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
If you had written that some Mormons shun those who leave the Church, I would agree with you.
Of course there are Mormons who do all sorts of things that they are not supposed to do. That some Mormons persist in committing sin does not mean that other Mormons approve of sin.
The "legalistic definition" of shunning that I posted refers to a specific institutional practice of some groups (most notably the Amish). I interpreted the original question on the subject to refer to that practice, which has no LDS counterpart. I stand by the definition and my comments.
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.
If you encounter Mormons possessing such a mindset, feel free to call them on their inconsistencies. I am not one of them, nor do I approve of their bad behavior.
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.
I have not forgotten. Some of those former Mormons are well informed and inclined to be fair in their assessment of the LDS Church. I respect their opinions even if I disagree with them. Whatever our differences, I hope that God blesses all of us.
Look, the LDS Church contains all types. Most of the Mormons I know are decent but imperfect people who are trying to live in a covenant relationship with God. Often I shake my head at the things that are said and done in the Church (by the members and the leaders). Nevertheless, I remain a member because I believe God wants me to remain a member.
Covert sanction is quite different from overt and public sanction.
Indeed. It is easy to allege that "covert sanction" occurs but impossible to prove that it doesn't. Therefore, it is a perfect weapon for defamation.