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.
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.