desert_vulture wrote:Jason Bourne wrote:Because they have been taught (mostly by example) that an ex-mormon is worse than a murderer or an adulterer, and should be shunned like the plague, they believe it is not possible for an ex-mormon to be happy.
There is much that is correct in your post. However, there is a disconnection when a TBM runs into someone who abandons the Church. Discomfort and awkwardness can appear when an exmo and TBM meet or greet. For many, if not most this it the case. However, the comments above the church teaching the shunning and that an exmo is worse then a murderer or adulterer is nonesense. I have never heard such things taught. Can you document this please?
Jason
I guess my question would be: Why is discomfort or awkwardness present when an exmo and TBM meet or greet? Unless there is a judgmental attitude on the part of one of the parties, everything should be okay. I don't think there is any discomfort or awkwardness present on the part of the exmo. It may be on the part of the TBM for associating with a (perceived) inferior person. Most exmos I have met are about the nicest people on the planet, and I have met a number of them, in real life. And I am a fully active member of the church, and the exmos that I've met know that. I would dare say that you are referring to the reaction that a classic Iron Rod TBM has, where they look down in judgment upon their fellow man, rather than try to reach out in friendship. It really is too bad that the situation you describe, ever occurs.
Your question is interesting since I refered to teaching mostly by example. But you did say the magic word: please. I'll do my best. The CHI pg. 91 regarding church discipline: "With inspiration, a priesthood leader should act to protect Church members when a transgressor poses a physical or spiritual threat to them, such as by physical harm, sexual abuse, drug misuse, fraud, or apostacy." So clearly, apostacy is viewed at least in the same category as corporal harm, sexual abuse, and drug abuse, officially. Therefore apostates are places in a category along with child molesters.
The CHI (pages 95-96) outlines the grievous sins when a disciplinary council is "mandatory." These are: Murder, Incest, Child Abuse, and Apostacy, Serious Transgression by a Prominent Leader-Predator, and a Widely Known Serious Transgression. Therefore, the apostates are lumped in with the murderers, sexual molesters, and con artists under the CHI. It is instructive that adultery is not automatically a communicable offense under the CHI. Therefore it is easy to see that my comment that an exmo is considered worse than an adulterer is upheld by the CHI, because apostacy requires a disciplinary council, whereas adultery does not. Adultery is considered a lesser sin under apostacy on this basis.
The CHI (page 95) defines murder as:
"As used here, murder refers to the deliberate and unjustified taking of human life. It requires excommunication. Abortion is not defined as murder for this purpose. If death was caused by carelessness or by defense of self or others, or if mitigating circumstances prevail, the taking of a human life might not be defined as murder...."
So once again, there is a loophole. If there are mitigating circumstances, the killing might not be considered a murder and the murderer would not be automatically excommunicated, like an apostate would. There was no provision for mitigating circumstances to exhonerate the apostate. It seems the CHI also gives the murderer higher status than the apostate on this basis.
Its funny but the CHI's description of what constitutes "Apostacy" is vague. Maybe this is intentional to cast a wider net. I don't know. Page 95 says: "As used here, apostacy refers to members who:
1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishops or higher authority.
3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishops or higher authority. In such cases, excommunication may be necessary if repentance is not evident after counseling and encouragement.
I don't think its a stretch to say that exmos are routinely treated as apostates by most church members. Indeed, reading the stories of Norman Hancock
http://mormonalliance.org/casereports/volume3/part1/v3p1c05.htm and Ken Clark
http://www.hismin.com/messenger.html clearly indicate that these men were treated as apostates for their lack of belief, even though neither man was an apostate. For all intents and purposes, most exmos are treated as an apostate by the vast majority of the church membership. This has been confirmed to me recently by some friends of mine who have decided to leave the church, and have received hateful messages from parents and other family members that they will be ostracized, and instructing other family members to have nothing to do with them.
So I stand by my claim on the basis of the CHI, personal experience, and documented cases of Norman Hancock and Ken Clark. I think it is unfortunate that this occurs, but it does occur.
