Shunning Former Members

[Bernard Gui]

48 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

I'm so agree with you. I also find that kind of behavoir ridicelous. It's a thing in Utah. I don't understand why those people behave like that. Maybe it's because they live on such a high altitude, with les oxygen. 

You should see the shunning problems in Quito, Ecuador. Shocking! 

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

It would negatively impact my happiness for sure. But also my energy. Apart from that it's not a really polite way to end a friendship. That person could also have been honest and told you that he/she doesn't wanna be friends with you anymore and don't wanna have contact. That's then way more clear for you. Then you know for sure that it would be a waste of time to continue sending letters to him/her and focus your energy on something else....like...other people. Nice people. 

I try to let the light shine wherever I can; costs me nothing since it is the Lord's. But I may just move on eventually like you're describing, if I sense I am doing more harm than good, collaterally as well as personally.

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Completely shunning people? Or just not be friends with them?

My brother in law left the church.  He had one "close" friend who completely severed ties with him because of it.  So, I'm not sure if there is much of a difference between shunning and not being friends.  If anything, I guess it informs you of who your true friends are.  

[Dario_M]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You should see the shunning problems in Quito, Ecuador. Shocking! 

Ecuador has less LDS members. Not like in Utah. 

And besides....Ecuador has other problems. Probably also because of les oxygen. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Dario_M

[Dario_M]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I try to let the light shine wherever I can; costs me nothing since it is the Lord's. But I may just move on eventually like you're describing, if I sense I am doing more harm than good, collaterally as well as personally.

Well..good luck with your loss anyway. 🫂

Edited March 30, 2023 by Dario_M

[Hamilton Porter]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

My brother in law left the church.  He had one "close" friend who completely severed ties with him because of it.  So, I'm not sure if there is much of a difference between shunning and not being friends.  If anything, I guess it informs you of who your true friends are.  

Maybe in today's increasingly isolated world if you're not friends, you don't see each other.

[Hamilton Porter]

28 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Sorry, not completely shunning, but from what the move in's say about LDS in Utah being rather protective of their children playing with their children if they aren't LDS.

Oh that's way different. That's a problem too, but I m talking about shunning members who leave, like JWs or scientologists do.

[rodheadlee]

8 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I live in the most educated part of the country (DC metro). The LDS people here are talented, politically level-headed, and well-connected. I'm often beaming with pride at the service they do, e.g. with helping Afghan and Ukrainian refugees.

We still hang out with people who've left the church. 

But I hear that in Utah people sometimes disown their kids if they leave, or tell their kids not to play with kids who leave. Under the pretext of not wanting their influence. Someone who lives in the corridor can confirm or deny.

I mean, if they're all up in your face about what's wrong with the church, then you're not obligated to be around those kinds of people. That's rude. Otherwise, there's no need to sever ties. A person's religious beliefs arent the only things about him/her.

 

You're not supposed to shun. You're supposed to be a bright light amongst the others so that they desire to be like you and find out why you're like that.

My brother was shunned as a child and he hates the church to this day.

[Pyreaux]

My dad didn't exactly shun his wayward kids, but he did use posturing bluffs and parental leverage to manipulate them back to church at every opportunity. Pressure them to say the family prayer, or pray himself while they are present praying with the family, will say at uncomfortable length that they will come back to church, and other things on his mind I guess he feels he must trap them in this situation to get the opportunity to say what he feels to them. Shunning is a step beyond that but still a manipulation tactic. 

If I get kids. I think I'd teach the gospel and only pressure them to obey a handful of fundament principles, like above all else stay away from p*rn, I'd rather they try to date early and if they wanted to have sex, I'll take them to the courthouse to get married, and it doesn't have to be a big deal to do the right thing. I'd like to be honest, somehow convey how I'd even rather if they were too curious about sex, that they'd pursue even premarital sex before considering partaking in porn. I guess help them find happiness if they can't find faith.

Edited March 30, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Smiley McGee]

Plenty of members are thin-skinned with even mild criticisms of the church, calling everything an attack, and ignoring their own tendency to blast other religious beliefs. Has all that interbreeding in Utah led to a population with even thinner skin and less self-awareness, resulting in excess shunning? Scientifically speaking, yes, it has.

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I live in the most educated part of the country (DC metro). The LDS people here are talented, politically level-headed, and well-connected. I'm often beaming with pride at the service they do, e.g. with helping Afghan and Ukrainian refugees.

We still hang out with people who've left the church. 

I live in Utah.  I see the same sort of talent, education, and overall decency in the Saints here.  And many (most, I'd wager) active Latter-day Saints "hang out with people who've left the church."

6 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

But I hear that in Utah people sometimes disown their kids if they leave, or tell their kids not to play with kids who leave.

A few thoughts:

First, I think this is one of those areas in which the Latter-day Saints need to speak for themselves.  

Second, "shunning" needs to be defined.  Per Wikipedia, "shunning" in a religious context is "is a formal decision by a denomination or a congregation to cease interaction with an individual or a group, and follows a particular set of rules."

Third, the Church does not teach or encourage or wink at anything akin to "shunning" in this or any comparable sense.  There is no "formal decision," nor any "particular set of rules."  Moreover, the Church has specifically taught against shunning.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

The Church does not teach or advocate shunning or other unchristianlike actions. We must love and strive to help others to understand that no one should ignore or discount the commandments of God.

 We are taught to be "good neighbors."

Fourth, Wikipedia lists religious groups that practice or have practiced some form of shunning.  The Church is not listed there.

Fifth, it is my understanding that some offshoots of the Church practice shunning, but we do not.

Sixth, "shunning" seems to often be one of those "eye of the beholder" things.  For example, Wikipedia has the following entry about the social impact of leaving the Church:

Quote

Ex-Mormons who publicly leave Mormonism often face social stigmatization. Although many leave to be true to themselves or to a new belief structure, they leave at a cost;^[12] many leave feeling ostracized and pressured and miss out on major family events such as temple weddings. Family members of some may express only disappointment and sorrow and try to reach out in understanding to their new belief system or lack thereof. Some stay under threat of divorce from spouses who still believe. Still, many ex-Mormons are completely shunned and have given up spouses, children, and the ability to enter Mormon temples to witness life events of family members. Ex-Mormons in geographic locations away from major enclaves of Mormon culture such as Utah may experience less stigmatization, however.^[4]
...
4. Lobdell, William (December 1, 2001), "Losing Faith and Lots More", Los Angeles Times, archived from the original on 2001-12-01
12. Albrecht, S.L.; Bahr, H.M. (1989). "Strangers Once More: Patterns of Disaffiliation from Mormonism". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 28 (2): 180–200. doi:10.2307/1387058. JSTOR 1387058.

Both of the footnoted references are kind of old (from 2001 and 1989).  The 1989 source does not allege "shunning" in the Church.  The 2001 article alleges "social" shunning, but the allegations are purely anecdotal and seem . . . a bit much:

Quote

Mormons who quit the church find themselves ostracized by friends, co-workers and even families. Annual gathering offers support, shared experiences.
...

It took 16 months for Suzy Colver and her husband to work up the courage to officially quit the Mormon church, worried about what would befall them once word of their defection spread through their Mormon-dominated town of Ogden, Utah.

They didn't have to wait long. Instantly, Colver said, her family became the neighborhood pariah. She lost every one of her Mormon friends, even though she'd been a leader in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' prestigious Relief Society. She wasn't asked to volunteer at her kids' elementary school anymore. Her decision was so unspeakable, she said, that when her brother-in-law visited he was afraid to even acknowledge it, despite the coffee maker on the counter and bottle of chardonnay in the refrigerator--both Mormon taboos.

"If Mormons associate with you, they think they will somehow become contaminated and lose their faith too," she said. "It's almost as if people who leave the church don't exist."

"Every one of her Mormon friends."

"Her decision was so unspeakable..."

"'If Mormons associate with you, they think they will somehow become contaminated..."

Purely anecdotal, purely one-sided.

Quote

Colver, a 33-year-old mother of three, was among a group of ex-Mormons who gathered here recently to wrestle with problems that plague some who leave the church but remain in Utah and other communities heavily dominated by Mormons: rejection from Mormon spouses, children and relatives; the disappearance of Mormon friends; the end of a social life; a sidetracked career.

It would be nice to see data about this, instead of vague and totally one-sided anecdotes and allegations.

Quote

How, they asked each other at the inaugural Ex-Mormon General Conference, can you carve out a regular life within the immense shadow of the clannish Mormon church, which claims roughly 70% of Utah residents as members?

"In Utah, the church has created an almost impossible box to climb out of," said Sue Emmett, the 60-year-old great-great-granddaughter of Brigham Young. She left the church in 1999.

Tales of ostracism are familiar in close-knit, conservative religious communities. In certain circles of Orthodox Judaism, for example, families will consider a relative who marries outside the faith dead, even observing the Jewish mourning process. Some Latino mothers weep for their sons who turn their back on the Catholic Church. And the Amish banish anyone who leaves their faith from their community.

This is emotional rhetoric and anecdote.  Not much to go on.  

Also, I have a hard time extrapolating this out to some sort of systemic issue in the Church in 2001, let alone in 2023.

Quote

But only in Utah and pockets of neighboring states does a single religion have such a dominant hold over nearly every aspect of society. Which was why Colver, Emmett and about 60 other heretics held their gathering at a symbolic place and time: a block from Salt Lake City's Temple Square, where 21,000 faithful Mormons had flocked to the church's 171st Semiannual General Conference. They told stories, often tearfully, of the prejudice they encountered upon leaving.

One recalled volunteering to say grace at a Thanksgiving dinner, only to be stopped by her mother, who said, "You can't. I don't know what you'd say."

Another expressed relief after moving out of state to a non-Mormon neighborhood: "It was so nice to go to the grocery store and know no one's going to look down on you."

A third told of the pain she felt from her grown children, who believe she's been influenced by the devil: "They see me as an enemy, as a heretic and as a threat to their children," she said.

These are sad stories, but they are purely anecdotal and one-sided.  There is also a strong likelihood of "self-selection bias."  The people who go take the time, effort and expense to attend an "ex-mormon" conference are more likely to have a substantial grievance, whether accurate and fair or not.

I am not saying that inappropriate treatment does not happen, as I also could not deny that some Latter-day Saints swear, gamble, violate the Word of Wisdom, engage in sexual impropriety, are dishonest in their dealings, and so on.  My point is that all of these things - including shunning - A) are emphatically not taught by the Church, B) are instead taught against in the Church, and C) have not been shown to be systemically prevalent amongst active Latter-day Saints.

Quote

In Mormon country--a strip of states from Montana and Idaho in the north to Arizona in the south--Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints members make up huge majorities in many communities.

The 11-million-member church is one of the fastest growing religious organizations in the world, adding 40% to its membership each decade since 1960, church officials say. The church says it doesn't release the number of Mormons who drop from the rolls.

Church Elder Tad R. Callister said the church recognized its shortcoming when it recently released its "Doctrine of Inclusion," which implores members to better embrace nonmembers--whether people of other religions or former Mormons.

"We're imperfect people . . . [but] we want it to be said that we're the best neighbors in the world," Callister said.

The author of the inclusion doctrine, Elder M. Russell Ballard, acknowledges that he occasionally hears "of members offending those of other faiths by overlooking them and leaving them out. This can occur especially in communities where our members are the majority."

Ballard, a member of the church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said he's also heard about "narrow-minded parents" who won't let their children play with children who aren't in the church.

"I cannot comprehend why any member of our church would allow these kinds of things to happen," he said.

This has a sort of "final nail in the coffin" feel to it as regarding allegations of systemic "shunning."

Quote

Humor masked much bitterness. All participants said they'd lost major pieces of their lives after they walked away from the church.

This is, unfortunately, an inevitable consequence of leaving a community.  That said, the allegation of some sort of systemic "shunning" does not seem apt.

Quote

Parsons says her Mormon neighbors--nearly her entire community--shunned her. When her husband had a grand mal seizure, she said, a church official passing by warned a neighbor, "Don't enter that house. The man is possessed by the devil."

Color me a wee bit skeptical about this.

Quote

Then she stumbled upon the www.exmormon.org Web site, a cyber-gathering spot for former Mormons created in 1995 to fill the social vacuum left after exiting the church. "It's a halfway house for many of us," said cartoonist Benson of the site that now gets 3,000 hits per day and has more than 600 e-mail subscribers.

The exmormon.org group started holding annual get-togethers a few years ago in Las Vegas--"because it was the anti-Salt Lake City," one organizer said--but decided to get serious this year with a formal conference in the Utah capital.

Because of family ties, jobs, familiarity or just plain stubbornness, many of the former Mormons have decided to stay in hostile territory and try to make friends--or at least live a peaceful life in a parallel universe alongside the church.

"I want to be me and still be respected," said Maxine Hanks, who was excommunicated from the church in 1993 after publishing her book, "Women and Authority: Re-Emerging Mormon Feminism." "I'm tired of being seen as an outsider."

Hanks said the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City next year has spurred Mormon officials to rethink their outreach to other faiths, which included the Doctrine of Inclusion.

Sis. Hanks rejoined the Church in 2012.  Members of the Church have essentially nothing to gain, and much to lose, by "shunning."

Quote

Critics acknowledge that Mormon leaders have been doing a better job in recent years of promoting inclusiveness. But nearly all of the ex-Mormons at the conference said they'd seen no evidence of it. They said their former ties to the church have put them, in the eyes of Mormons, in a different category than people of other faiths or even atheists. They suspect hurt feelings and a fear of associating with apostates contributed to the shunning.

Again, all of this is anecdotal.  

Quote

Santa Clarita resident Gaylon Harrison, 42, said that when she left the church four years ago, her congregation scratched her name from the directory, listing only her husband and three children. She said her Mormon friends passed her in the supermarket without a word.

"They would literally turn their heads," said Harrison, who has since moved to Maryland with her family. "I was ready to say 'Hi.' All they had to do is look."

Harrison said she also had problems within her marriage. She eventually told her Mormon husband that she would no longer share a bed with him unless he stopped wearing his sacred Mormon undergarments, worn day and night by the devout. She wanted a respite from symbolism.

"That church was right there in the bed with us," she complained. He stopped wearing the underwear, and she quit wearing her "Have You Hugged an Apostate Today?" T-shirt.

This is sort of an interesting example of ex-Mormons doing a bit of "shunning."  She threatened to kick her husband out of the marital bed unless he stopped wearing his garments?

I also recall Dan Reynolds, of Imagine Dragons fame, relating a story about how two of his wife's friends excluded him from their (lesbian) wedding because he was a Latter-day Saint.

I guess this is one of those "It's not wrong when I do it" sort of things.

Quote

Though public rhetoric has softened in recent years, Mormons believe that stepping away from the church will have eternal consequences. Ex-Mormons are also excluded from major earthly events such as temple baptisms and weddings, where only members in good standing can set foot.

"My sister couldn't attend some events [at the temple], and it hurts," said Joni Bown, a Salt Lake City Mormon whose sister quit the church. "Yes, I pray for her to come back to something that's so special to us."

This is substantially misleading, as all non-members are not allowed into the temple, not just "ex-Mormons."  And what is this "temple baptisms" thing?

And in any event, the Church has changed its policies for temple sealings to allow the couple to have a civil ceremony.  

Quote

Rob Shiveley, 42, thought becoming an ex-Mormon would hurt his career in Utah's computer software industry.

"The conversations on campus and at lunch at my company were all about the Mormon church," said Shiveley, who left the church after landing a new job in Portland, Ore. "I started to feel the pressure. I needed to maintain the perception that I was a good person and a good Mormon. The handful of non-Mormons were very much on the outside in the company."

Because business is often conducted informally around church social activity, much the way other cultures conduct it on the golf course, many nonbelieving Mormons haven't come out to their family, friends or co-workers.

One ex-church member asked a reporter to tear up any notes of his interview after he talked with his wife about the conversation. "This could really hurt us," he said.

This is largely at odds with my experience in the workplace in Utah. 

Quote

Those who keep quiet "don't risk alienation if there isn't an explicit rejection of the religion," said Tim B. Heaton, sociology professor at Brigham Young University. By not openly rejecting Mormonism, "all they'll get is, 'When are you going to come to church?' or 'When are you going to shape up?'"

Many of the apostates still enjoy parts of the Mormon culture, especially the emphasis on family and moral values. "I want to be a Mormon like Woody Allen is a Jew," said one conference participant. "I don't want to be robbed of my Mormonism."

I very much like this sentiment.  I very much hope that my friends and family who have left the Church retain as many of the precepts of the Restored Gospel as they can.

Antagonism can be a two-way street here.  I think these days most Latter-day Saints have a pretty comfortable level of détente with family members and friends who have stepped away from the Church.  It's a sort of an unspoken-but-understood "You don't preach to me about coming back to church, and I won't rail against or denigrate the things you hold sacred" sort of compact.  And it's a pretty effective one.

Quote

But the all-or-nothing nature of the church leaves many struggling for a new identity.

Sure.  Again, when you affirmatively reject and leave a community, you often lose many parts of your identity tied to it.

Part of the struggle here is that membership in the Church is supposed to be a "lifelong and into eternity" sort of thing.  Leaving it is not like leaving a job or moving out of a neighborhood because nobody expects or requires lifelong affiliation with a job or a neighborhood.

The closest analogy I can think of is a marriage.  Yes, you can leave it, but it's hard because A) there is/was an implicit expectation that the relationship was lifelong B) you are "tied" to it by bonds that can be difficult/painful to sever, C) your social interactions and identity are heavily intertwined with and influenced by the marriage, such that those interactions and identity will be affected when the marital relationship is dissolved.

I have one brother-in-law who has recently completed a divorce, and another who is in the process.  This has been difficult for both of them, and to a much lesser extent for me as well.  I have long had strong affection and regard for both of these men and their wives.  But while my relationship with these men will continue, my relationship with their spouses will largely dissipate. 

However, there is, I think, going to be a substantial difference in how I interact with these women in the future.  One of them took a scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners approach to the divorce proceedings, and has created huge amounts of acrimony not only with her ex-husband, but with his siblings and parents as well.  We have all taken a substantial step back from her.  Not to punish or "shun" her, but because the level of vitriol and anger she has exhibited suggests that efforts to communicate or interact with her would - at present - be a very bad idea.

The other soon-to-be-former-sister-in-law is, however, an entirely different story.  Yes, she is divorcing my brother-in-law, and yes, that is a painful thing for all involved.  However, she has been very respectful and amiable and accommodating with us, as have we with her.  While our relationship is presently a bit more tentative than it was before (the divorce process is still ongoing), I anticipate having an ongoing civil and warm relationship with her in the future.

One of my soon-to-be-former-sister-in-laws has forced an ugly "divided loyalties" conundrum on us, and the other has not.  The difference in the real-world ramifications has been substantial.

Quote

Because of the strict Mormon lifestyle, many ex-Mormons often experience a kind of delayed adolescence once they leave the church, experimenting with alcohol, drugs and sex.

Christene Carol, 43 and mother of five, said she attempted suicide in 1999 after living "an insanely perfect life" as a Mormon.

She said she's spent the past two years learning to live responsibly without the guidance of the church, though it's been a difficult road at times. She said she overdosed on Ecstasy one night. And for a short time, she took up shoplifting, though she borrowed $2,000 to pay back the merchants.

"I don't expect the people in the church to understand, and I don't blame anyone," said Carol, a resident of Bountiful, Utah. "I've learned to live an independent life rather than a life of needing or seeking the approval of others."

I'm glad she is not blaming the Church for her own misconduct and poor choices.

Quote

Maxine Hanks says she and others put up with the "scathing but subtle disapproval" from Mormons in Utah and elsewhere because it's important to "learn how to stay."

"I make a difference here," she says. "I have a social responsibility to stay in the conversation. And we need to create diversity. Without people like us, there is no diversity."

I am glad that Sis. Hanks put up with our shortcomings.  We need to reciprocate.

6 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Under the pretext of not wanting their influence. Someone who lives in the corridor can confirm or deny.

In 2023?  I deny the notion of systemic "shunning."  And in those individual instances where it occurs, it is in contravention to the doctrines and teachings of the Church.

6 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I mean, if they're all up in your face about what's wrong with the church, then you're not obligated to be around those kinds of people. That's rude.

I entirely agree with this.  I also think former Latter-day Saints need to be cognizant of this.  If you want to have an ongoing amiable and civil relationship with faithful Latter-day Saints, then great.  But trashing doctrines, practices, etc. that are sacred to us may cause tension.  

There is an old adage about not talking "politics" at Thanksgiving Dinner.  Of course, that ought not totally foreclose discussion of political issues between family and friends.  But the "time" and "place" and "manner" ought to be considered.  I think these same considerations ought to be applied as to communications between current and former Latter-day Saints.

6 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Otherwise, there's no need to sever ties. A person's religious beliefs arent the only things about him/her.

I quite agree.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

I think it’s human nature when somebody leaves the pack, especially without explanation for the pack to feel uncomfortable, awkward, rejected, and ultimately avoidant. I’ll give an extreme example. When my daughter-in-law decided she didn’t want to be married anymore, after the divorce, I ran into her in a public place, and she wanted to sit down and chat. I was not interested in that. I was polite, but when she wanted to talk further, I interrupted her and told her I was not interested. I also blocked her on social media. One could say I was shunning.  Truth is, it hurt too much to invest in one who had rejected my son and had left him- and us.  I know it wasn’t about me, but it felt like rejection, so I wanted to avoid her. 
 

I think that we can compare this experience to sometimes how it feels when family members leave the church or when friends leave the church. We have a choice. Sometimes we choose poorly.  It’s an immature response. I acknowledge that my response to my ex daughter-in-law may be immature. I know that the anxiety that in the past has led me to avoid a relationship with somebody who has left the church comes from an immature place.

sometimes all we’re trying to do is avoid the awkwardness.

[Rock_N_Roll]

Quote

Smiley McGee: "Has all that interbreeding in Utah led to a population with even thinner skin and less self-awareness, resulting in excess shunning? Scientifically speaking, yes, it has."

CFR that there is "interbreeding" in Utah, and CFR that Utahans have a "thinner skin and less self-awareness" than any other group. 

[Hamilton Porter]

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I live in Utah.  I see the same sort of talent, education, and overall decency in the Saints here.  And many (most, I'd wager) active Latter-day Saints "hang out with people who've left the church."

A few thoughts:

First, I think this is one of those areas in which the Latter-day Saints need to speak for themselves.  

Second, "shunning" needs to be defined.  Per Wikipedia, "shunning" in a religious context is "is a formal decision by a denomination or a congregation to cease interaction with an individual or a group, and follows a particular set of rules."

Third, the Church does not teach or encourage or wink at anything akin to "shunning" in this or any comparable sense.  There is no "formal decision," nor any "particular set of rules."  Moreover, the Church has specifically taught against shunning.  See, e.g., here:

 We are taught to be "good neighbors."

Fourth, Wikipedia lists religious groups that practice or have practiced some form of shunning.  The Church is not listed there.

Fifth, it is my understanding that some offshoots of the Church practice shunning, but we do not.

Sixth, "shunning" seems to often be one of those "eye of the beholder" things.  For example, Wikipedia has the following entry about the social impact of leaving the Church:

Both of the footnoted references are kind of old (from 2001 and 1989).  The 1989 source does not allege "shunning" in the Church.  The 2001 article alleges "social" shunning, but the allegations are purely anecdotal and seem . . . a bit much:

"Every one of her Mormon friends."

"Her decision was so unspeakable..."

"'If Mormons associate with you, they think they will somehow become contaminated..."

Purely anecdotal, purely one-sided.

It would be nice to see data about this, instead of vague and totally one-sided anecdotes and allegations.

This is emotional rhetoric and anecdote.  Not much to go on.  

Also, I have a hard time extrapolating this out to some sort of systemic issue in the Church in 2001, let alone in 2023.

These are sad stories, but they are purely anecdotal and one-sided.  There is also a strong likelihood of "self-selection bias."  The people who go take the time, effort and expense to attend an "ex-mormon" conference are more likely to have a substantial grievance, whether accurate and fair or not.

I am not saying that inappropriate treatment does not happen, as I also could not deny that some Latter-day Saints swear, gamble, violate the Word of Wisdom, engage in sexual impropriety, are dishonest in their dealings, and so on.  My point is that all of these things - including shunning - A) are emphatically not taught by the Church, B) are instead taught against in the Church, and C) have not been shown to be systemically prevalent amongst active Latter-day Saints.

This has a sort of "final nail in the coffin" feel to it as regarding allegations of systemic "shunning."

This is, unfortunately, an inevitable consequence of leaving a community.  That said, the allegation of some sort of systemic "shunning" does not seem apt.

Color me a wee bit skeptical about this.

Sis. Hanks rejoined the Church in 2012.  Members of the Church have essentially nothing to gain, and much to lose, by "shunning."

Again, all of this is anecdotal.  

This is sort of an interesting example of ex-Mormons doing a bit of "shunning."  She threatened to kick her husband out of the marital bed unless he stopped wearing his garments?

I also recall Dan Reynolds, of Imagine Dragons fame, relating a story about how two of his wife's friends excluded him from their (lesbian) wedding because he was a Latter-day Saint.

I guess this is one of those "It's not wrong when I do it" sort of things.

This is substantially misleading, as all non-members are not allowed into the temple, not just "ex-Mormons."  And what is this "temple baptisms" thing?

And in any event, the Church has changed its policies for temple sealings to allow the couple to have a civil ceremony.  

This is largely at odds with my experience in the workplace in Utah. 

I very much like this sentiment.  I very much hope that my friends and family who have left the Church retain as many of the precepts of the Restored Gospel as they can.

Antagonism can be a two-way street here.  I think these days most Latter-day Saints have a pretty comfortable level of détente with family members and friends who have stepped away from the Church.  It's a sort of an unspoken-but-understood "You don't preach to me about coming back to church, and I won't rail against or denigrate the things you hold sacred" sort of compact.  And it's a pretty effective one.

Sure.  Again, when you affirmatively reject and leave a community, you often lose many parts of your identity tied to it.

Part of the struggle here is that membership in the Church is supposed to be a "lifelong and into eternity" sort of thing.  Leaving it is not like leaving a job or moving out of a neighborhood because nobody expects or requires lifelong affiliation with a job or a neighborhood.

The closest analogy I can think of is a marriage.  Yes, you can leave it, but it's hard because A) there is/was an implicit expectation that the relationship was lifelong B) you are "tied" to it by bonds that can be difficult/painful to sever, C) your social interactions and identity are heavily intertwined with and influenced by the marriage, such that those interactions and identity will be affected when the marital relationship is dissolved.

I have one brother-in-law who has recently completed a divorce, and another who is in the process.  This has been difficult for both of them, and to a much lesser extent for me as well.  I have long had strong affection and regard for both of these men and their wives.  But while my relationship with these men will continue, my relationship with their spouses will largely dissipate. 

However, there is, I think, going to be a substantial difference in how I interact with these women in the future.  One of them took a scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners approach to the divorce proceedings, and has created huge amounts of acrimony not only with her ex-husband, but with his siblings and parents as well.  We have all taken a substantial step back from her.  Not to punish or "shun" her, but because the level of vitriol and anger she has exhibited suggests that efforts to communicate or interact with her would - at present - be a very bad idea.

The other soon-to-be-former-sister-in-law is, however, an entirely different story.  Yes, she is divorcing my brother-in-law, and yes, that is a painful thing for all involved.  However, she has been very respectful and amiable and accommodating with us, as have we with her.  While our relationship is presently a bit more tentative than it was before (the divorce process is still ongoing), I anticipate having an ongoing civil and warm relationship with her in the future.

One of my soon-to-be-former-sister-in-laws has forced an ugly "divided loyalties" conundrum on us, and the other has not.  The difference in the real-world ramifications has been substantial.

I'm glad she is not blaming the Church for her own misconduct and poor choices.

I am glad that Sis. Hanks put up with our shortcomings.  We need to reciprocate.

In 2023?  I deny the notion of systemic "shunning."  And in those individual instances where it occurs, it is in contravention to the doctrines and teachings of the Church.

I entirely agree with this.  I also think former Latter-day Saints need to be cognizant of this.  If you want to have an ongoing amiable and civil relationship with faithful Latter-day Saints, then great.  But trashing doctrines, practices, etc. that are sacred to us may cause tension.  

There is an old adage about not talking "politics" at Thanksgiving Dinner.  Of course, that ought not totally foreclose discussion of political issues between family and friends.  But the "time" and "place" and "manner" ought to be considered.  I think these same considerations ought to be applied as to communications between current and former Latter-day Saints.

I quite agree.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yeah I agree. Disgruntled people who leave any organization can't be counted on to give non-exaggerated accounts of their experience.

And ex-Mormon groups exhibit double or triple the mind control on its members than the LDS Church ever has. ("John Dehlin helped me with my faith transition. I'm gonna flap up to Dear Leader no matter what he's credibly accused of.")

 

[Hamilton Porter]

5 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

What do you think about this scripture in JST Mark 9?

JST, Mark 9:40–48. Compare Mark 9:43–48
Jesus compares cutting off an offending hand or foot to discontinuing associations that may lead one astray.
 40 Therefore, if thy hand offend thee, cut it off; or if thy brother offend thee and confess not and forsake not, he shall be cut off. It is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands, to go into hell.
41 For it is better for thee to enter into life without thy brother, than for thee and thy brother to be cast into hell; into the fire that never shall be quenched, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
42 And again, if thy foot offend thee, cut it off; for he that is thy standard, by whom thou walkest, if he become a transgressor, he shall be cut off.
43 It is better for thee, to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell; into the fire that never shall be quenched.
 44 Therefore, let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another.
45 Seek unto my Father, and it shall be done in that very moment what ye shall ask, if ye ask in faith, believing that ye shall receive.
46 And if thine eye which seeth for thee, him that is appointed to watch over thee to show thee light, become a transgressor and offend thee, pluck him out.
47 It is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God, with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/jst/jst-mark/9?lang=eng

No exmo has ever said anything half convincing enough to imperil my salvation.

[Smiley McGee]

18 minutes ago, Rock_N_Roll said:

CFR that there is "interbreeding" in Utah, and CFR that Utahans have a "thinner skin and less self-awareness" than any other group. 

Studies presented here

[The Nehor]

In my experience a lot of what many ex or lapsed members call shunning is just the natural result of withdrawing from a social group. You can’t expect to stay as close to people if you go from routinely seeing them for several hours every week to not.

I have also seen some who isolate themselves. I had a friend who left the church. I knew him through a hobby we shared. He discovered beer after leaving the church and loved beer. Nobody cared one way or the other until he started showing up drunk or wanting to drink during hobby time and it was not a hobby conducive to drinking. We asked him to stop. He didn’t. We stopped inviting him. The rest of the group included member, non-members, and inactive members. We all wanted him to stop.

Then I have seen actual shunning. Someone goes “too far”. This can be anything from being a part of the lgbt community to being politically out of harmony with your family to whatever. The family closes ranks and ostracizes the person. Usually not completely but they feel diseased and as if they are allowed to participate based on sufferance only. It usually doesn’t go well.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

The community is amazing and it's about as close as you can get to a an ideal Christian community.

My pocket of Utah feels this way to me. I have never been in a neighborhood before where I had outgoing neighbors that made an effort to get to know and even help us even as a kid save for my years in a married student ward at BYU and it came at the best time given I am so limited to my home these days. It is comforting to know of the 10 houses that border my home, I could go to 8 of them, they would know me by name and would help in any way they could without me having to beg, several dropping what they were doing immediately if possible. The last two are relatively new and haven’t met them in the street or at church yet, so they may be the same kind of people.  I am going to hate moving (when we can no longer trust ourselves on stairs), which will be a first for me (I like new starts plus the homes were never able to make that comfortable without tons more money than we had).

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Dario_M said:

It's a thing in Utah.

Have you been in Utah?  If not, I am wondering how you know.  Just curious if you are a big traveler…something I would have liked to have done…though I made it to Canada and Moscow, so I am not completely lacking there.   

Not disputing this happens in Utah in places as I believe this will happen in any community that has a large majority of a particular group so some members start seeing the community as belonging to them more than others, whether the group is based on a political, religious, ethnic or other attribute, kids all go to the same school or after school activity, whatever. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Calm

[Hamilton Porter]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

My brother was shunned as a child and he hates the church to this day.

From an evolutionary biology perspective, if you're shunned by tribe, you're pretty much dead.

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Sorry, not completely shunning, but from what the move in's say about LDS in Utah being rather protective of their children playing with their children if they aren't LDS. You'll get several posts that say how lonely it was growing up non LDS in highly populated LDS areas. This is in the Bountiful area that I grew up in. 

It likely really depends where you live. I'm also hopeful it's less the younger one gets. And other issues, like general homogeny of the area (in terms of race, class, and religion)

I Live down south of Provo. We chose a neighborhood that's economical more mixed, have higher numbers of minorities, and a nice blend in age. We also go to the Spanish ward so our neighborhood is only partially our ward. So far, it's been a really nice set up for us. Because of the make up I also haven't seen a ton of exclusion based of activity in church. Obviously people hang with those there's a connection to, but it's not been bad. 

(Tied to your other post) you're ward/neighborhood can be reallu nice and also not be a great place to raise minority children in or out of the church. That one's less to do with religion and more to do with exposure to and overall diversity in the community. As a minority, generally less diverse and homogeneous neighborhoods are hard ones to live in. There's neighborhoods that I know on paper are lovely safe areas to live in UT, but that I'd absolutely hate to live in and would feel loathe to have my daughter deal with.

 

With luv, 

BD 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

My brother in law left the church.  He had one "close" friend who completely severed ties with him because of it.  So, I'm not sure if there is much of a difference between shunning and not being friends.  If anything, I guess it informs you of who your true friends are.  

When I was in grade 6, I went and lived with my grandmother for 4 months. When I came back, none of my friends were my friends anymore. Never found out why. Some people have never grown out of the juvenile behaviour clique one sees in elementary and junior high school it seems. That can get nasty and is often very petty. 

[Dario_M]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Have you been in Utah?

No.

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

 If not, I am wondering how you know.

I have heard to many stories about Utah. 

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

 Just curious if you are a big traveler…something I would have liked to have done…though I made it to Canada and Moscow, so I am not completely lacking there.   

Well..i'm in Portugal right now. That's also far from my home country. 

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not disputing this happens in Utah in places as I believe this will happen in any community that has a large majority of a particular group so some members start seeing the community as belonging to them more than others, whether the group is based on a political, religious, ethnic or other attribute, kids all go to the same school or after school activity, whatever. 

Yes but we all know that these type of things happen more in Utah then anywhere else. But for the rest i do believe Utah must be a lovely place full of nature, calmness, country side, nice suburban neighborhoods , paz, etc. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Dario_M

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You can’t expect to stay as close to people if you go from routinely seeing them for several hours every week to not.

This happens even with ward boundary changes when both friends stay active in church. Even a friend around the corner from us, we have no contact with after 5 years of being in different wards…of course we will wave if we were to see her in the yard, but I no longer go on walks so that is much less likely to happen.

If my health was better, it would be different, but she hasn’t reached out either because she is overbooked taking care of her garden and animals and grandchildren.  It takes time and attention to maintain contact and you lose the easy route to both when you stop seeing someone every week at church. 

[Dario_M]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I think it’s human nature when somebody leaves the pack, especially without explanation for the pack to feel uncomfortable, awkward, rejected, and ultimately avoidant. I’ll give an extreme example. When my daughter-in-law decided she didn’t want to be married anymore, after the divorce, I ran into her in a public place, and she wanted to sit down and chat. I was not interested in that. I was polite, but when she wanted to talk further, I interrupted her and told her I was not interested. I also blocked her on social media. One could say I was shunning.  Truth is, it hurt too much to invest in one who had rejected my son and had left him- and us.  I know it wasn’t about me, but it felt like rejection, so I wanted to avoid her. 
 

I think that we can compare this experience to sometimes how it feels when family members leave the church or when friends leave the church. We have a choice. Sometimes we choose poorly.  It’s an immature response. I acknowledge that my response to my ex daughter-in-law may be immature. I know that the anxiety that in the past has led me to avoid a relationship with somebody who has left the church comes from an immature place.

sometimes all we’re trying to do is avoid the awkwardness.

That is just a really bad excuse to talk wrong behavoir right.