Posted on 10/13/2009 9:30:14 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
Yup...
Can't have MORMONs actually FOLLOWING what GOD said in D&C 132!
Exactly.
According to the definition you have provided here, LDS Church discipline does not involve shunning. The Church does not mandate or even recommend that its members disassociate themselves from those who have been placed on probation, disfellowshipped, or excommunicated. Nor does it mandate or recommend such treatment of those who leave the Church, either temporarily or permanently.
In fact, the LDS Church goes out of its way to avoid public embarrassment of persons who have been disciplined. (The only exceptions I have witnessed personally involved persons who were deemed to be a threat to others.) The hope is always that the person will reconsider and return to full fellowship in the Church.
(The only exceptions I have witnessed personally involved persons who were deemed to be a threat to others.)
Exactly what kind of "threat"? I asked you earlier what kind of a "danger"? Persons who carried weapons? Or, is this mandate to the members a method by which they can interpret the "danger" being the teaching of "Unapproved doctrine" to unsuspecting members?
Yep, that must be the reason!
Fair enough. If you go back and read my first post on the matter (Post #13), you will see that I was talking about the Church's disciplinary procedures. Specifically in reference to Harry Reid, I wrote,
Obviously, being a slimy politician is not an offense requiring excommunication.
After you objected to my characterization of Church practice, I was careful to define what I meant by shunning (Post #55). The definition I offered was similar to the one you provided (Post #56).
Have you a recent order by leadership to members forbidding the shunning of "Apostates" by members?
In 1985, the First Presidency wrote,
We encourage Church members to forgive those who may have wronged them. To those who have ceased activity and to those who have become critical, we say, "Come back. Come back and feast at the table of the Lord, and taste again the sweet and satisfying fruits of fellowship with the Saints.” (Church News, 22 Dec. 1985, p. 3.)Elder M. Russell Ballard wrote in 1990,
Friends and family are vitally important for an individual who is struggling to return to the gospel path. Those around such a person must refrain from judging. They must do all they can to show love.Jeffrey R. Holland wrote in 2007,The Lord has commanded, “Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.
“I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.” (D&C 64:9–10.) (A Chance to Start Over: Church Disciplinary Councils and the Restoration of Blessings.)
Above all, keep your lines of communication open. Open communication between parents and children is a clear expression of love, and pure love, generously expressed, can transform family ties. But love for a family member does not extend to condoning unrighteous behavior. Your children are welcome to stay in your home, of course, but you have every right to exclude from your dwelling any behavior that offends the Spirit of the Lord. (Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction.)
Exactly what kind of "threat"? I asked you earlier what kind of a "danger"? Persons who carried weapons?
Physical or sexual abuse of a child would be one example. Child abuse is grounds for immediate excommunication. Although an excommunicated abuser may repent and return to the Church, his or her membership record receives an annotation warning of the past abuse. Such persons are not to be called to work with children or youth.
Where in the CHI? There hasn't been a directive in General Conference to the members...in fact, Monson made a point of accusing apostates of being "offended" or wanting to sin, etc. etc. which could be taken as permission to shun.
....and the religious group you hang around with don’t have opinions of other faiths nor bash day in and day out.
You have to go back to the early 1800’s because you have a disagreement with the Lord about him answering JS to join none for of them becasue their creeds is abomination.
can’t help yourself sound like the Rush Limbaugh critic just make it up!
Direct ORDER? The LDS Church is not the Army.
The general authorities tend not to give "direct orders" to the Church. (I cannot remember them ever doing so, unless you consider a call to repentance a direct order.) They do preach, teach, counsel, advise, encourage, exhort, invite, and so forth. But they do not say "I ORDER you to _____________ ."
I posted several excerpts from general authorities which leave little room for the practice of shunning. I can probably find many more; but none of them would be worded as direct ORDERS to the Church.
What about the local authorities of the Church? They are expected to follow the policies contained in the Church Handbook of Instructions. As I recall, the Handbook sets out clear directives on how church discipline is to be administered. It contains no provision for shunning anyone.
Do the members practice shunning without official sanction? Perhaps. But I have never heard anyone suggest it be done. No doubt some individuals choose to cut their ties with persons they find disagreeable; however, that does not fit the definitions of shunning that both you and I posted earlier.
One more thing. Inactive or former members of the Church have often complained to me that the members will not leave them alone. It is not unusual for inactive members to request that they not be visited. I daresay most bishops honor such requests. Again, that does not fit the definitions of shunning that both you and I posted earlier.
Nope; I'm 'going' to RIGHT NOW - namely YOU.
Do YOU know what JS 'learned' that was UNTRUE about PRESBYTERIANism?
It's a YES/NO question.
You are either SHUNNING us by NOT answering the 'question' or you really don't know.
Which is it?
You have finally admitted to what I have been saying all along..."No doubt some individuals choose to cut their ties with persons they find disagreeable; however, that does not fit the definitions of shunning that both you and I posted earlier."
What some mormons see as "disagreeable" enough to "cut ties" is another mormon who choses to practice the right to "believe as he chooses"...a phrase that is all too often seen from mormons themselves. The same actions practiced against them would loudly be called "persecution".
This, in fact, goes perfectly with the mindset of mormons who believe that their "right" to proselytize worldwide is sacrosanct, while in the same breath they rail at those who rebut their message.
There is another thread going now on mormon baptism for the dead, which is found highly disagreeable by those whose relatives and ancestors are subjected to this outrage, but the mormon church, even after agreeing to stop baptizing those not directly related to members, is still practicing it.
Newest Catholic saint baptized and 'sealed' to wife in LDS temple?
It has been noted that Ted Kennedy's name has already been presented for proxy baptism in your temple.
The same deflection is practiced in this case that has been in your posts...."the members practice this without official sanction".
You forget that there are several former mormons on this site who have experience in exactly how much is "practiced without official sanction" among the membership.
Covert sanction is quite different from overt and public sanction.
We don't know, but can only assume it's because I'm not in the church anymore. I do attend on rare occasions and there are a few folks who will greet me. My wife will then mention that it's the only time some of those folks have even noticed them, let alone acknowledged them.
She has gone to the stake presidency numerous times about member/bishopric behavior and has been told to support and “sustain” her leadership, that they know better than her how to handle issues. Basically, “shut up and color”. Unfortunately, little, if anything is done to resolve the problems.
My wife is currently the YW’s president, works at the temple once a month, pays her tithing and my son is in the youth group. Both attend very regularly and are quite active.
I did remove my son from the “Boy Scout Troop” in the ward because it does not offer a true Scouting program and the fact that the adult leadership did nothing to correct personal conflicts amongst the boys. And I told the ward bishop exactly why I was removing him. But that would be the only thing that I can think of that would give anyone any cause for ostracizing them.
So, in essence, it may not be systematic throughout the church, but it is practiced. Why? I don't know, but it does present problems. It causes my wife and son much grief. Which in and of itself, is a violation or failure to follow “the counsel” from SLC in regards to fellowshipping members. Even her home teachers have pulled back from visiting.
Is there any concrete proof it's sanctioned? Probably not. You'll probably only find experiences like ours to refer to. Anecdotal I suppose. But I do find the behavior of the ward/stake leadership questionable in regards to the treatment of the members.
SZ
My wife is currently the YW’s president, works at the temple once a month,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Am I correct? Does YM leader stand for Young Women’s leader? Leader of the teenage girls?
Isn’t having responsibilities in your temple considered sacred?
Something isn’t computing here.
Why would the leaders of your church being giving your wife these duties and responsibilities if they were “ostracizing” her and didn’t absolutely and completely trust and respect her in every way?
I would ask you to answer that.
I can offer conjecture, but will refrain.
What I have written without any embellishment is the absolute truth.
As I stated in my opening sentence, these are my/our experiences.
SZ
Missed that one, it's not "my church"
SZ
Pretty "overt" in the sanctioning, IMO and very typical.
It causes my wife and son much grief. Which in and of itself, is a violation or failure to follow “the counsel” from SLC in regards to fellowshipping members. Even her home teachers have pulled back from visiting.
SLC leaders mouth platitudes and underneath, the stake and ward leaders do the "wink, wink..nudge, nudge" in applying the platitudes.
This, you know, is punishment meant for you by hurting your family.
Of course, you will be told this isn't really "shunning" and according to a couple of mormons here, it's because your wife and son are "disagreeable"...even though they are still loyal to the Corporation.
This is an example of the message sent out by leaders to members from the General Conference in April, 2009. Note the underlying condemnation of "apostates" apparent in Monson's words.
Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the LDS church and President of the Corporation made these comments regarding those who left the mormon church:
"Throughout the journey along the pathway of life, there are casualties. Some depart from the road markers which point toward life eternal, only to discover the detour chosen ultimately leads to a dead end. Indifference, carelessness, selfishness, and sin all take their costly toll in human lives.
Change for the better can come to all. Over the years we have issued appeals to the less active, the offended, the critical, the transgressor—to come back. “Come back and feast at the table of the Lord, and taste again the sweet and satisfying fruits of fellowship with the Saints.”2"
I especially like the message: "Come back and feast at the table of the Lord, and taste again the sweet and satisfying fruits of fellowship with the Saints.”2"
Pretty plain, isn't it? To the members (nudge, nudge) and "apostates" alike..no invitation is to be offered to you to "fellowship" unless you toe the mormon line.
They probably fear that if they removed her "callings" she would leave for good. How better to punish the husband than to show their disapproval of HIS actions by punishing his family this way?
As to the duties in the temple, I would wager that the next time his wife tries to renew her temple recommend, there may be some question as to her "worthiness" in her answers to these questions, particularly no. 7.
Note: Refusal of a temple recommend is an effective way to discipline members.
There is no reason why they should treat my family the way they do. They are in every way upstanding mormons with the exception that the patriarch of the family has bowed out.
As mentioned earlier, I can offer conjecture, but not knowing what's in their hearts, I won't.
What's been done has shown me that they preach what they don't practice. That I can't trust them. To assume that “all will be well” if I return is ludicrous. They have shown their stripes.SZ
I don’t know, it’s been 15 years since I quit and she hasn’t been denied, yet.
In support of your “callings” comment, I will offer that the number of members who accept callings is way down and the fact that my wife continues to accept callings may be one of those factors they take into account. “Keep her active and we’ll have a warm body to do work.” kind of thing.
SZ
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.