This is absolutely not true. I know a parent who wasn’t allowed to go to their child’s wedding because the church wouldn’t allow her to after she left the church.
The church wedding for members of our church happens in a place we call temple. Temples are not our churches, they are a sacred place that only members in good standing are allowed to visit. This is not the place we meet at every week for our weekly church services.
So yeah, that parent would not be allowed to go to the temple, where the wedding ceremony happened. But that parent would not be excluded at all for the rest of the wedding and/or any other kind of communication with their child.
In the eyes of the church, someone who has been excommunicated has the exact same status as someone, who has never been part of the church.
It’s quite interesting to me, how many people believe they know more about the church than members of said church, because they know someone who knows someone who said a thing.
But I guess it’s not surprising, since also lots of people who never actually met a trans person strongly believe they really understand trans people and their supposed evil motivations.
Being shunned in Amish culture is VERY aggressive. You’re basically cut off from the community and family. You can’t get rides, you have to eat alone, etc. It’s pretty fucked up.
Mormons also have versions of this that are notoriously fucked up. Stay in line or lose contact with everyone you love.
(Comment by squaresinger removed by mod: “reason: Part of a white nationalist cult, defending said cult”. Comment summary: A Mormon clarifies that excommunication doesn’t ban attending church activities, but tensions arise when ex-members aggressively try to convert others away from the faith, citing their ex-Mormon returned missionary best friend as an example of someone who isnʼt hostile towards Mormon Church members.)
I also was raised in the Church, served a mission, but left (you can too)!, despite Church roadblocks. To illustrate why I left, let me provide you with what my self-righteous past self would have written for an audience of priesthood holders regarding the apostasy of a best friend:
Your best friend knew the truth, got their endowment, yet apostatized anyway. Better that your best friend had never been born (D&C 76:32). You shouldn’t associate with them because Satan will find a way to weaken your testimony through your sympathy for them. Instead, unfaithful such as your friend should be cast out from your community as salt that has lost its flavor (Matthew 5:14; see the 1838-06-17 Salt Sermon). Since they committed the unpardonable sin of denying the Holy Ghost, the best case scenario for building the Kingdom of God is that they don’t corrupt anyone else or die early (side note: killing an apostate in order to save their soul even from an Unpardonable Sin was a loophole called “Blood Atonement which was used by the Danites to justify murdering enemies of the Church; the idea being that Christ couldn’t spill their own blood to atone for someone who denied the Holy Ghost but someone could atone for their own sins by being their own blood sacrifice; the requirement to physically spill blood in order to effect the ritual is a plausible explanation for why Utah still permits capital punishment by firing squad). Better to dedicate your time and efforts towards sharing the Gospel with people who haven’t had a chance to properly hear it in this Second Estate than with someone who heard it, lived it, yet rejected it.
The above text would not be found out of place in a Sunday talk, especially one given by an Area Authority, although many in the congregation would likely feel uncomfortable. Church leadership would likely minimize such discomfort by restricting such fierce and arguably cruel teachings to private Priesthood Sessions of unbroadcasted Stake Conferences or missionary Zone Conferences. If it makes you feel uncomfortable, I hope you reconsider your membership to an organization in which such cruel and inhumane talk is considered acceptable.
Edit(2023-10-10T20:05+00): Include context.
Edit(2023-10-10T20:13+00): Remove some context that was removed by mod. Summarize the offending comment for context.
Edit(2023-10-10T20:29+00): Add statement explaining the example of cult rhetoric is meant to explain the cruelty, not to promote it.
(Comment by squaresinger removed by mod: “reason: Part of a white nationalist cult, defending said cult”. Comment summary: A Mormon clarifies that excommunication doesn’t ban attending church activities, but tensions arise when ex-members aggressively try to convert others away from the faith, citing their ex-Mormon returned missionary best friend as an example of someone who isnʼt hostile towards Mormon Church members.)
Wow, these mods really hate members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Our church is anything but white nationalistic. Most members of the Church live outside the United States and its leaders have repeatedly preached against racism and nationalism in recent years. I hope the mods educate themselves on this topic before further spreading their bigotry.
Yeah it seems like everyone here has a perception of Mormons that is significantly more hard line than reality. The shunning they’re talking about is not part of official church policy, and speaking as an ex Mormon myself, nobody in my life cut contact when I left because there’s no doctrine that says they should. Indeed, official doctrine is that you should support that person no matter what with the hopes that they come back into the fold. Jehovah’s Witnesses, by contrast, DO have official policy for how everyone should cut contact when someone is disfellowshipped.
I have a long laundry list of gripes with the LDS church, but this particular issue isn’t one of them (at least from a policy and doctrine perspective). I will note, however, that in times where I have seen this shunning happen, it’s rarely due to the person who left putting strain on their relationships. Instead, it’s typically due to religious fanaticism on an individual level from the LDS people in their lives. That’s unfortunately not unusual for religions, though, and I don’t think Mormons are unique here.
Removed by mod
This is absolutely not true. I know a parent who wasn’t allowed to go to their child’s wedding because the church wouldn’t allow her to after she left the church.
Nice misunderstanding of facts here.
The church wedding for members of our church happens in a place we call temple. Temples are not our churches, they are a sacred place that only members in good standing are allowed to visit. This is not the place we meet at every week for our weekly church services.
So yeah, that parent would not be allowed to go to the temple, where the wedding ceremony happened. But that parent would not be excluded at all for the rest of the wedding and/or any other kind of communication with their child.
In the eyes of the church, someone who has been excommunicated has the exact same status as someone, who has never been part of the church.
It’s quite interesting to me, how many people believe they know more about the church than members of said church, because they know someone who knows someone who said a thing.
But I guess it’s not surprising, since also lots of people who never actually met a trans person strongly believe they really understand trans people and their supposed evil motivations.
You’re in a cult. Dumbass. Fuck all your bullshit.
DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB!
I also was raised in the Church, served a mission, but left (you can too)!, despite Church roadblocks. To illustrate why I left, let me provide you with what my self-righteous past self would have written for an audience of priesthood holders regarding the apostasy of a best friend:
Your best friend knew the truth, got their endowment, yet apostatized anyway. Better that your best friend had never been born (D&C 76:32). You shouldn’t associate with them because Satan will find a way to weaken your testimony through your sympathy for them. Instead, unfaithful such as your friend should be cast out from your community as salt that has lost its flavor (Matthew 5:14; see the 1838-06-17 Salt Sermon). Since they committed the unpardonable sin of denying the Holy Ghost, the best case scenario for building the Kingdom of God is that they don’t corrupt anyone else or die early (side note: killing an apostate in order to save their soul even from an Unpardonable Sin was a loophole called “Blood Atonement which was used by the Danites to justify murdering enemies of the Church; the idea being that Christ couldn’t spill their own blood to atone for someone who denied the Holy Ghost but someone could atone for their own sins by being their own blood sacrifice; the requirement to physically spill blood in order to effect the ritual is a plausible explanation for why Utah still permits capital punishment by firing squad). Better to dedicate your time and efforts towards sharing the Gospel with people who haven’t had a chance to properly hear it in this Second Estate than with someone who heard it, lived it, yet rejected it.
The above text would not be found out of place in a Sunday talk, especially one given by an Area Authority, although many in the congregation would likely feel uncomfortable. Church leadership would likely minimize such discomfort by restricting such fierce and arguably cruel teachings to private Priesthood Sessions of unbroadcasted Stake Conferences or missionary Zone Conferences. If it makes you feel uncomfortable, I hope you reconsider your membership to an organization in which such cruel and inhumane talk is considered acceptable.
Wow, these mods really hate members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Our church is anything but white nationalistic. Most members of the Church live outside the United States and its leaders have repeatedly preached against racism and nationalism in recent years. I hope the mods educate themselves on this topic before further spreading their bigotry.
Yeah it seems like everyone here has a perception of Mormons that is significantly more hard line than reality. The shunning they’re talking about is not part of official church policy, and speaking as an ex Mormon myself, nobody in my life cut contact when I left because there’s no doctrine that says they should. Indeed, official doctrine is that you should support that person no matter what with the hopes that they come back into the fold. Jehovah’s Witnesses, by contrast, DO have official policy for how everyone should cut contact when someone is disfellowshipped.
I have a long laundry list of gripes with the LDS church, but this particular issue isn’t one of them (at least from a policy and doctrine perspective). I will note, however, that in times where I have seen this shunning happen, it’s rarely due to the person who left putting strain on their relationships. Instead, it’s typically due to religious fanaticism on an individual level from the LDS people in their lives. That’s unfortunately not unusual for religions, though, and I don’t think Mormons are unique here.