Social Shunning

[toon]

I think the only thing approaching shunning that I have seen in a ward is when there has been a nasty divorce or separation, where one spouse moves out and people naturally take the side of the spouse that remains in the ward.  But I don't think that's a Church thing.

 

More likely, what happens in other situations is that people drift apart.  Aside from the natural tendency to drift apart, I believe the Church fosters a culture that is often the opposite of shunning, if anything.

[jkwilliams]

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.

I suppose my friend could be lying, but I know him well enough not to believe it. The good thing for him is that the firm was fine with him taking his clients with him, and they still refer clients to him for cases in which he specializes. it wasn't an acrimonious split-up at all, but he was told the rest of the firm was uncomfortable with him being there after he left the church, nothing else.

 

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."

Fine, you think my friend was a poor employee and let go for performance issues, as is your prerogative. As I said, one thing I've always appreciated about my friend is that he has kept his reasons for leaving the church to himself, which I wish I had done.

One of the things that contributed to his "shunning" (I don't know how else to describe it) is that a few weeks after he left the church, the Relief Society president and her husband left the church as well. Shortly after that, the elders quorum president and his wife left. Everyone in the ward assumed that my friend was responsible, even though he had never spoken to either couple about his reasons for leaving. (I had a nice visit with the former RS president over a beer once, and she confirmed that he had nothing to do with her leaving, which is another, sad, story.) After those three families left, the stake president used my friend as an example by name in a stake priesthood meeting, saying that people like my friend can't just walk away but want to take others with them. That's when the rumors and the shunning started.

I could be making all of this up, but I am not. Why bother?

ETA: It was also after the stake priesthood meeting when he was invited to leave his firm. He said it was a good thing, as it had felt awkward at work, precisely because everyone was avoiding talking about church with him, and that had previously been the one thing they all shared.

Edited June 9, 2014 by jkwilliams

[USU78]

My responses in red within the quoted material:

 

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.

 

I have an aunt who died recently.  Frequently at family meals she would start spouting anti-Mormon nonsense from the Tanners or No Man Knows . . ., making everybody uncomfortable, boring the children, and making putting up with her obnoxious presence onerous.  Another example:  my cousin's kid married his boyfriend within the last year or so.  They showed up at the Memorial Day breakfast wearing "Marriage Equality" gear and spouting "Marriage Equality" advocacy.  Their refusal to accept the simple social convention of "wrong place, wrong time" makes their presence at a family event onerous.  Am I shunning either by choosing not to show up or leaving early or avoiding them while at family events?  {hint:  the correct answer is "No"}


 

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.

 

"In the past" here meaning more than 30 years ago, right?  I haven't heard one for over 40 years myself, and I'm a regular attender and pay close attention to such things.

[jkwilliams]

I have an aunt who died recently. Frequently at family meals she would start spouting anti-Mormon nonsense from the Tanners or No Man Knows . . ., making everybody uncomfortable, boring the children, and making putting up with her obnoxious presence onerous. Another example: my cousin's kid married his boyfriend within the last year or so. They showed up at the Memorial Day breakfast wearing "Marriage Equality" gear and spouting "Marriage Equality" advocacy. Their refusal to accept the simple social convention of "wrong place, wrong time" makes their presence at a family event onerous. Am I shunning either by choosing not to show up or leaving early or avoiding them while at family events? {hint: the correct answer is "No"}

First of all, you sure know some awful people. I'm grateful that my family, in and out of the church, doesn't do anything like that. If one of my kids ever did something like that, I would take them aside, tell them what they were doing was highly inappropriate, and tell them that if they can't behave in such situations, they won't be invited to such functions. But they would be welcome at other events.

Fortunately, people like that are not the majority. I mentioned my Aunt Helen, and as unpleasant as she was, we never cut her off from the family.

"In the past" here meaning more than 30 years ago, right? I haven't heard one for over 40 years myself, and I'm a regular attender and pay close attention to such things.

I can recall 2 times when the results of a disciplinary council were announced in priesthood meeting. Once when I was about 16 in California, and the time I mentioned at BYU. I am glad that this doesn't happen anymore.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

 

 

I think USU78 makes a valid point here, one which he clarified very well in a subsequent post using specific examples.

 

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.

 

Here I have to agree with jkwilliams. I remember very clearly that it was standard practice, in cases of someone being excommunicated from the ward, to excuse the Aaronic Priesthood youth from the opening exercises of priesthood meeting and then announce the excommunication to the Melchizedek Priesthood holders. I recall instances of it happening when I was still in my young adulthood, having recently been ordained an elder. I don't remember it ever happening after I returned from my mission, which was in 1976.

 

And I too am glad it no longer happens. It would be even more problematic today than in the past.

 

I can only speculate as to the reasons for the former policy. It would make an interesting research paper for someone, I suppose. (Perhaps you can tell I have just returned home from the Mormon History Association Conference.)

Edited June 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

I think USU78 makes a valid point here, one which he clarified very well in a subsequent post using specific examples.

I understand that some people are obnoxious, and I don't blame USU78 or anyone else for not wanting to be around them. The example I gave is of someone who is not as USU78 described. He is completely nonconfrontational and, as far as I can tell, is exactly what people here tell me the best sort of ex-Mormon is supposed to be: he left the church and leaves it alone.

Another sad event was that one of his good friends and mentors, who was LDS, died not too long ago from a long illness. He had repeatedly asked my friend to give the eulogy at his funeral, and before he died, he told the bishop that was what he wanted. The bishop said it would be OK for him to deliver the eulogy, and the stake president gave his approval. A couple of days before the funeral, the stake president changed his mind and said my friend was not under any circumstances to speak in the church, even for a funeral. Obviously, my friend was upset, but even worse was the effect on the man's mostly non-LDS family, who were bewildered and deeply hurt that the man's wishes had not been respected. Needless to say, they left the funeral with a less-positive image of the church.

This is the kind of stuff I think of when I use the word "shunning." Even people like my friend who do everything believers wish they would do are sometimes treated badly and, yes, shunned. This should not happen.

Edited June 9, 2014 by jkwilliams

[USU78]

First of all, you sure know some awful people. I'm grateful that my family, in and out of the church, doesn't do anything like that. If one of my kids ever did something like that, I would take them aside, tell them what they were doing was highly inappropriate, and tell them that if they can't behave in such situations, they won't be invited to such functions. But they would be welcome at other events.

Fortunately, people like that are not the majority.

 

In my experience, you have a 50/50 chance [+/-] of narcissism driving scene-making at family events:  they make fun of such things in the movies precisely because everybody seems to be able to share examples of family members making their issue everybody's issue through their wrong-place/wrong-time behavior.

 

Of course, it may simply be the abundance of Viking dna at such family gatherings . . . who knows?

[jkwilliams]

In my experience, you have a 50/50 chance [+/-] of narcissism driving scene-making at family events:  they make fun of such things in the movies precisely because everybody seems to be able to share examples of family members making their issue everybody's issue through their wrong-place/wrong-time behavior.

 

Of course, it may simply be the abundance of Viking dna at such family gatherings . . . who knows?

In that case, this is more a product of your relatives being Grade-A jerks. It has very little to do with their beings ex-Mormons.

[toon]

I suppose my friend could be lying, but I know him well enough not to believe it. The good thing for him is that the firm was fine with him taking his clients with him, and they still refer clients to him for cases in which he specializes. it wasn't an acrimonious split-up at all, but he was told the rest of the firm was uncomfortable with him being there after he left the church, nothing else.

 

Fine, you think my friend was a poor employee and let go for performance issues, as is your prerogative. As I said, one thing I've always appreciated about my friend is that he has kept his reasons for leaving the church to himself, which I wish I had done.

One of the things that contributed to his "shunning" (I don't know how else to describe it) is that a few weeks after he left the church, the Relief Society president and her husband left the church as well. Shortly after that, the elders quorum president and his wife left. Everyone in the ward assumed that my friend was responsible, even though he had never spoken to either couple about his reasons for leaving. (I had a nice visit with the former RS president over a beer once, and she confirmed that he had nothing to do with her leaving, which is another, sad, story.) After those three families left, the stake president used my friend as an example by name in a stake priesthood meeting, saying that people like my friend can't just walk away but want to take others with them. That's when the rumors and the shunning started.

I could be making all of this up, but I am not. Why bother?

ETA: It was also after the stake priesthood meeting when he was invited to leave his firm. He said it was a good thing, as it had felt awkward at work, precisely because everyone was avoiding talking about church with him, and that had previously been the one thing they all shared.

 

You hadn't specified that he had been told it was because he had left the Church.  You had said nothing about the rest of the firm being uncomfortably, only that he had lost his job after leaving the Church.

 

I was responding to that point.  Obviously this new information changes things.

 

And I made no comment on his truthfulness or whether he was a good employee.  I wasn't claiming that you were making things up.  Just offering my general opinions that there is often another side to the story and that employees are very often oblivious to their shortcomings.

[jkwilliams]

You hadn't specified that he had been told it was because he had left the Church.  You had said nothing about the rest of the firm being uncomfortably, only that he had lost his job after leaving the Church.

 

I was responding to that point.  Obviously this new information changes things.

 

And I made no comment on his truthfulness or whether he was a good employee.  I wasn't claiming that you were making things up.  Just offering my general opinions that there is often another side to the story and that employees are very often oblivious to their shortcomings.

Sorry for not being clear. Obviously there is always another side of the story. I've told my friend many times that he took it a lot better than I would have, as what his firm did was, strictly speaking, illegal. He said he understood the discomfort (as he had felt it too) and preferred to leave on good terms, so far as was possible.

[jkwilliams]

On reflection, I want to say that my intent here isn't to accuse anyone but to let people know that this kind of thing happens, and it shouldn't. I very much appreciated Elder Holland's statement that he would never cut off any of his kids, no matter what. It just saddens me that such stuff happens.

Are some ex-Mormons unpleasant jerks? Of course. I can be a jerk sometimes. Do some Mormons cut off family and friends who leave the church? Yes, it happens sometimes, even when the person being shunned isn't behaving badly.

No matter our beliefs, we ought to treat each other with kindness and respect and not look for ways to build walls between us. That goes for all of us, in my view.

[USU78]

In that case, this is more a product of your relatives being Grade-A jerks. It has very little to do with their beings ex-Mormons.

 

Sez you.

 

I've encountered more than my share of 1st rate jerks hereabouts.

 

I tend to give as good as I get in such encounters:  you're a decent sort, so I'm not about to get out my close-in fighting knives when discussing things with you.

[ERayR]

Sez you.

 

I've encountered more than my share of 1st rate jerks hereabouts.

 

I tend to give as good as I get in such encounters:  you're a decent sort, so I'm not about to get out my close-in fighting knives when discussing things with you.

 

Besides that if you do you get banned.

[jkwilliams]

Sez you.

 

I've encountered more than my share of 1st rate jerks hereabouts.

 

I tend to give as good as I get in such encounters:  you're a decent sort, so I'm not about to get out my close-in fighting knives when discussing things with you.

I have no interest in fighting, let alone with knives.

[Rain]

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?

I've not had the problem so it didn't occur to me. I agree with what you said there.  

[why me]

On reflection, I want to say that my intent here isn't to accuse anyone but to let people know that this kind of thing happens, and it shouldn't. I very much appreciated Elder Holland's statement that he would never cut off any of his kids, no matter what. It just saddens me that such stuff happens.

Are some ex-Mormons unpleasant jerks? Of course. I can be a jerk sometimes. Do some Mormons cut off family and friends who leave the church? Yes, it happens sometimes, even when the person being shunned isn't behaving badly.

No matter our beliefs, we ought to treat each other with kindness and respect and not look for ways to build walls between us. That goes for all of us, in my view.

A church can teach correct principles about loving those who leave the faith or even fight against the faith but in the end, it is up to each individual about how they behave around that person who left the church or for that matter any organization where they shared a friendship. Since we are all imperfect beings, I tend to give people the benefit of doubt in such matters. I can only speak my own opinions about such behavior and then I need to allow others to make up their own minds about it.

 

The problem is that we all have a past and we all have a history that seems to guide our reactions to any given situation. Such are the complexities of life. But what I do know is that the church does not have a policy of shunning.

[jkwilliams]

A church can teach correct principles about loving those who leave the faith or even fight against the faith but in the end, it is up to each individual about how they behave around that person who left the church or for that matter any organization where they shared a friendship. Since we are all imperfect beings, I tend to give people the benefit of doubt in such matters. I can only speak my own opinions about such behavior and then I need to allow others to make up their own minds about it.

 

The problem is that we all have a past and we all have a history that seems to guide our reactions to any given situation. Such are the complexities of life. But what I do know is that the church does not have a policy of shunning.

 

You've pretty much made my point: just because there's no policy involved, it doesn't make it right.

[pza]

I believe the Shunning thing does still happen... and i know this from personal experience. I at one time in my life resigned do to some emotional things going on my life that drove me to extremes and resigned... well anyways during my process of being rebaptized there was a few who really didn't want anything to do with me. I also had one particular guy who never shakes my hand(till this day) and he even makes rude comments about things related to me in my life... I think he is just real hateful.. but as others may say "The Church is perfect, The members aren't"

This took place in Rapid City,SD before my move to Idaho.

[Thinking]

But what I do know is that the church does not have a policy of shunning.

 

We're back to the beginning.

 

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?

 

The OP never claimed that shunning was organized or even the fault of the LDS Church. He simply wanted to discuss why and how it sometimes happens. Too many posters went into denial mode instead of discussing the alleged problem.

 

Perhaps I can help the discussion go in the direction that the OP wanted.

 

As many of you know, I grew up in an LDS household but I no longer believe the truth claims of the LDS Church. My mother is a strong woman who is not afraid to speak her mind. She also cares deeply for others. She constantly warned us to stay out of situations that could cause us to stumble spiritually. Interestingly enough, instead of encouraging us to shun those members whose struggles were known, she encouraged us to be friends with them and invite them to church and activities so they could turn their lives around.

 

I think the type of shunning that the OP is talking about happens outside of church or church activities. It might happen in the workplace or at school. Somebody might start ignoring a coworker or classmate who no longer comes to church. Perhaps the offending person has no malice but just doesn't know what to say or how to act in front of that person. Denying that such things happen will not lead to any type of solution.

[Scott Lloyd]

We're back to the beginning.

The OP never claimed that shunning was organized or even the fault of the LDS Church. He simply wanted to discuss why and how it sometimes happens. Too many posters went into denial mode instead of discussing the alleged problem.

I've not been following this thread closely and, hence, had not read the OP until now.

But the dig in there about "the recent yearbook news" is a ridiculous non-sequitur.

It has been shown on this board that school dress standards are a fairly common thing in other parts of the country, not just in Utah or LDS communities, so "the recent yearbook news" does not amount to an instance of shunning, much less Mormon-engendered shunning.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[why me]

You've pretty much made my point: just because there's no policy involved, it doesn't make it right.

But how to make people more perfect so it wouldn't happen? How can one control a human beings emotions when a friend leaves the church or a relative? I can't control a person's emotions. The only thing that a person can do is to attempt to convince the shunner that it is wrong. But the church does not encourage it nor support it. What more can the church do? Excommunicate the person who is shunning?

[Tacenda]

But how to make people more perfect so it wouldn't happen? How can one control a human beings emotions when a friend leaves the church or a relative? I can't control a person's emotions. The only thing that a person can do is to attempt to convince the shunner that it is wrong. But the church does not encourage it nor support it. What more can the church do? Excommunicate the person who is shunning?

I think shunning is cult like behaviour, maybe people need to be forewarned more.

[jkwilliams]

But how to make people more perfect so it wouldn't happen? How can one control a human beings emotions when a friend leaves the church or a relative? I can't control a person's emotions. The only thing that a person can do is to attempt to convince the shunner that it is wrong. But the church does not encourage it nor support it. What more can the church do? Excommunicate the person who is shunning?

A good start would be some positive instruction as to how to deal with people who leave.

[USU78]

I think shunning is cult like behaviour, maybe people need to be forewarned more.

 

Does "cult" in that there sentence mean anything more than "something I don't like"?

[USU78]

A good start would be some positive instruction as to how to deal with people who leave.

 

With jkw as the instructor?

 

Would jkw have as curriculum anything that looked like "Staying Silent in the Face of Unbearable Provocations by Drama Queens"?