Social Shunning

[Pahoran]

Kenngo,

 

TJG made it very clear that he was talking about a cultural issue. Your response was insensitive and rude.

 

Maybe Kenngo was doing something that is merely a slogan for others: i.e. "Thinking."

 

And -- worse still -- challenging others to think.  Instead of merely swallowing the PC pablum du jour.

 

I reject, outright, the implied assumption that a mere claim of "Victim" [TM] © status is sufficient to create a special "protected" category of people, whose assertions -- however outlandish -- must be treated as sacred cows.

 

If that makes me "inthenthitive," then I wear that label as a badge of honour.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[jkwilliams]

I believe that's what's called a "loaded question."

Similar to, "Do you still cheat on your taxes?"

There are two non-intersecting sets of people discussing "Mormon shunning." They are:

 

1. The honest ones; and
2. Those who claim it happens.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

It's important to distinguish between institutional shunning, such as that which is done by the JWs, and shunning by groups or individuals. Clearly the former does not happen in the LDS church, but the latter does happen sometimes. IMO, most of the time it's simply that people don't know how to act around those who leave, so they avoid them; on rare occasions, it's something like "why me" described, where people think they need to protect themselves spiritually by cutting off contact with someone.

 

When I was a sophomore at BYU, a couple of months before my mission, there was a young woman I home taught who had, shall we say, been around the block as a teenager. Her senior year in high school she had straightened herself out, and she and her family thought that attending BYU would help her stay on the strait and narrow path. But she met some unsavory types in Provo. Her excommunication was announced in priesthood meeting, IIRC, but the university was allowing her to finish the semester so she could get class credit. When we went to home teach her, she mentioned how difficult it was because no one would talk to her. Other than some boys in the ward who joked around the dorms that she was "easy," everyone was polite, but it was so awkward that people were avoiding her. And my guess it was just as awkward for her, too. I felt so bad for her that I invited her over and made dinner for her, and we had a really nice time. I don't think there was any malice in what happened among ward members, and it wasn't one-sided; it just happened. That's what I meant when I said that shunning isn't necessarily conscious.

 

I'm glad they don't announce excommunications publicly anymore. I think that was the only time I ever saw that happen.

[jkwilliams]

Maybe Kenngo was doing something that is merely a slogan for others: i.e. "Thinking."

 

And -- worse still -- challenging others to think.  Instead of merely swallowing the PC pablum du jour.

 

I reject, outright, the implied assumption that a mere claim of "Victim" [TM] © status is sufficient to create a special "protected" category of people, whose assertions -- however outlandish -- must be treated as sacred cows.

 

If that makes me "inthenthitive," then I wear that label as a badge of honour.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

 

You got all that from one-line response to a joke?

[why me]

Really? You think you would have to shun your own family to look after your soul? Wow.

I gave the Jehovah Witness interpretation and not my own. I just reported what they told me. However, there may be lds who do do the same. They decide not to be around an apostate because of the influence that this apostate may have in that particular member's life. My own opinion is simple, No one should shun anyone. Friends are friends and should remain so. Many of my friends love women and have no problem telling me about their bedroom stories. Fine by me. No problem. I still have my BBQs with them and hang out with them listening to their stories. No shunning or a JW's 'bad association' on my part. And family is family. Show love all around and honor free agency as long it causes no physical harm such as drug use etc.

 

Live and let live is my motto.

Edited June 6, 2014 by why me

[why me]

Maybe Kenngo was doing something that is merely a slogan for others: i.e. "Thinking."

 

And -- worse still -- challenging others to think.  Instead of merely swallowing the PC pablum du jour.

 

I reject, outright, the implied assumption that a mere claim of "Victim" [TM] © status is sufficient to create a special "protected" category of people, whose assertions -- however outlandish -- must be treated as sacred cows.

 

 

Regards,

Pahoran

This victim card is a tactic to shut down debate. It is amazing just how much it is used. I consider it to be passive aggressive in many cases by the person who uses it. It seems that we all need to be treated with cotton candy and marshmellows.

[Mystery Meat]

I was once given a friendly warning that my "poignant" testimonies on Open Mike Sundays might cause a few parents to not want their kids to play with mine. However, I've encountered just the opposite. If I openly admit to some grievous sin like, say, being an HBO subscriber, I'll invariably receive an e-mail on Momday from a fellow heathen reading, "We should hang out more often." That being said, I suspect that the response would be much different if the transgression were more serious. There is one brother who is rumored to be involved in adultery and illicit drug use and the glares that he receives from some members are almost tangible objects, although most members seem to largely ignore him.

That being said, this dynamic isn't unique to us and I think we do better than most fundamentalist Christians because of our emphasis on reactivating lapsed members. For instance, one of my home teachees is inactive and I bet he is so sick of invites to ward basketball, Suns games, etc. that I'm pretty sure he wishes we would shun him.

 

Love this post. I wish people were more honest about their pornography consumption. My goal in saying so isn't to try and normalize sin, especially one like that. But so many men (and more and more women) think they are absolute garbage for having a weakness (I know from experience). That feeling only reinforces the behavior. If we had more honest talk about it I think people would take comfort and great strength in knowing they are not alone.

[Bart Burk]

I know the church does not condone shunning. However, with the recent yearbook news, I wonder how much it take place in the larger LDS communities. How much does it happen? How many people get behind it? What tactics are generally used? Who usually spearheads such things and what is the motivation to do so?

I haven't experienced it.  I became Catholic and still attend the LDS Church with my family.  Everyone seems very kind to me.

[williamsmith]

I think "some" shunning should be brought back in the sense that if a person is willingly and intentionally not following their covenants, and being hurtful to someone they are to cherish and protect, which would also allow others that are important to be cherished and protected instead of neglected and limited in their growth, then that person MUST be shunned.

 

Reason being is because when everyone ignores serious sin that hurts others, they are only "enabling" that person, and that person will often never change because of it, because they truly believe they've done nothing wrong, and that they have every right to have their cake and to eat it too.

 

People have Temple recommends for example who shouldn't, when they are directly breaking some of the questions (and it's known), and maybe even some others depending on interpretation.

[ERayR]

history and doctrine are certainly not the same thing.

 

No, but some try to mingle them.

[ERayR]

It's important to distinguish between institutional shunning, such as that which is done by the JWs, and shunning by groups or individuals. Clearly the former does not happen in the LDS church, but the latter does happen sometimes. IMO, most of the time it's simply that people don't know how to act around those who leave, so they avoid them; on rare occasions, it's something like "why me" described, where people think they need to protect themselves spiritually by cutting off contact with someone.

 

When I was a sophomore at BYU, a couple of months before my mission, there was a young woman I home taught who had, shall we say, been around the block as a teenager. Her senior year in high school she had straightened herself out, and she and her family thought that attending BYU would help her stay on the strait and narrow path. But she met some unsavory types in Provo. Her excommunication was announced in priesthood meeting, IIRC, but the university was allowing her to finish the semester so she could get class credit. When we went to home teach her, she mentioned how difficult it was because no one would talk to her. Other than some boys in the ward who joked around the dorms that she was "easy," everyone was polite, but it was so awkward that people were avoiding her. And my guess it was just as awkward for her, too. I felt so bad for her that I invited her over and made dinner for her, and we had a really nice time. I don't think there was any malice in what happened among ward members, and it wasn't one-sided; it just happened. That's what I meant when I said that shunning isn't necessarily conscious.

 

I'm glad they don't announce excommunications publicly anymore. I think that was the only time I ever saw that happen.

 

Not just an LDS Church problem.  This happens in most social settings.  Just think what happens in a group of married couple friends when one of them gets a divorce. 

[Grudunza]

I think "some" shunning should be brought back in the sense that if a person is willingly and intentionally not following their covenants, and being hurtful to someone they are to cherish and protect, which would also allow others that are important to be cherished and protected instead of neglected and limited in their growth, then that person MUST be shunned.

Reason being is because when everyone ignores serious sin that hurts others, they are only "enabling" that person, and that person will often never change because of it, because they truly believe they've done nothing wrong, and that they have every right to have their cake and to eat it too.

People have Temple recommends for example who shouldn't, when they are directly breaking some of the questions (and it's known), and maybe even some others depending on interpretation.

I disagree. For those who are breaking covenants, sure, that's wrong, but we are commanded to love and forgive (and the worse sin is upon us if we don't forgive), and we must be careful in judgement, lest we be judged. Someone who is in the throes of sin particularly needs the gospel and support and love of the fellowship of the church, and if they no longer are made to feel welcome, they no longer will feel welcome. They will be less likely to want to come to worship and fellowship, and have less of a chance to change. We're all in the hospital together, after all, for different degrees of sin/injury. Sometimes we function as the doctors and need to serve the patients with genuine love and concern, and not avoid them and hope they happen to get better.

In recovery (alcohol/drugs), addicts are taught to stay away from "people, places and things" that formerly were a big part of their addiction, and that is a form of shunning for self-preservation, but that pertains to the day-to-day life out in the world. Within the context of the 12 step fellowship, anybody is welcome, no matter what their current situation or how long they've been clean (or not), and serving and welcoming those who are struggling is a priority. It is not condoning or enabling their continued drug use... it's giving a welcoming and loving spirit to that person so when they're ready to get back on the path of recovery, they'll be in the right place and feel comfortable among the fellowship.

So if you know someone in the church who is drinking and watching porn, you should probably avoid hanging out with them in a casual way outside of church, until they get that under control, but within our capacity as brothers and sisters in Christ we should always make that person feel welcome to worship with us, and serve them as needed (home teaching, etc.) with honest love and compassion.

[Pahoran]

It's important to distinguish between institutional shunning, such as that which is done by the JWs, and shunning by groups or individuals. Clearly the former does not happen in the LDS church, but the latter does happen sometimes. IMO, most of the time it's simply that people don't know how to act around those who leave, so they avoid them; on rare occasions, it's something like "why me" described, where people think they need to protect themselves spiritually by cutting off contact with someone.

 

When I was a sophomore at BYU, a couple of months before my mission, there was a young woman I home taught who had, shall we say, been around the block as a teenager. Her senior year in high school she had straightened herself out, and she and her family thought that attending BYU would help her stay on the strait and narrow path. But she met some unsavory types in Provo. Her excommunication was announced in priesthood meeting, IIRC, but the university was allowing her to finish the semester so she could get class credit. When we went to home teach her, she mentioned how difficult it was because no one would talk to her. Other than some boys in the ward who joked around the dorms that she was "easy," everyone was polite, but it was so awkward that people were avoiding her. And my guess it was just as awkward for her, too. I felt so bad for her that I invited her over and made dinner for her, and we had a really nice time. I don't think there was any malice in what happened among ward members, and it wasn't one-sided; it just happened. That's what I meant when I said that shunning isn't necessarily conscious.

I don't doubt that what you are describing happens. I just think that it's far too weak to call it "shunning." Put another way: if it isn't conscious, it isn't shunning. You haven't shunned someone if you just don't know what to seay when you bump into them.

 

I'm glad they don't announce excommunications publicly anymore. I think that was the only time I ever saw that happen.

Priesthood meeting isn't public. I don't believe such announcements have ever been particularly common, and it's not clear to me why it was thought necessary in the case you describe.

Regards,

Pahoran

[why me]

I still don't like the word shunning when it comes to the lds. I think that it is too strong a word. Of course, there may be someone who actually shuns their child or friend. But I would say it is a very few number. I think that when a major change happens it can cause shock or a stunning for individuals and how they react is usually very human conditioned. How to adapt to change?

 

As for myself and I am sure that I can speak for most lds, I would never shun a family member. Nor would I ever shun a friend. Nor would I ignore a family member. And I would certainly not try to ignore a friend who I once shared something in common with. But I can see why it may happen to some people. We just need to show understanding and get the person to see a different way in handling the shock.

[jkwilliams]

I don't doubt that what you are describing happens. I just think that it's far too weak to call it "shunning." Put another way: if it isn't conscious, it isn't shunning. You haven't shunned someone if you just don't know what to seay when you bump into them.

It crosses over into shunning when awkwardness when you meet turns into avoiding people at every opportunity. I've seen that happen.

Priesthood meeting isn't public. I don't believe such announcements have ever been particularly common, and it's not clear to me why it was thought necessary in the case you describe.

In terms of the church, announcing something over the pulpit to all the males in a ward is pretty close to "public." As I said, I'm glad they don't do things like this anymore.

And thank you for your civil response, which is much appreciated.

[why me]

It crosses over into shunning when awkwardness when you meet turns into avoiding people at every opportunity. I've seen that happen.

 

And yet, people do have the right to avoid people who may not share the values that brought them together. Is it shunning or is it exercising one's free agency about whom they want to be involved or associated with?

[jkwilliams]

And yet, people do have the right to avoid people who may not share the values that brought them together. Is it shunning or is it exercising one's free agency about whom they want to be involved or associated with?

Sure, everyone has the right to shun someone.

[USU78]

It crosses over into shunning when awkwardness when you meet turns into avoiding people at every opportunity. I've seen that happen.

In terms of the church, announcing something over the pulpit to all the males in a ward is pretty close to "public." As I said, I'm glad they don't do things like this anymore.

And thank you for your civil response, which is much appreciated.

 

I don't think I would agree that avoiding someone amounts to shunning.  Shunning is a term of art used to describe a specific set of behaviors.  Using language so fuzzily makes it impossible for real communication to happen.

 

Example from another setting:  The USSR/Russia actually engaged in empire building in swallowing up and so dominating the ancient states of central and eastern Europe that their integrity as states ceased to exist.  Yet the USSR/Russia and her "client" states referred to US having business interests in/with other states as examples of imperialism.  What they did was redefine the word out of existence so that their own imperialism was seen as less evil than it actually was, at least in their own eyes and the eyes of those who fell for the linguistic trick.

 

There are a lot of ways to avoid having much/anything to do with people whose behavior makes being around them onerous.  Very few of those ways involve actual shunning.

 

Now, as for announcing over the pulpit in priesthood meeting:  such a thing would have been antithetical to the established practices of the Church.  While it is very conceivable that such a thing might happen notwithstanding instructions that they not happen (always in private and always on a "need to know" basis), that it happened in a particular instance does not mean the Church is in any way encouraging shunning.  Quite the opposite.

[Thinking]

Maybe Kenngo was doing something that is merely a slogan for others: i.e. "Thinking."

 

And -- worse still -- challenging others to think.  Instead of merely swallowing the PC pablum du jour.

 

I reject, outright, the implied assumption that a mere claim of "Victim" [TM] © status is sufficient to create a special "protected" category of people, whose assertions -- however outlandish -- must be treated as sacred cows.

 

If that makes me "inthenthitive," then I wear that label as a badge of honour.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

 

You're right, I apologize. Nobody has ever been shunned by anybody LDS. We have all left the church because we have been offended, want to sin, or are just too lazy to get up on Sunday morning. We imagine being shunned to make ourselves feel better about leaving.

[Rain]

I disagree. For those who are breaking covenants, sure, that's wrong, but we are commanded to love and forgive (and the worse sin is upon us if we don't forgive), and we must be careful in judgement, lest we be judged. Someone who is in the throes of sin particularly needs the gospel and support and love of the fellowship of the church, and if they no longer are made to feel welcome, they no longer will feel welcome. They will be less likely to want to come to worship and fellowship, and have less of a chance to change. We're all in the hospital together, after all, for different degrees of sin/injury. Sometimes we function as the doctors and need to serve the patients with genuine love and concern, and not avoid them and hope they happen to get better.

In recovery (alcohol/drugs), addicts are taught to stay away from "people, places and things" that formerly were a big part of their addiction, and that is a form of shunning for self-preservation, but that pertains to the day-to-day life out in the world. Within the context of the 12 step fellowship, anybody is welcome, no matter what their current situation or how long they've been clean (or not), and serving and welcoming those who are struggling is a priority. It is not condoning or enabling their continued drug use... it's giving a welcoming and loving spirit to that person so when they're ready to get back on the path of recovery, they'll be in the right place and feel comfortable among the fellowship.

So if you know someone in the church who is drinking and watching porn, you should probably avoid hanging out with them in a casual way outside of church, until they get that under control, but within our capacity as brothers and sisters in Christ we should always make that person feel welcome to worship with us, and serve them as needed (home teaching, etc.) with honest love and compassion.

I think you probably mean something different than I got from this.  I agree with the first 2 paragraphs. I don't think we should just avoid hanging out with them. If they are in the middle of watching porn then yes, decline to hang out with them.  But if they are doing it on their own I think that is when they most need our friendship.  If they are having a beer bash then probably wise to avoid it in most circumstances, but I see nothing wrong if you go out to dinner with them and they order a glass of wine.

[why me]

Sure, everyone has the right to shun someone.

I wouldn't call it shunning at all. Shunning is a concept that has very deep negative connotations. I will give you an example. If I were friends with someone and we shared interests. But if I began to take drugs and steal money from his home and if I did not seek help for my problem, would my friend have the right not to be involved with me anymore? And if yes, should I say that he is shunning me? Of course not. Likewise, if I am a member of a bowling team and became friends with a team member. If this is what we shared and if this is what united us, and suddenly I left the team and my bowling team friend no longer had time for me because our mutual interest was severed, would he be shunning me? No. I don't think so.

[why me]

If they are in the middle of watching porn then yes, decline to hang out with them.  But if they are doing it on their own I think that is when they most need our friendship.  If they are having a beer bash then probably wise to avoid it in most circumstances, but I see nothing wrong if you go out to dinner with them and they order a glass of wine.

The problem comes when they would talk about porn and how wonderful it was, giving some descriptions of the movies and encouraging us to view it. Likewise for drinking. A lds member who has left the church and is now drinking alcohol is not the problem. But it would be a problem if that friend is encouraging his friend to go with him to a bar and have a drink and pick up women or men. How long must an unmarried friend listen to the wonders of alcohol and sex with some encouragement to engage in both?

Edited June 9, 2014 by why me

[Thinking]

The problem comes when they would talk about porn and how wonderful it was, giving some descriptions of the movies and encouraging us to view it. Likewise for drinking. A lds member who has left the church and is now drinking alcohol is not the problem. But it would be a problem if that friend is encouraging his friend to go with him to a bar and have a drink and pick up women or men. How long must an unmarried friend listen to the wonders of alcohol and sex with some encouragement to engage in both?

 

You are absolutely correct. Refusing to hang out with somebody who is trying to get you to do something you don't want to do is not shunning. I had a great group of non-lds friends when I was a teenager growing up in Southern California. Most of them drank and other stuff, and didn't invite me when they were going to be doing that stuff. Occasionally they would say, "Hey Thinking, we're not drinking tonight, why don't you come?"

[ERayR]

And yet, people do have the right to avoid people who may not share the values that brought them together. Is it shunning or is it exercising one's free agency about whom they want to be involved or associated with?

 

I agree I agree and do not consider it shunning when I avoid associating with several prominent politicians.  It's just that we have nothing in common for polite chit chat.

[jkwilliams]

I don't think I would agree that avoiding someone amounts to shunning.  Shunning is a term of art used to describe a specific set of behaviors.  Using language so fuzzily makes it impossible for real communication to happen.

 

Example from another setting:  The USSR/Russia actually engaged in empire building in swallowing up and so dominating the ancient states of central and eastern Europe that their integrity as states ceased to exist.  Yet the USSR/Russia and her "client" states referred to US having business interests in/with other states as examples of imperialism.  What they did was redefine the word out of existence so that their own imperialism was seen as less evil than it actually was, at least in their own eyes and the eyes of those who fell for the linguistic trick.

 

There are a lot of ways to avoid having much/anything to do with people whose behavior makes being around them onerous.  Very few of those ways involve actual shunning.

I really don't care what you call it. The effect is the same: people cutting off contact with other people because those other people left the church. Do some ex-Mormons behave in a way that makes being around them "onerous"? Undoubtedly. Is that true in all cases? I don't think so. I can't imagine cutting off my kids for any reason, and I'm glad my wife doesn't think my leaving the church makes me so onerous as to be avoided at all costs.

I sometimes wonder if people here hear what they sound like.

 

Now, as for announcing over the pulpit in priesthood meeting:  such a thing would have been antithetical to the established practices of the Church.  While it is very conceivable that such a thing might happen notwithstanding instructions that they not happen (always in private and always on a "need to know" basis), that it happened in a particular instance does not mean the Church is in any way encouraging shunning.  Quite the opposite.

My understanding was that in the past it was fairly common to announce disciplinary action in priesthood meetings. That's apparently not the case now, which is a good thing.

[toon]

, but he lost his job with an all-LDS law firm,.

 

My firm is mostly non-LDS, but still, we have a good number of LDS attorneys.  From time to time, an attorney will be let go.  It is my experience that, despite there being good cause, the attorney being let go rarely sees it that way.  And since they don't see it in the same light, they often search for some underlying, hidden reason.

 

It's the same thing with performance evaluations.  I've never given someone a poor evaluation and had them respond, "You're right, I really am a bad employee."