the fact of cohabitation be ignored?

I have seen both of these extremes, and I believe that both are inappropriate."

Edited May 4, 2014 by frank_jessop

[california boy]

Oh, so I'm supposed to accept a discredited anti-Mormon polemic as a starting point?

Sorry. That doesn't happen.

 

Just so we are not "talking past each other"  Who are you calling a discredited anti-Mormon polemic?  And can you explain how name calling is part of your views of Christ and His teachings?

 

 

 

The fact is that, if any of my long-term-inactive family members were to be that rude at a family event I was hosting, it might be a while before they were invited again.

But anyone who would call that "Mormon shunning" would be a brazen, shameless and outright liar. It would simply be the case that someone had made themselves obnoxious to the point where they have made the game no longer worth the candle.

 

I don't think anyone here is equating not inviting someone back into your home because of rude behavior with shunning. 

 

 

 

 

Funnily enough, neither does "unconditional love."

 

 

Does that mean you don't believe in the concept of unconditional love coming from Christ? Maybe you could explain what is taught in 1 Corinthians 13.

 

And I have not the slightest reason to believe that the Church encourages such a thing. Or even that it ever happens.

 

 

Well it does happen unfortunately.  I have talked to enough gay ex-Mormons to know that. And it is certainly not a practice that the church supports. I have also seen the opposite happen.  Mormon families that have extended hands of felllowship to children who were gay or dealing with other difficult issues.

[Storm Rider]

I don't see Mormons as being inhuman or perfect. We have some that drink, do drugs, rob banks, commit adultery, and...you think of the sin and a Mormon has done it. However, the fact that Mormons are human and sinners does not equate to judging a whole people by those who fail at being disciples of Christ. The only take-away is that Mormons remain human and some fall prey to same errors that people of other faiths do.

 

I resent the title of this thread because it already assumes, to a degree, that it is common among LDS.  Is shunning more common among Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Baptists, Hindus, or any other group?  I haven't a clue because I don't think any of these groups have a bigger propensity than others to shunning.  You will find it in each of them depending upon the individuals involved.

 

I wish bad things did not happen in the world, but they do happen and humans are the root problem of each of them.  Before we begin to judge others we need to take a look in the mirror and remember all that we have done first before we start generalizing the faults of others. 

[Bikeemikey]

Perhaps the words of Elder Oaks will help you to correct your error. Elder Oaks certainly states it is a practice he has seen amongst Mormons.

"To pose an even more serious question, if an adult child is living in cohabitation, does the seriousness of sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage require that this child feel the full weight of family disapproval by being excluded from any family contacts, or does parental love require that the fact of cohabitation be ignored?

I have seen both of these extremes, and I believe that both are inappropriate."

Any chance Oaks gave an example of an appropriate response. If so, could you share it.

[Calm]

Perhaps the words of Elder Oaks will help you to correct your error. Elder Oaks certainly states it is a practice he has seen amongst Mormons.

"To pose an even more serious question, if an adult child is living in cohabitation, does the seriousness of sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage require that this child feel the full weight of family disapproval by being excluded from any family contacts, or does parental love require that the fact of cohabitation be ignored?I have seen both of these extremes, and I believe that both are inappropriate."

Does seeing something amongst Mormons make it specifically a Mormon practice?

I have seen Mormons ride bikes alot. Does that make bike riding a Mormon practice or just something some Mormons do?

If you are replying solely to the comment "that it ever happens"...I suspect Pahoran was talking about specifically as a "Mormon practice" as opposed to what some families who might be Mormon do, but he can clarify if I have read him wrong.

Edited May 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[frank_jessop]

removed

Edited May 4, 2014 by frank_jessop

[frank_jessop]

Does seeing something amongst Mormons make it specifically a Mormon practice?

I have seen Mormons ride bikes alot. Does that make bike riding a Mormon practice or just something some Mormons do?

If you are replying solely to the comment "that it ever happens"...I suspect Pahoran was talking about specifically as a "Mormon practice" as opposed to what some families who might be Mormon do, but he can clarify if I have read him wrong.

I suspect that in using himself as an example of it not happening (especially after he argued a strawman) that he intended make the claim that no Mormon family would "shun" or anything like unto it. His writings show his frequent use of a Latter-day Saint version of a fallacious argument. Edited May 4, 2014 by frank_jessop

[frank_jessop]

Any chance Oaks gave an example of an appropriate response. If so, could you share it.

I do not believe he did. He made known two extremes that he deemed inappropriate. The General Conference talk is titled "Love and Law".

[changed]

We have someone in our church who left, and they have distanced themselves from us over it... the general pattern is they ask "why do you believe xyz" questions, or accuse us of not knowing something etc.... we answer them that yes, we did know that about the church, or explain why we believe what we do, then they get offended by our answer....  they want to live in their own imagined world that we are ignorant/deceived/evil/dishonest rather than seeing the alternative - that we are not ignorant (we all have more education and experience than they do - they are unemployed, never went to college etc.), we are not evil (we donate more to charity, do more volunteer work, etc. etc. than they do), we are not dishonest (show them info from peer reviewed studies etc. etc. that they will not believe), we are not brainwashed or deceived (we believe what we do from personal experience, not from  mindlessly following a leader) ... so they repeatedly look past who we really are, accuse us of being uncharitable/unloving/unscientific etc. etc., then go off in their little self-isolated corner (live in a house paid for by LDS church members, borrow money etc. etc.) all the time saying how evil we are and how unfair the world is   It comes down to a matter of repentance, if you cannot see anything bad about yourself, if you think all of your problems are because of someone else, then you will turn everyone else into monsters.