Ely, NV
Posted on 10/13/2009 9:30:14 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
In a meeting with gay-rights activists last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid criticized the LDS Church for backing a ballot measure banning same-sex marriage in California, saying the leaders of his faith should have stayed out of the contentious political fight.
Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, is the highest ranking elected official who is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
-SNIP-
Marchers in Sunday's equality rally, which drew tens of thousands to the U.S. Capitol, repeatedly referenced the Prop 8 defeat in signs, statements and even face paint. But when organizers sat down with Reid, it wasn't a topic they intended to raise. They wanted to thank him for supporting the march and push him on their desire for federal action giving gay Americans the ability to get married, serve openly in the military and fight workplace discrimination.
Reid signed a letter supporting the march and encouraged a sustained lobbying campaign.
In the meeting, those present touched on issues most important to them. Dan Choi, a veteran of the Iraq War, who was booted from the military under the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, thanked Reid for lobbying President Barack Obama on his behalf. Robin McGehee, of California, talked about her own family. Then, McGehee said, Reid brought up his LDS faith and discussed a recent meeting with Mormons in which he criticized the Prop 8 efforts.
"He personally said they needed to be focused on other things," she said, "and he felt it was harmful for the church to focus on such a divisive issue."
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
Is the LDS church pro-life?
Oh, OK. You're equating the public and specific criticism of Church leadership by a sitting Senator on the critical moral issue of marriage with the posted bewilderment of a single, obscure FReeper who wonders why the Senator gets away with it.
In your mind, those two are equal.
Gotcha.
Personal stories of "apostate" mormons and being shunned for leaving the mormon church
I have my OWN story of being shunned after I left the mormon church.
I wonder how his Jewish wife liked being called a "gentile" by the mormons?
What can I say about anonymous anecdotes describing incidents I did not witness, involving persons I do not know? I would prefer to hear the other side(s) of the story before commenting.
By the way, you did not answer the questions I asked you in my last post. Why?
Insinuations framed as questions deserve no comment...you refuse to address personal stories of mormon shunning after denying the existence of it of which is a well-known fact among mormons. It’s just another “deniable plausibility we don’t do that...officially”.
You are being evasive.
Are you trying to say that my disagreement with Reid is somehow the same as disagreeing with the Church? ...or are you saying that I should do something about Reid’s standing in the Church?
***
Reid the Judas is doing a good job at drawing the line give a horse enough rope and he will hang himself!
In 2004 Reid was attending my ward in NYC one Sunday I did all I could do to hold my tongue because it was the Lord’s house I stayed still.
But no one greeted him like when Orrin Hatch would attend.
I've seen enough miraculous conversions in my life to know that even Reid could repent and get his head screwed on straight.
But so far, I'm not liking what comes out of his mouth.
He may just keep going and kick himself out of the Church.
I am being evasive? You are the one denying shunning by mormons when it is practiced daily against anyone who leaves the mormon church and building your straw man to avoid admitting that you lied when you said that mormons do NOT shun.
How many "apostates" have you personally avoided when meeting them in public, looked the other way, discussed their offense with other mormons?
I detest homosexual behavior. I also detest holier-than-thou behavior by a group that believes that polygamy is a requirement to salvation.
"After Joseph Smith married some thirty-eight women, he introduced this "celestial" marriage form to his innermost circle of followers. By early 1846, nearly 200 men had adopted the polygamous lifestyle, with an average of nearly four women per man—717 wives in all, with more wives to come after leaving Nauvoo."
Present-day "celestial" marriage allows for the "sealing" of multiple wives to a mormon man after death. Eternal polygamy.
You are the one denying shunning by mormons when it is practiced daily against anyone who leaves the Lord’s church.
****
This is pretty interesting some exer’s spend daily bashing the LDS and then turn around accusing the LDS of shunning!
LOL
Oh dear
I don’t know about you but could it be who wants to be around those who are always unpleasant!
Did the Presbyterians shun you when you left to become a mormon? That might explain why you can't tell us what Joseph Smith found wrong with Presbyterianism.
Glad to see you, at least, admit to mormon shunning.
****
No Please don’t put words into another mouth to suit your bias.
When the Exers by their unpleasantness push the LDS away it is not the LDS shunning.
**
Did the Presbyterians shun you when you left to become a mormon? That might explain why you can’t tell us what Joseph Smith found wrong with Presbyterianism
****
I never gave the Presbyterians a cause to shun me I was cordial to them it is more than I can say for a few who are of other faiths who choose not to practice the Golden Rule.
BTW I had left the church for over 18 before I found the Lord.
So, you admit leaving mormonism is "cause for shunning"...thanks.
I was cordial to them it is more than I can say for a few who are of other faiths who choose not to practice the Golden Rule
Presbyterians do not feel a personal offense to someone who leaves them...try leaving the mormons now, and see what kind of "Golden Rule" treatment you receive for your "cordiality".
You can deny all you want, but the act of leaving mormonism is seen by members as a reason to shun the "apostate".
Yes, you are being evasive. You posted a link to a story about a homosexual activist group that is critical of the LDS Church, then refused to say whether you agree with their criticisms. If you did not want to discuss the content of the article, why link to it?
You are the one denying shunning by mormons when it is practiced daily against anyone who leaves the mormon church . . . .
In a religious context, shunning has a definite meaning. According to ReligiousTolerance.org, shunning is
. . . a method of disciplining or punishing a member who strays from the group's expected behavior or belief. Other members --often including friends and family -- are expected to have no contact with the shunned individual. In a high intensity faith group where a believer's entire support network is composed of fellow members, this can have disastrous consequences; some have been moved to commit suicide. Various forms of shunning are practiced by Amish, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other conservative religious groups as a means of forcing conformity of belief and behavior. Glossary of religious and spiritual terms, ReligiousTolerance.org
Hence, shunning is more than merely the avoidance of persons whom one finds annoying, unpleasant, or disagreeable.
Discipline in the LDS church can take the form of informal probation, formal probation, disfellowshipment, or (in the most serious cases) excommunication. Most Church discipline is conducted in private; rarely are disciplinary cases discussed publicly by Church leaders.
LDS Church discipline does not involve shunning. Even excommunicated persons are invited to participate in our public meetings (so long as they are not disruptive.) We always hope that the excommunicated person will repent and rejoin the Church.
Interestingly, the article you posted regarding the homosexual group Affirmation does not support the idea that the Church practices shunning. Quite the contrary:
"Above all, keep your lines of communication open," Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, urged in a 2007 Ensign article. "Open communication between parents and children is a clear expression of love, and pure love, generously expressed, can transform family ties."
Apparently, Affirmation believes that the Church should do more "to reach out to Mormon families -- and their clergy -- and provide clearer direction on how to respond when a daughter, husband, wife or brother comes out as gay." That is a far cry from accusing the Church of shunning homosexuals.
. . . and building your straw man to avoid admitting that you lied when you said that mormons do NOT shun.
It is bad form to accuse people of lying simply because they disagree with you.
As always, the fall-back mormon position of "it's not official, therefore it doesn't happen", along with the particular mormon definition .
Shunning is often used as a pejorative term to describe any organizationally mandated disassociation, and has acquired a connotation of abuse and relational aggression. This is due to the sometimes extreme damage caused by its disruption to normal relationships between individuals, such as friendships and family relations. Disruption of established relationships certainly causes pain, which is at least an unintended consequence of the practices described here, though it may also in many cases be an intended, coercive consequence. This pain, especially when seen as unjustly inflicted, can have secondary general psychological effects on self-worth and self-confidence, trust and trustworthiness, and can, as with other types of trauma, impair psychological function.
Shunning often involves implicit or explicit shame for a member who commits acts seen as wrong by the group or its leadership. Such shame may not be psychologically damaging if the membership is voluntary and the rules of behaviour clear before the person joined. However, if the rules are arbitrary, the group membership seen as essential for personal security, safety, or health, or if the application of the rules are inconsistent, such shame can be highly destructive. This can be especially damaging if perceptions are attacked or controlled, or various tools of psychological pressure applied. Extremes of this cross over the line into psychological torture and can be permanently scarring.
A key detrimental effect of some of the practices associated with shunning relate to their effect on relationships, especially family relationships. At its extremes, the practices may destroy marriages, break up families, and separate children and their parents.
This Link for personal stories of mormon shunning.
It is bad form to accuse people of being evasive simply because they do not accept your insinuations that one holds a position based upon your own interpretation of one's actions. Am I to expect your next question to be "Have you stopped beating your wife"?
As one who has personally experienced the mormon version of shunning, your rationalizing and apologetics are ridiculous.
One has to wonder at the vehement response if, in fact, mormons do NOT practice shunning. BTW, a Google search produces this result Results 1 - 10 of about 855,000 for mormon shunning.
Ely, NV
Sounds pretty straight forward to me.
Insinuations framed as questions deserve no comment...
This is pretty interesting some exer’s spend daily bashing the LDS and then turn around accusing the LDS of shunning!
“I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.”
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother,
Is THIS it???
Them dang PRESBYTERIANs wuz UNPLEASENT???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.