Mormons Disowning Family? Is This Common?

[Bikeemikey]

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

Classic - prophets who tell us what "not" to do. How very partially helpful

[Bikeemikey]

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.

I have recently gone through a similar experience with some friends of mine.

[Porter_Rockwell]

Back to the original post...

The Church has, does,and can excommunicate apostates. If shunning and banishing are part of the cultural from the top down, what makes the premise of the original post at all hard to believe?

With routine, people tell stories of how their secular families 'disown' them when they join the LDS Church. What makes someone so pius to think that the opposite can't be true? Particularly if it's modelled from the top-down.

Talking about all the people who can 'see' doesn't mean there isn't blindness in the world. Talking about members who leave and are tolerated doesn't address the tough questions in the original post.

Park Romney wrote a book about it (the Apostacy of a High Priest).

[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."

And where exactly does he identify it as a Mormon practice?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

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?

Sheesh.

A "discredited anti-Mormon polemic" is not a who, it's a what.

Namely an argument or a claim.

Care to try again?

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

Not openly, no. 

But I rather suspect that if we were able to see both sides of the story, we would find that most if not all of those who claim to have been "shunned" by their Mormon family members actually made their own ample contribution to the rupture.

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.

What I think is that charity, like mercy, cannot be "strained," i.e. compelled. Or demanded.

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.

And if those children or others chose to bite the hand of fellowship extended to them, how do you suppose the biters would describe the interaction?

Most likely by casting themselves as the victims.

IOW, they may say something a lot like "My Mormon family shunned me!!!"

Hoping that they will find an audience gullible enough to believe them.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I suspect that in using himself as an example of it not happening (especially after he argued a strawman)

What 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.

Which fallacious argument?

Regards,

Pahoran

[thesometimesaint]

Back to the original post...

The Church has, does,and can excommunicate apostates. If shunning and banishing are part of the cultural from the top down, what makes the premise of the original post at all hard to believe?

With routine, people tell stories of how their secular families 'disown' them when they join the LDS Church. What makes someone so pius to think that the opposite can't be true? Particularly if it's modelled from the top-down.

Talking about all the people who can 'see' doesn't mean there isn't blindness in the world. Talking about members who leave and are tolerated doesn't address the tough questions in the original post.

Park Romney wrote a book about it (the Apostacy of a High Priest).

 

Yes we do. Shunning is not part of our church culture and is sharply discouraged.

 

Sure it does happen. However it is not common, and goes against stated doctrine. We very much believe in the story of the prodigal son. 

 

Those that leave are welcome back, at any time of their choosing. Deep repentance may be required, but the door is always open.

[Pahoran]

Back to the original post...

The Church has, does,and can excommunicate apostates. If shunning and banishing are part of the cultural from the top down, what makes the premise of the original post at all hard to believe?

For Frank Jessop: this is an example of an actual fallacious argument. The fallacy in view is known as the fallacy of circular argument, in which the arguer assumes his conclusions and argues from them as if they were already accepted.

Porter, this is an argument you would do better with in a forum where people either don't know the truth, or don't care. In this forum, there are altogether too many people who know that excommunication is neither "shunning" nor "banishing" for you to make that false equivalence work.

 

With routine, people tell stories of how their secular families 'disown' them when they join the LDS Church. What makes someone so pius to think that the opposite can't be true? Particularly if it's modelled from the top-down.

And what evidence do you have that it is "modelled from the top-down?"

 

Talking about all the people who can 'see' doesn't mean there isn't blindness in the world. Talking about members who leave and are tolerated doesn't address the tough questions in the original post.

Since the only people who really know the whole story about what went on in the family described in the OP are the members of that family, and since they aren't posting here, there are no "tough questions" found therein.

Park Romney wrote a book about it (the Apostacy of a High Priest).

There is no better established fact that books slamming the Church, written for non-Mormon audiences, can get away with a great deal.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited May 4, 2014 by Pahoran

[frank_jessop]

Pahoran not worth it; go ask a "Scotsman".

[frank_jessop]

"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?

I do not think this is a question you are in a proper state to have answered. Opinions related to the Gospel and personal lives.

"Could" a member, exercising zealousness and improper judgment, exclude himself/herself from others based on that question and how the member views the conduct of others? The answer is "You betcha!"

How many different opinions do you think there are on what the word "support" means or "affiliate with" means?

[Pahoran]

Pahoran not worth it; go ask a "Scotsman".

Mister Jessop,

If you're not prepared to back up your assertions, don't make them.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I do not think this is a question you are in a proper state to have answered. Opinions related to the Gospel and personal lives.

"Could" a member, exercising zealousness and improper judgment, exclude himself/herself from others based on that question and how the member views the conduct of others? The answer is "You betcha!"

How many different opinions do you think there are on what the word "support" means or "affiliate with" means?

Let us stipulate that such a misinterpretation "could" take place (if someone resolutely ignores the very pervasive, persistent and public teachings to the contrary.)

However, there is no argument to be made from what "could" happen.

There are only two questions that are actually relevant here:

• What does the Church actually teach? and
• What evidence is there that any sort of "shunning" actually happens?

The answer to the first is not in doubt. The teachings of the Church absolutely preclude any form of "shunning."

The answer to the second is somewhat more controversial. There are those who claim that they have been "shunned," and tell harrowing stories that impress the gullible, and have utility for the nefarious.

However, in every single case where anyone has bothered to ask the hard questions and check out the story, it has collapsed.

Sometimes rather spectacularly, as in the case of Martha Beck.

Regards,

Pahoran

[frank_jessop]

Mister Jessop,

If you're not prepared to back up your assertions, don't make them.

Regards,

Pahoran

I did back up my assertions. And as I knew, it would not be worth it. As I stated, go ask a "Scotsman" but you should make sure it is "real" one. Your substitution of Latter-Day for the Scotsman is well documented.

[frank_jessop]

Let us stipulate that such a misinterpretation "could" take place (if someone resolutely ignores the very pervasive, persistent and public teachings to the contrary.)

However, there is no argument to be made from what "could" happen.

There are only two questions that are actually relevant here:

• What does the Church actually teach? and
• What evidence is there that any sort of "shunning" actually happens?

The answer to the first is not in doubt. The teachings of the Church absolutely preclude any form of "shunning."

The answer to the second is somewhat more controversial. There are those who claim that they have been "shunned," and tell harrowing stories that impress the gullible, and have utility for the nefarious.

However, in every single case where anyone has bothered to ask the hard questions and check out the story, it has collapsed.

Sometimes rather spectacularly, as in the case of Martha Beck.

Regards,

Pahoran

Are you saying Elder Oaks is gullible? Elder Oaks stated he has seen what we can reasonably describe as shunning. I'll take Elder Oaks and his willingness to admit too and address poor behavior by Saints over your denials, blame shifting, and intelligence insulting name calling.

[Pahoran]

I did back up my assertions.

Really?

Where?

And as I knew, it would not be worth it. As I stated, go ask a "Scotsman" but you should make sure it is "real" one. Your substitution of Latter-Day for the Scotsman is well documented.

Where and by whom?

Please note that mere repeated assertion does not constitute documentation.

Feel free to point to an actual instance of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy in this thread.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Are you saying Elder Oaks is gullible? Elder Oaks stated he has seen what we can reasonably describe as shunning. I'll take Elder Oaks and his willingness to admit too and address poor behavior by Saints over your denials, blame shifting, and intelligence insulting name calling.

Let's look at what Elder Oaks actually said:

If parents have a wayward child—such as a teenager indulging in alcohol or drugs—they face a serious question. Does parental love require that these substances or their consumption be allowed in the home, or do the requirements of civil law or the seriousness of the conduct or the interests of other children in the home require that this be forbidden?

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.

Two things:

1) Where does Elder Oaks say he saw this exclusion being done "by Saints?" Actually he doesn't; it is merely your prejudice-driven wishful thinking that leaps to that conclusion for you.

2) Note that he describes such an action as "extreme." Extremes, by their very definition, are not norms.

I've noticed lately that it's a popular indoor sport among anti-Mormons, apostates, fringe Mormons and "NOMs" (or more accurately MINO's) to take some out-of-context statement by a GA and twist it in order to slap down some uppity apologist. So you're merely running true to form.

Regards,

Pahoran

[frank_jessop]

Let's look at what Elder Oaks actually said:

Two things:

1) Where does Elder Oaks say he saw this exclusion being done "by Saints?" Actually he doesn't; it is merely your prejudice-driven wishful thinking that leaps to that conclusion for you.

2) Note that he describes such an action as "extreme." Extremes, by their very definition, are not norms.

I've noticed lately that it's a popular indoor sport among anti-Mormons, apostates, fringe Mormons and "NOMs" (or more accurately MINO's) to take some out-of-context statement by a GA and twist it in order to slap down some uppity apologist. So you're merely running true to form.

Regards,

Pahoran

Ah...and now you move to begin your personal attacks...so you're merely running true to form.

It can only be my prejudice that interprets an Apostle speaking to Saints during Conference and speaking of "seriousness of sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage"; as an Apostle speaking of and too Latter-day Saints.

Please note that mere repeated assertion does not constitute documentation.

Regards,

Pahoran

Your use of the "No True Scotsman" with your Latter-day Saint substitution is well documented on internet boards and a Maxwell Publication; the fallacy seems a favorite of yours.

Feel free to point to an actual instance of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy in this thread.

Regards,

Pahoran

And you argue a strawman again. Feel free to point where I claimed in this thread you made actual instance of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy in this thread. In this thread I noted your propensity to use the fallacy, and knowing your use of the fallacy, I made a comment based on your use of the fallacy.

[Pahoran]

Ah...and now you move to begin your personal attacks...so you're merely running true to form.

What "personal attacks?" Your tactic is what it is.

 

It can only be my prejudice that interprets an Apostle speaking to Saints during Conference and speaking of "seriousness of sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage"; as an Apostle speaking of and too Latter-day Saints.

Ridicule all you want. The fact remains that the statement you cited does not mention where or among whom Elder Oaks had seen the behaviour described.

 

Your use of the "No True Scotsman" with your Latter-day Saint substitution is well documented on internet boards and a Maxwell Publication; the fallacy seems a favorite of yours.

And you argue a strawman again. Feel free to point where I claimed in this thread you made actual instance of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy in this thread. In this thread I noted your propensity to use the fallacy, and knowing your use of the fallacy, I made a comment based on your use of the fallacy.

Thank you for admitting that your havering about the "No True Scotsman" fallacy was irrelevant to the discussion in this thread, but was merely an attempt at an ad hominem argument.

So who really relies upon fallacies?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bikeemikey]

What "personal attacks?" Your tactic is what it is.

Ridicule all you want. The fact remains that the statement you cited does not mention where or among whom Elder Oaks had seen the behaviour described.

Thank you for admitting that your havering about the "No True Scotsman" fallacy was irrelevant to the discussion in this thread, but was merely an attempt at an ad hominem argument.

So who really relies upon fallacies?

Regards,

Pahoran

That Oaks may not have been referring to examples from within the LDS community is a pretty weak position!

[Pahoran]

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,

Thank you for that, Duncan. The way the usual suspects are banging on, it's as if you're reporting a widespread practice, when in fact you are talking about an isolated incident.

I'm with you; I've never heard of anything like that either.

 

I know families that are estranged and stuff but is this common elsewhere? how can this happen?

There are lots of ways it can happen; most of the ways I can think of involve some degree of fault on both sides. But it sounds like this is an atypical family to start with, if she's never met her biological mother before.

I know this doesn't play well to the preferred "Mormon villain/other victim" narrative so popular here, but not everyone who leaves home has been mercilessly flung into the snow by a heartless Victorian landlord-type parent purely as punishment for being innocent of soul and pure in heart.

Not even everyone who leaves a Mormon home.

And as eager as some may be to pass judgement upon the parents (or indeed upon the early-returning missionary) I suggest that there is simply not enough information available to us to pass judgement upon anybody.

 

I am wondering too if the parents of this sister qualify for a recommend even?

See above. That's not our call. We don't know the dynamics of this family.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

That Oaks may not have been referring to examples from within the LDS community is a pretty weak position!

Not nearly as weak as the assumption that an isolated incident, about which we have very little data, amounts to some kind of pervasive Mormon practice.

But the fact is that Elder Oaks simply doesn't say where he saw that particular "extreme," so no conclusions are available on the data.

Regards,

Pahoran

[frank_jessop]

Thank you for admitting that your havering about the "No True Scotsman" fallacy was irrelevant to the discussion in this thread, but was merely an attempt at an ad hominem argument.

So who really relies upon fallacies?

Regards,

Pahoran

Again with the strawman. And thank you for not putting words into my mouth.

Please describe how my post 73 or previous post is an ad hominem argument.

And since we are giving thanks, thank you for admitting your position regarding Elder Oaks statement is weak.

I do have a question though, is "a real missionary wouldn't" a "No true Scotsman" argument?

[Pahoran]

Again with the strawman. And thank you for not putting words into my mouth.

What "strawman?" You keep using this word. I do not think this word means what you think it means.

And what "words" did I put in your mouth?

 

Please describe how my post 73 or previous post is an ad hominem argument.

Did you slip your "no true Scotsman" red herring into post 73?

I hadn't noticed.

But what you did say was:

 

His writings show his frequent use of a Latter-day Saint version of a fallacious argument.

Since by your admission I did not use any such argument in any post in this thread, your mention thereof was an attempt to discredit me by an irrelevant reference to something I might (or might not) have said elsewhere.

Logical fallacies only apply to the arguments in which they are employed. Saying that I've used one elsewhere is as irrelevant as saying that a mathematician's calculations must be wrong because you saw him make a mistake somewhere else.

The only possible purpose you had for mentioning it was as an ad hominem arguement. Which is, ironically (but unsurprisingly) a fallacy.

You couldn't fault my actual argument, so you decided to try to discredit it by indirection instead.

As you do.

 

And since we are giving thanks, thank you for admitting your position regarding Elder Oaks statement is weak.

Where did I say that?

The really "weak" position regarding that statement is your failed attempt to parlay it into some kind of evidence about Mormon practices.

Which it is not.

 

I do have a question though, is "a real missionary wouldn't" a "No true Scotsman" argument?

Did I say anything equivalent to that in this thread?

If not, then your question is off-topic, irrelevant and yet another red herring.

Drag it past someone else; I'm not chasing.

Regards,

Pahoran

[frank_jessop]

Pahoran, so entirely not worth it, strawman after strawman.

My reference in post 73 of your propensity to the "no real scotsman" fallacy was not an ad hominem attack on you; you use the argument so lets us just accept that fact. (Should I link to your "a real missionary" use of the argument? Just recently, on this board, you posted "I doubt that any plausible Latter-day Saints are...") I am already counting on your denials or deflections, so present them as you need.

In a previous post I mentioned bring the Elder Oaks quote (of you have stated your interpretation thereof is weak, but you do not consider position as "nearly as weak as" my interpretation; see post 96). Calmoriah responded with her interpretation of your comment about denying shunning being a Mormon practice.

In post 73, I explained to Calmoriah that I interpreted your presentation of your own experience and your denial of mormon practice, as your standard fallacious argument i.e. your not uncommon use of "No real Latter-Day Saint".

One does not need to resort too fallacy to rebut what seems your outright denial in post 66 that a Latter-Day Saint would "shun" a member of their family simple because that family member was involved in a unmarried sexual relationship or is living a lifestyle not inline with the Gospel.

Edited May 5, 2014 by frank_jessop

[california boy]

But I rather suspect that if we were able to see both sides of the story, we would find that most if not all of those who claim to have been "shunned" by their Mormon family members actually made their own ample contribution to the rupture.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

To quote a famous poster here

 

this is an example of an actual fallacious argument. The fallacy in view is known as the fallacy of circular argument, in which the arguer assumes his conclusions and argues from them as if they were already accepted.

 

Oh wait, that was you that said that.

 

So let me get this straight.  You are arguing that President Oaks addresses this very issue in General Conference to members of the church, but you feel there is no problem in the church over this issue and if we investigated this problem "most if not all of those who claim to have been "shunned" by their Mormon family members actually made their own ample contribution to the rupture."  So why exactly did President Oaks spend valuable time in General Conference addressing this issue to the members of the church?  Do you feel the general authorities routinely give conference talks that have no relevance to the members of the church?