Many religious communities practice some form of shunning, in which individuals who carry out acts or hold beliefs considered to be unacceptable or polluting by the rest of the community are socially excluded. Sometimes, shunning involves the dissolution of friendships and other, more distant social relationships; other times, the practice extends to the most intimate relationships. Marriages end, parents disown children, and the most sacred bonds of love are replaced with distrust or even hatred.
Scientologists practice a particularly extreme variant of shunning, called “disconnection.” People who disagree with the Church of Scientology’s teachings or practices, especially in public, may be placed in the category of “suppressive persons.” Scientologist friends and relatives of declared suppressive persons are strongly encouraged to cut such people out of their lives by way of what are called disconnection letters. An extensive website on the Scientology practice of disconnection can be found here.
Mormons have no doctrine of disconnection, but we do nonetheless have some tendencies toward a practice of shunning. The closest thing to an institutional basis for such a practice that I can find is the following question from our temple recommend interviews:
Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
For most of my adult life, I’ve had a difficult time with the way that question is worded. It includes, among its many permutations, the question, “Do you affiliate with any individual whose practices are contrary to those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?” Since we’re all sinners, I think the answer to that question would be “yes” for everyone on Earth. But, somewhat more seriously, I’ve always had friends and family members who are, in the oh-so-imprecise vernacular, anti-Mormons. Am I unworthy of admission to the temple because I “affiliate with” them, in the sense of spending social time with them and caring (sometimes deeply) about them? I always raise this point in every interview; the interviewer always dismisses it. Nonetheless, I worry that the wording of this question may suggest to some members that we aren’t supposed to associate with people who leave the church or lose their faith.
In practice, I know from many experiences–first-, second-, and third-hand–that people who lose faith and leave the church are often shunned. Some people divorce their spouses, giving no motive other than change in religious belief. Family members refuse to attend weddings, cut people off from family gatherings, and even cease communications altogether with “apostates” who were once near and dear to them. In our much less intimate online relationships, do we ever replicate this painful pattern? I worry that we do.
I find these behaviors hurtful and un-Christian. I feel that God’s chosen path for some of us involves journeys through other faith traditions; my wife’s spiritual story is one clear example. In some cases, those journeys may possibly last a lifetime. In rare instances, the faith tradition that God calls people to explore may be that of atheism, as in DKL’s life story. Who am I to judge whether any good, well-intentioned person is on the right religious track in his or her own life? As the saying goes, God works in mysterious ways.
But Someone much better qualified to judge than I has given us an example of maintaining ties of care and affection, even with those we see as the fallen:
And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. (Matthew 9:10-12)
I doubt that we can reliably judge who is spiritually whole and who is sick. But for those who believe that we can so judge, Christ has set us the ultimate example in terms of rejecting the temptation to shun. May we go and do likewise!
Nice post, RT. Makes me want to go read a little more about Scientology. I don’t think the Church encourages shunning but it sometimes happens nonetheless. I think it sort of emerges spontaneously from the conduct of members. When you have a community or organization with well-defined boundaries and a strong sense of membership, crossing that boundary is a real big deal.
Whether consciously or unconsciously, people’s reactions and behaviour are going to change when someone crosses the boundary. And that applies to the moving party as well as to those who stay put on their side of the boundary.
The Temple recomend question is interesting and I very much appreciate Kimball’s analysis of it in his JMH article on the history of the Temple Recomend. It has gone through several permutations, all to better constrain polygamist funamentalists without saying so.
That said, having family and friends leaving for a time or coming under church discipline has made me very aware that our relationships transcend our faith. Ultimately, they are our faith.
Now, if I had a friend that started using drugs, there would be no way that I would bring my kids over to their house. There is a point at which destructive behavior destroys relationships.
So in my last post over at Issues in Mormon Doctrine, I described how I had been betrayed by all my Mormon friends as well as some family members. This, I have recently found out, was largely untrue. Most of my friends and family simply said to my (ex)wife that they understood what she was going through, but that they couldn’t offer any advice either way. Basically what it came down to was that she was seeking their approval for what she wanted to do, and interpreted anything other than a “no, don’t leave him” as “Yes, go for it!”
When I came to realize that things were not as I had been led to believe in the case of my family and friends, I approached our bishop to see if he had really been as supportive of her decision as she had portrayed him. I was horrified to find that he actually had! In his conversation with her, he pointed out that “heavenly father wants us to be happy in this life and if you can’t find that happiness with him because of his new beliefs, then you probably should leave him.” At no point in his conversation with her did he ever even mention marriage counseling!
When I went in to talk to him about this he immediately went to say that it was my fault that my marriage was ending and that my new convictions were sins in the eyes of God. He time and time again steered the conversation to evolution as if that was the reason why I no longer believe in God (It isn’t and I assured him of this over and over.) He told me that while I may think and believe what I want, they are in the end only beliefs, while his convictions were the absolute truth which he knew rather than merely believed.
This was probably the least inspiring discussion which I had ever had with a church leader.
Yeah, my take on the TR question is that it is simply designed to smoke out fundamentalists — so why don’t they just say that? I’m always tempted to ask, “Do you have a list of particular organizations the Church is concerned about?” But asking any question (especially one a leader can’t answer, which is just about any interesting question) is frowned upon; just say yes or no as prompted and move along.
Many of the TR questions–including this one–are worded in such a way as to prompt self-delusion and even dishonesty.
The correct answer, clearly, to this question and a few others, is “yes” when it “should” be “no” (i.e. if one wants to worthily enter the temple). So most people answer “no” without being as contemplative as Roasted Tomatoes. Who wants to be barred from Cousin Becky’s wedding because his/her best friend is gay or is a rabid Anti-Mormon?
If the question were really about Fundamentalism or plural marriage, it would be stated as such. But it isn’t.
“But it isn’t.” Uh, are you aware of anyone who has been denied a TR because of their membership in, say, the Democratic Party, a college fraternity, the CIA, Enron, or a multi-level marketing operation? If the only people “screened” by this question are Mormon fundamentalists or those practicing plural marriage, then it really *is* about Fundamentalism and plural marriage, despite how broadly it is written.
Um, I wrote “…it isn’t (stated as such).” Is it? This is what i mean about dishonesty or self=delusion. The question isn’t stated as such, but people pretend it is just so they can answer correctly.
And we really don’t know who is denied recommends on what basis. There may very well be people denied recommends because they attend gay rallies or post Anti-Mormon messages on a bulletin board or fraternize with the wrong political people. Precisely: how would you or anyone else know?
I’ve been bothered by the wording of the question too. To me, among other things, it would certainly seem to prohibit membership in either the Republican or Democratic parties, since both of them have some “teachings” that run contrary to the Gospel. And, of course, I support my friends in some sense, even though most of them (including me sometimes) don’t live according to gospel principles. Basically, I’ve just chosen to interpret the question in its historical context and left it at that.
Dave, I agree that the shunning which results when people have changes of faith is probably a product of culture and human nature as much as anything directly from the church as an institution. But I still think we ought to aspire to better!
J. Stapley, thanks for the reference to a very interesting article; too bad the JMH digitization project isn’t finished yet, or we’d be able to link people to it. I agree that the interview question is targeted at polygamists and sympathizers. Unfortunately, the wording is nonspecific; in interviews, I always end up feeling morally constrained by the actual wording. But my local leaders quickly get to the point where they know what’s coming and rush me along…
Also, thanks for your thoughtful words. I agree that there are some behavior patterns that can be too destructive to show to children. So there are lines, and we ought to be careful about crossing them. But I’m not sure if religious worldview even counts as a behavior, let alone an extreme one (not that you are implying that it does; I very much like your statement that, “our relationships transcend our faith. Ultimately, they are our faith.”).
Jeff, I’m very happy to hear that your shunning was only partial. I wonder what your bishop would have said to a husband who no longer felt as sexually attracted to his wife as he did when they were married: “Heavenly Father wants us to be happy in this life and if you can’t find that happiness with her because of her appearance, then you probably should leave her.” Only the moral flaw in this line of reasoning is probably quite obvious; it’s my feeling that the same flaw applies to the advice the bishop actually gave your wife.
Dave, I agree with your attractively pragmatic take on the interview question, and I also want a specific list of organizations the church is concerned with… Maybe my friend Mike is on the list after all…
nobodyimportant, I understand your concerns here and agree that temple recommend transactions involving this question involve some degree of nominal dishonesty. That is, at the level of the words actually spoken, the conversation contains untrue statements. But communication involves unspoken shared meanings as well as explicit words, and everyone has a shared meaning on this question that entails something more than mere friendship or love for an anti-Mormon. So, when the communication is considered in the context of shared background assumptions, there’s no real dishonesty. I’m just a person who’s overly caught up with words, so I can’t let myself just say “no…”
With respect to your questions about whether people are denied temple recommends for various reasons, I can’t really speak to gay rallies and I haven’t posted too many anti-Mormon messages on the internet. But I can pretty well assure you that I’ve probed the borders on fraternizing with political people. Between my personal politics (which, to the possible surprise of some readers, are less radical now than they were 7 or 10 years ago–although I should note that I’ve never been an actual revolutionary or anything) and my professional work (which involves interviews and close interaction with left-, centrist, and right-wing political party leaders in various South American countries), I’ve fraternized with politicians that would make anyone’s hair curl–my own included. This has never been an issue for obtaining temple recommends. Unless I’m an outlier, this case-study suggests that there aren’t political litmus tests for recommends.
Copedi, I think your approach to the recommend question is thoroughly sensible. You’re right that the question would nominally seem to prohibit being involved with any organization or individual whatsoever; I’m sure it can’t be meant in that way, so it’s probably best to just read it as involving polygamists.
The ambiguity inherent in many of the TR questions render the questions meaningless, as shown here. The question “Do you affiliate with any individual whose practices are contrary to those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?” must actually mean something else since it can’t possibly mean what it actually says.
This kind of reasoning makes liars out of otherwise honest Latter-day Saints. “Do you obey the law of chastity?” can’t possibly mean every whit since no-one does, so people (especially singles) apply Bill-Clintonesque rationales to their actions and simply answer “yes” , and so it goes.
Why bother even having TR questions that are vague and unanswerable? Or questions that mean the opposite of what they actually state?
And just to clarify: I didn’t mean to start a threadjack, but when I say “no one obeys the law of Chastity” for instance, I mean the majority of men and most females at least entertain sex thoughts and masturbate, both of which are against the law of Chastity, but no one confesses to it!
I also find the wording of some TR questions is very broad. Copedi’s approach seems very reasonable to me, but I’m a little obsessive about words, too, so there are some questions I always give the “wrong” answers to, and that’s one of them. I always say that I affiliate with a lot of organization and many individuals whose teachings and lives aren’t in harmony with the gospel.
Others that get me:
The question about whether there’s anything in my family relationships that isn’t in harmony with the gospel. My answer to that is always, “yes.”
The one about being honest in all of my dealings: my answer is always no. I try, just as I’m not completely kind and loving to my family every minute of every day, I’m not completely and absolutely honest at all times.
I’m sympathetic to your concern that TR questions are worded so broadly as to be meaningless, nobodyimportant, but I don’t think that they necessarily have to make liars out of us if we don’t let them. I’ve given a lot of unorthodox answers over the years, and I have yet to be denied a temple recommend because of them.
Of course, who your bishop and stake president are, and your level of comfort disclosing things to them, plays a big role here. Maybe other bishops and stake presidents would have denied me a recommend.
Sorry, RT, if this is too far off topic. I really, really like your original point. I have a lot of family members who are in various stages of inactivity or apostasy, and I’ve had close friends excommunicated, and it’s very frustrating to me to see how they’re sometimes treated.
#13 - “but no one confesses to it”
Uhm, what? I am without a doubt positive that there are quite a few people that DO confess to these…
As to the original post, I always took this question, when it says “affiliate with” to mean that you lend your name for the cause, along the same lines as the other two words “support” and “agree”. I have never taken this to mean that you can’t be friends with a gay or anti-mormon, just that you wouldn’t agree with their teachings, or help them further their cause, which goes against church teachings.
The political party issue is a good question though… I never thought of that when giving my answer!
Just to play Devil’s Advocate, there is a scriptural basis for shunning. 1Co. 5:9-11
NRSV “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons– 10 not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. ”
I disagree with those who view the TR questions as disingenuous. I think they have been worded as vague and open-ended to avoid putting ideas in people’s heads or introducing them to apostate groups or ideas that they weren’t aware of.
Also, recall that at one point in the 70’s or 80’s, the chastity questions were *extremely* detailed. Too much so. Vagueness allows for an honest answer and provides an opportunity for honest confession where necessary.
If the Church were grilling people in TR interviews, I’m sure certain posters would also have a bone to pick…
I should also say that I don’t think the Church encourages shunning institutionally. I think most people are simply uncomfortable when someone they thought they knew well undergoes such a drastic change.
Ben S. (16), I completely agree with you about the chastity questions–they’re better open-ended than otherwise. But every time I’ve explained all of my apostate affiliations to a priesthood leader, I’ve been told that what the question is really asking, more or less, is if I’m a polygamist trying to sneak into the temple or if I secretly belong to an explicitly anti-Mormon group whose ideas I accept and promote. If that’s the case (and it’s probably not that narrow), I can’t see what harm could come by phrasing it more simply. Specific groups wouldn’t have to be mentioned, but I can’t believe there are many Mormons who don’t know about polygamy, given how many non-Mormons who know nothing about the Church except that it is associated with polygamy.
Ben, in comment #16, you quoted from 1 Cor. 5. I find the quotation interesting; I wonder if this is a statement about an early Christian equivalent to excommunication? Even so, the instruction not to eat with such a person does invite the idea of shunning. However, I’d point out that the list of reasons for shunning that Paul offers doesn’t include disbelief. The act of idolatry, yes, but not a change in religious worldview. I’d also point out that, in today’s church, we don’t even excommunicate the greedy, let alone shun them. So an interesting scripture, but perhaps not an active one for us…
Eve, I agree; if the interview question is really only about polygamy or explicit anti-Mormons, it could probably safely say so. But the sort of highly bureaucratic language we now have is a typical excretion of any long-lasting organization…
Everyone, setting aside the temple recommend issue, the point I’d like to stress is that, if people in our lives do have a change in religious beliefs, we should remember that we love them, not their beliefs…
No, he doesn’t say anything about disbelief, but I assume he doesn’t think it necessary to point out. Hebrews takes a very dim view of those who “fall away.”
Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, since on their own they are crucifying again the Son of God and are holding him up to contempt.
BTW, I only know about the basis for shunning after reading Crisis of Conscience by Raymond Franz, an “excommunicated” JW equivalent of an Apostle. He still fully believes in JW doctrine, so it’s not really an expose. He disagreed with the way their non-church was being run, so they got rid of him. JW’s appeal to these passages as the basis of their shunning policy.
I don’t see any reason why friends or family members should be shunned for changing religious belief. In my own immediate family beliefs (and behaviors) run the gamut and everybody is still loved and accepted like normal. But when it’s a spouse, it gets more complicated.
Depending on what one believes, I can see a justification for divorce if a spouse strays too far, especially if there are no children involved. If you believe strongly that your faith is the truth, that your future children’s eternal welfare depends on their being raised in your faith, that your own eternal welfare depends on having a believing spouse, then to stay with a non-believer is a gamble. Of course, it’s also a gamble to leave. You never know if you’ll find someone more firm in the faith. If you do find a firm believer, you can’t be sure that they will never change.
Bottom line: I don’t think outsiders can judge whether a spouse who leaves a marriage because of a change in religious belief is justified in doing so. If a close friend or family member came to me with this dilemma I would tell them to figure it out themselves and do what they feel is right.
Incidentally, the Church does promote a kind of shunning. All the teachings about marrying within the faith and marrying in the temple amounts to shunning non-believers in the romantic side of our lives, doesn’t it. Is there anything wrong with that?
RT: “. . . I feel that God’s chosen path for some of us involves journeys through other faith traditions . . . in rare instances, the faith tradition that God calls people to explore may be that of atheism . . .”
Maybe God’s chosen path for some of us involves divorce from non-believers.
Sorry. I have to give you grief for suggesting that God is responsible for people’s choices.
One of the practices of the Church speaks most clearly to the idea of shunning: that of barring family members and friends who are not members or who don’t believe in the Church from attending weddings.
Mormon funerals are open to all–even though full temple regalia may be on view. However, disallowing loved ones who don’t share the same religious views can give the idea that since they won’t be together in heaven (for non-belief) they shouldn’t be together on earth (for this sacred event) and the separation is a type and shadow of things to come.
I have heard the policy explained in these terms: a sort of object lesson for what is to happen if they don’t “get with the program” and join/rejoin/re-believe so they can be with loved ones for eternity.
This, I think, is also shunning.
I’ve always thought it was understood that the temple recommend question was intended to be about polygamists. No, it doesn’t explicitly mention the subject; I just think that it is supposed to be understood. It’s similar to the signs by weigh stations along the freeway. “All trucks must exit.” Everyone understands that it is not taken literally. We all know that pickup trucks don’t need to exit. What about fire trucks, tow trucks, mail trucks, cement mixers, dump trucks, garbage trucks, and rental trucks hauling household goods? The drivers who need to stop know who they are. The rest of us drive on by even if we are in a vehicle that can be classified as a truck.
However, I would question how effective the temple recommend question really is. Do fundamentalists agree that their teachings and practices are opposed to the church? Or would they argue that plural marriage really is a fundamental teaching of the church? Isn’t that why they call themselves fundamentalists? The San Diego theater showing “States of Grace” thought they could identify non-Mormon customers by asking if they were Christian, apparently not realizing that Mormons would identify themselves as Christian also. Do we do the same thing with the temple recomend question? Fundamentalists may have more of a problem with the question about recognizing the prophet as the only person authorized to exercize all keys. But some may be able to fit that into their theology as well.
I wonder how many polygamists really try to get a recommend anyway? Polygamists who recognize that the LDS Church has some authority may seek a recommend. But they are also the ones least likely to be deterred by the affiliation question. Those who completely reject the church probably do thier own temple ceremonies and wouldn’t be seeking a recommend.
In response to the question whether I affiliated with any groups whose teachings or practices are inconsistent with those of the Church, I once responded “Do you mean other than my High Priests Quorum?”. My Stake President paused for a brief second and then laughingly acknowledged that he would allow me that exception.
Although there is certainly a historical understanding behind the question–and having the question there provides a simple and immediate rationale for pulling someone’s temple recomend if they are in fact part of such an organization (i.e., dishonesty in the recomend process), I think a better way to understand the question, given its wording, would be to think of it as asking if our memberships, affiliations, and relationships are preventing _us_ from living and sharing the gospel as fully as we might.
Tom, thanks for the opportunity to clarify what I meant in the original post. Of course I don’t think that God is responsible for people’s religious choices. My point, instead, is that God’s plan for bringing specific individuals closer to Him sometimes seems to involve stages in which those individuals adopt various religious commitments. In the two examples I gave above, people were able, in non-Mormon contexts, to work through issues that might have been much more difficult to get through in a Mormon context. Hence, their non-Mormon religious commitments seem, to me, providential. I don’t make this attribution because all choices are God’s responsibility, but rather because these specific choices seemed to be His plan. But I reject the notion that God’s plan ever involves a failure to try to love and understand each other.
nobodyimportant, I certainly agree that the situation you describe is painful for those who are excluded. Presumably, the church finds good in the current policy that countervails such pain; I don’t really know what the perceived trade-offs are. But I agree that the current situation is unambiguously painful for those who are excluded, and often for those who have family members excluded from their weddings.
Left Field, I agree that the core meaning of the interview question is a social given. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that the question has no other meanings; its unrestricted nominal scope always makes me uncomfortable…
garf, that’s a wonderful story, and it captures exactly the reason the current wording isn’t easy for me to simply answer as expected.
TMD, I think that’s an interesting interpretation of the question. Under that interpretation, of course, we’re back to the original problem: nobody’s social network meets the criteria you propose, so nobody would get a recommend… But I like the spirit of the idea.
RT: “Thanks for the opportunity . . .”
What a great way to respond to an annoying comment. Seriously. I was pretty sure that you didn’t mean that the way I suggested in my comment. I just had to give you grief, though, because the “whatever happens is meant to be” thing really bugs me.
I agree that we shouldn’t stop trying to love and understand each other. But you can love and understand someone without wanting to stake your future on them. If something drastic happens that makes the venture (marriage) drastically more risky than it previously appeared, and if there are no children to be harmed by a split, then maybe sometimes people may be justified by calling it off.
My wife and I were shunned, at the direction of our branch president. As we were making arrangements to leave the state a couple of years into the shunning, several branch members came to us and apologized for treating us as badly as they did. We frankly forgave them. Some of them treated us badly because they got caught up in the situation; others treated us badly because of who they are. Members in the former group apologized; members in the latter told people they were glad we were leaving, since “the church didn’t need ‘our kind’ of people” in it.
People on the margins (as we were) can be loved back into the Church, but cannot and will not be bullied back.
Very interesting post, RT, as well as great comments. Let me add a voice from international and mission perspective. Nearly all comments speak from broad experience with the Church, know about the polygamist background of the question, and can relate to the topic with common sense. Imagine the situation of converts, unfamiliar with all that, surrounded by family and friends and acquaintances “whose teachings or practices are contrary to those accepted by the Church” - at least often. From experience with TR interviews, I know it’s a confusing question to converts and which may encourage shunning - and overt preaching to shun. On the other hand, when you hear Pres. Hinckley’s constant reminder to be inclusive of those not of our faith…
RT, I think one issue that needs to be discussed here is the meaning of community itself. In order to have a community, there’s going to be some functional differences in treatment between members and nonmembers of the community. I agree that we need to come a LOT farther in how we deal with folks outside of our perspective.
It should be said, though, that some “shunning” is probably the cost of having a community at all. Not shunning in the Scientologist or even Mormon sense, but shunning in the sense of ascribing some sort of status to members that nonmembers don’t get. (In using “members” and “nonmembers”, I don’t speak strictly in terms of baptized/not baptized, but in terms of the socially constructed community which may define some baptized members as outside of the community for some other reason.)
D-Train,
I think you make an excellent point about “community.” One of the few members who refused to shun us was, herself, outside the “community” of the branch. As a result, she stopped attending the LDS church, and began attending another denomination that was more receptive to “outcasts.”
It seems our presence was particularly polarizing, and served as justification to further marginalize her as well as others who were outside the social mainstream of the branch. As one example, one of the counselors in the branch presidency quit his position in protest of his son being treated the way we were. His wife asked us how we were able to get our records moved to another branch, since they wanted to do the same. I have heard that shortly after that, the branch executive secretary pulled his family from the branch for similar reasons.
As all of this was happening to us and those around us, I asked myself the same kind of questions Paul did: can the hand say to the foot, I have no need of thee? I would have thought the branch was too small to drive away three active families led by melchezidek priesthood members, but I was wrong. As I said in my earlier comment, we could have been loved back, but not bullied back. We lost a lot in our former fellowship with the saints, but I think they lost a lot, too. If nothing else, then an opportunity to exercise a little charity. As noted in other comments, we need to welcome baptized members into fellowship as much as we need to welcome newly-baptized or soon-to-be-baptized members. Or even those people in the category of never-will-be-baptized, but still worthy of our friendship.
I had friends at BYU who had Fundamentalist family members. In my friends’ TR interviews, they answered “yes,” explained they had no sympathy with their apostate relatives’ beliefs, and the interview continued. They never had a problem receiving a recommend for continuing to treat family like family.
I believe the generality is TR questions is intentional, to start conversations when needed, much like a teacher using open-ended questions to spark class discussion or a parent using them to help a child open up. It alows/requires participation of the Spirit in the interview to reach understanding between the interviewer and the candidate.
I was surprised during my mission to learn that JWs shun apostate family members. Shortly after, I found “We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification.” (Rom 15:1-2) which I took to be a refutation of shunning.
“Some people divorce their spouses, giving no motive other than change in religious belief” I hate to say it but I really don’t think this is a small thing and I can totally see why a spouse would leave another over this issue. I’m afraid that such a dramatic change in something as fundamental as one’s religion makes the dynamics of a relationship much more complicated. Religion is kind of the foundation that we build our lives on, if you don’t even share the same foundation with your spouse it seems you would be fairly incompatible with one another.
Religion is not the foundation of our lives, even as Saints. Jesus is.
1 Corinthians 7:14
“For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”
If your spouse is loving and faithful and committed to the marriage, it’s short-sighted, selfish, and silly to abandon the marriage because of religious differences.
For information about people who remain devoted to the ideal of an eternal marriage, even when the spouse is not a member or rejects LDS beliefs, check out Faces East.
Eric,
Your experience is worrying to me. If it’s not too personal, may I ask about what was causing your local leaders to advocate shunning you? I see that decision as totally inappropriate, whether you’re orthodox or not. If this is too personal or you’d rather not say, please excuse my curiosity.
Another big issue is that we define community in different ways. We can’t come to a common understanding of what we need to do to be part of our community, at least at the local level. Good people that don’t fit a mold that isn’t really relevant to Christ or even the doctrines of the Church get shunned when the most appropriate response would be to make a conscious effort to include.
Ann: “If your spouse is loving and faithful and committed to the marriage, it’s short-sighted, selfish, and silly to abandon the marriage because of religious differences.”
I think in some cases this may be true. But is this always true? How would you judge?
If a person has a certain set of beliefs, if their conviction is strong, and if their spouse’s change is drastic, then under some circumstances that person may consider staying in the marriage short-sighted and an unnecessary risk. Who’s to say that that person is wrong? I don’t think any outsiders are qualified to make these judgments.
(Haven’t read the comments yet - so forgive me if this has been discussed)
While I understand your comments, can I admit that when friends of mine talk about friends they have who are fundamentalist Mormons practicing polygamy I get really uncomfortable. I remember once we were driving home and he wanted to stop by Mona up at the compound there. I was really creeped out. I kept thinking of this issue.
I’m not sure why as I don’t feel that way to people who leave the church to become Catholic, atheist, or just leave in a huff. But fundamentalists have always rubbed me differently. Yet when pushed to justify the difference I have a difficult time.
This is funny because when asked that TR question, it never once crossed my mind that it was refering to polygamy or fundamentalism. Oddly enough, Scientology did cross my mind! You know that recent quote by Tom Cruise where he says “You can be Catholic and Scientologist. You can be Jewish and Scientologist. We’re just Scientologist.”? Well, I don’t think you can be Mormon and Scientologist — the recommend question pretty much sums that up. This goes for other affiliations as well that run contrary to gospel principles, maybe certain new-age kundalini yoga cults and the like (please please please don’t hate me if you’re into kundalini yoga — I’m just using that as an exmple). I’ve also heard it was supposed to apply to things such as being gay rights or abortion activism, but that might just be one of those cultural rumors.
Finally, this is so high school, but (ahem) in high school, one friend came to me and asked me, as a Mormon, what would I do if I found out another friend of ours was taking acid? I said something with bitterness like, “I’d leave her alone. She can make her own decisions, if that’s what she wants.” And the friend said, “Don’t you think that this is the time when you’d need to be there for her the most? Not just leave her alone?” This reminded me of the shunning you’re talking about.
“Who’s to say this is wrong?” Let me be the first.
If someone is so dogmatic and rigid that they can’t abide a spouse’s loss of faith, they’re wrong. Dead wrong.
Compare it to a man who has been in an accident, and can no longer work, or a woman who can no longer have children. If your values are so strongly attuned to the man supporting the family, or the woman being able to have children, and now you find that’s not possible, do you divorce your spouse? Of course not! Why? Because it would be selfish and petty.
Religion is not an end in itself. It’s a means to an end; a workshop for developing the qualities of humility, and mercy, and love unfeigned. Breaking up a family in the name of religion is the antithesis of what religion is supposed to be for.
Ann- I really think this is one of those situations where much prayer and fasting needs to be involved, so that the Lord can guide us. In some cases it may be better for the spouses to part ways… in others they should stick together. I don’t think there is a cookie cutter answer either way. But I do agree with earlier posters that this is not a decision to be made by other family members, or a bishop. It is between the spouses and HF.
D-Train,
I forgive you your curiosity. From what I have been told, the branch president gave the decree that nobody was to contact us was that we were somehow “dangerous.” I suspect it was from an insecurity he had–I am a well-educated professional, and he is a custodian. I think he was afraid my smooth tongue would lead his flock astray. The irony is that he personally drove more formerly active families out of activity than I had any potential influence over.
The whole episode makes me sad. I believe he had the makings of an excellent branch president, but he was too afraid to open his heart to people who were different from him. I think both of us lost a lot–neither of us is the man we could have been if we’d been able to work things out.
The issue of religious change in marriage is difficult, and truly up to the individuals involved. This is particularly the case when the spouse who changes has an expectation that their partner will change as well, or pressures them to do things that violate their commitments, or is scornful of their continuing efforts to follow their faith(which happens in these cases fairly often). Indeed, I think that the person who changes bears much of the responsibility for making the efforts to make the relationship work. If they are not willing to do those things, (thus putting their relationship before their new beliefs), it is wrong to indict the non-changing partner for a lack of love or patience. Certainly I think that Ann is wrong to condemn those who find themselves in situations that, due to religous change, are no longer acceptable to them.
It is interesting that a few years ago the recommend questions were changed. They used to ask if you were “totally” honest in your dealings (or some such comprehensive qualifier–it might have been ‘completely’ honest)and if you were worthy in “every way” to enter the temple. They adjusted those questions because a few honest people actually answered them the right way. No one that I know is TOTALLY honest and certainly not worthy in EVERY WAY to enter the temple. It kind of made me feel bad though because I always just assumed that they didn’t mean “totally” or “in every way,” so I always said yes to both!
I absolutely agree that if you find yourself in a position where a religious change brings about other changes that are not acceptable, that it’s perfectly reasonable to re-examine the basis for the marriage.
Sometimes, though (often, even) the ONLY thing that changes is religious belief. Unless I tell them, nobody knows I’m not a true-blue Mormon. I’m still a good mother, I’m still a good wife, I’m still a reliable partner, and I’m still a loving companion. It would be unreasonable for my husband to leave me, in spite of all this, ONLY because I don’t believe as I once did.
The argument that “religious change” = “intolerable behavior changes that can’t be surmounted” is a straw man.
Ann,
Isn’t it also a straw man to say that anybody advocates divorce in the situation you decribe in post 45? I feel like you’re fighting for something so obvious that nobody has challenged it.
cchrissyy, go here to find LDS people advocating divorce in the situation described in post 45:
http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=15057
Ann,
I generally agree with you. Nevertheless, could it be said that two people who are married in the temple and faithfully believe LDS doctrine concerning eternal families make a commitment to believe to one another? I agree that one shouldn’t break up a family on the basis of religion, but I also have a somewhat looser view of eternal families than the standard Latter-Day Saint. I know that many Latter-Day Saints see the marriage relationship as both personal and spiritual: personal in the sense that both are developing a relationship with one another, spiritual in the sense that both will help one another to come closer to God. If a spouse feels that the spouse simply can’t meet that second objective anymore due to internal concerns about the faith (right or wrong), why must he or she stay on when initial expectations about the relationship are abruptly violated through no fault of his/her own?
We might not agree that this is a good way to run a relationship. I really don’t. But it should be said that this is the sort of relationship that many LDS expect and commit to in their marital relationships. In that sense, it could be said that a loss of faith could be tantamount not to adultery, but to, say, shutting down emotionally and not helping to build the relationship. Your example of a physical disability isn’t really relevant because of the LDS view that one builds faith through works and obedience, so a loss of faith probably isn’t a matter of chance or coincidence. Again, I don’t really agree with that view on faith, but if it’s what you’re building a relationship on, it’s perhaps unreasonable to expect that a loss of faith will be treated as if it were an unfortunate incident at the cracker factory.
In summary: the sort of religious commitments that we’re talking about here are essential to the relationships that many LDS build. Would it be unreasonable for me to divorce a girl because she lost her faith? Absolutely, because she never would have cause to think that I embrace the view of relationships outlined above. Would it be unreasonable for our tight-butt EQP to do that? Absolutely not, because it’s precisely this view that framed the relationship from day one.
P.S. I know this might be a personal subject for some people here and I apologize in advance if any of this hits a nerve.
Wow, D-Train. It’s really hard to argue with that perspective. Having read a couple of pages of the thread beijing pointed out (thanks a lot, beijing; I took a couple of Advil and was better in about an hour), I can’t help but agree that your tight-butt EQP is probably being entirely reasonable from his own POV.
I just feel bad for his wife and kids.
Ann,
No doubt about that. There is no such thing as a good divorce.
And may I also say that even if I were completely on board with the mainstream LDS concept of faith and relationships, I would find it impossible to leave someone I love because of a faith issue. I should say that I understand the issue in theory much better than I would in practice.
I’m with Ann: there may be some _behavior_ that is damaging to a marriage. I just don’t sympathise with anyone who would claim _belief_ also qualifies.
I’ve known several marriages wrecked and families divided over this intolerant, absolutist, “my way or the highway” cultish attitude shared by some faithful LDS. I’ve even seen such things taught by bishops, which besides showing how poorly qualified as counselors Mormon lay clergy generally are, also shows how dense and parochially minded some leaders can be. (Conversely I’ve seen a bishop urge my sister to stay married with her perpetually-repenting physically abusive husband/bishopric member.) I have to admit this topic touches a very raw nerve in me.
It seems the product of an inexperienced and immature mind that would divide a family if one spouse does not belief but is otherwise a very ethical and good human being. I’ve heard it said that the divorce rate among LDS is about on par with national averages, but among LDS mixed marriages it is drastically higher. If my experience is any example I’d be inclined to believe. I just hope my experience isn’t so common.
When I lost my faith it was very very hard for our marriage. My wife’s fears that I was having some affair, gonna become an alcoholic, or develop some other stupid behavior was well indoctrinated. But knowing she’d feel that way (hey I was taught to think the same) I focused a very long time on behaving extra attentively to her and the kids until we weathered the storm. We now have found out new common things upon which to dwell which are more Christian in origin rather than Mormon. But some times, such as at family weddings, the nerve that “I don’t fit in” can get inflamed again.
Thankfully most of our family have not shunned me. Those who have are, largely, people I don’t mind living without.
Hello Conceptually this article (I Shun Shunning) is sound and I agree whole heartedly. I personally think it relates to Short Hair Cut Style as well, IMHO.
If I were to really, really, think about it, I Shun Shunning is a great way to frame your point, especially when short hair style idea is taken into account.