Isn't it the case with every group with strong identity? Imagine being raised in a long-term Democrat family and declaring that the Tea Party is your thing. (And it's not even about eternal damnation.)
The "odd" juxtaposition of compassion and community with racial, sexual, and cultural exclusivity and strict taboos is normal. It's how a tribe normally works.
Modern cosmopolitan culture tries to do away with the bad stuff, but many believe this also did away with the good. A major tenet of neo-reaction is that cosmopolitan culture leads to a kind of cold social alienation and lack of identity.
Personally I think there is some truth to this, but I can't embrace it. I find it completely unacceptable. If this is actually hard wired into us then the answer is genetic engineering.
Some Mormon families don't care whether their kids stay in the church or leave. For others, it leads to shunning and disowning. I'd say shunning probably occurs more for Mormon apostates than Catholic apostates, but it probably occurs less for Mormon apostates than Jehovah's Witness or Scientologist apostates.
"Shunning" is a real policy advocated by some groups, such as JWs. It's intended to punish the traitor, and the rule is that you are supposed to completely divorce yourself from that person, cutting off all forms of contact. The intent is to cause the person to realize the error of their ways via tough love and come back.
Mormon policy is unequivocally NOT shunning. It could not be more opposite. The Church regularly implores its members to be tolerant and kind to everyone, including family members and friends who've left the Church or quit practicing.
It's true that Mormons are one of the only religious groups in the U.S. that, by and large, continually integrate it into their daily lives and take it seriously. That makes it a bigger deal when someone leaves than in mainstream American Christianity, where "church shopping" is very common, and there is a doctrine of a "priesthood of all believers", i.e., as long as you continue to claim to be Christian you're A-OK. Mormonism does insist that Mormonism is important, and most Mormons believe that.
But I think the parent is correct. This is to be expected whenever you challenge, insult, or disavow the deeply-held beliefs of any group. It's very difficult for everyone when those beliefs are held by close friends and family members.
That many Americans do not care if someone leaves their religion merely demonstrates that they consider religion a non-critical social function instead of a set of core beliefs and practices to guide one's life.
I guess what I was referring to is a kind of informal shunning where close friends or family suddenly cut off contact with you when they learn you have left the church. It would be nice if more people followed the loving teachings from leaders. Many continue to maintain loving relationships, but others want nothing more to do with you, even after years of friendship.
I take responsibility for this relationship shifting to some degree. Sometimes I wish I had never told anyone I had left the church so my friends and family would assume I was still part of the tribe. It's not easy to hide it though since various small hints can give it away, like being seen with a coffee or without your temple garment undershirt. It's difficult.
I'm a practicing Mormon and I want to let you know that I have a lot of respect for your experience here. I think it's better than the experience of many who've left the Church and allow what often begin as justified frustrations to turn into resentment, hostility, and occasionally even spiteful, hateful obsession (all aboard the /r/exmormon train CHOO CHOO).
Perhaps more surprisingly, I also think it's better than the experience of many who stay in the Church, but decline to probe, or refuse to be intellectually honest with themselves.
We should inquire into these issues and IMO, it's better to spend some time being honest and sorting it out, which can include withdrawal from activity if one feels that's necessary to be consistent, than to continue to do things to keep up appearances and push yourself into a much more dangerous internal conflict.
I find that those who have these unresolved problems with the Church that truly trouble them, but have attempted to repress them for the sake of appearances or congeniality instead of addressing them responsibly, eventually break down and become the bitter, obsessive types referenced above. That's terrible for everyone, themselves included.
So while we clearly disagree on some religious matters, I think intellectual and personal consistency and honesty are much more important than blindly or desperately clinging to something you can't feel OK about (and I would add that it's my opinion that the Church doesn't want people to do this, either).
Thanks for your comments, I really do enjoy your perspective. I don't live in Utah anymore but I'd love to get a bite with you at some point if we're ever in the same place at the same time. Feel free to email @ gmail if you're going to be in Central Florida.
That's not what that means to a non-Mormon Christian. In fact, as far as behavior goes, it calls for the opposite. Reading 1 Peter chapter 2, it's clear that it says that Christians are all responsible for priestly duties, in the way they behave, the way they speak, and the way they care for the spiritual lives of the people around them.
Even more clearly, at the end of James 2, it says exactly the opposite. It says trust in God is empty if your trust isn't influencing your behavior (faith without works is dead).
The notion of a priesthood of believers is significant in a way that contrasts with the Mormon church, though. Protestant Christians believe that the healthy Christian Church enables and supports Christians (and everyone else for that matter) but that no organizational leadership functions as gatekeepers "the saved", godly marriage, or any other special status.
I was specifically referring to the Calvinist belief that Christ's grace alone provides salvation to the pre-destined, whom are "unconditionally elected", i.e., chosen for a fixed salvation regardless of their past or future conduct. While stating this theological difference, I recognize that many Calvinists believe that living a conforming Christian life is a necessary signal of this election.
As it pertains to the topic at hand, the point was to illustrate that mainstream Christians are less likely to be concerned over changes in affiliation, or even some changes in conduct, due to this doctrine that the "priesthood of all believers" is active and allows good people to re-affiliate freely. Combined with the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election, which is widely but not universally accepted in mainstream Protestantism, specific religious distinctions are of little concern to many Protestants.
I was more concerned about the more popular misconception about protestant Christianity: that it mostly involves claiming a label then going to heaven. This does a lot of harm because a lot of "Christians" are more or less untrained, unaccountable, and frankly bad people. And they are the examples often brought up when discussing hard feelings and distaste for Christianity.
I'd also wouldn't blame predestination for the lack of stress on membership and the consequential toothlessness of shunning. It more has to do with the removal of actual priests (i.e., with collars and robes) from any sort of essential role. You don't have to make any particular clergyman or bishop happy to have a birth blessed, a holy funeral, an honorable wedding, or salvation itself.
It's particularly troublesome in Utah because ~60% of the population is Mormon. It's not difficult to imagine a scenario where you lose your job, or an important supplier relationship because you left the church. Yes, it can happen elsewhere, but there aren't too many places in the US where a single religion is so dominant.
It doesn't even have to involve leaving the church. Choosing not to participate in the mission work that most Mormons do after high school, for example, has some shame associated with it.
I'm Mormon and I didn't go on a mission. It comes up rarely, probably not even once a year. Not going on a mission is not necessarily a signal that anything bad happened; some people have health constraints or personal matters that prevent them from serving. Also, tons of people haven't gone on missions, either because they had those types of issues, or they were not practicing around mission age, or the political/economic climate in their country at the time didn't allow it (especially the case around war time), or simply because they were not members of the Church around mission age.
The only sass I've personally received for this is from people, usually people who've left the Church or are on their way out, who've tried to turn it back around on me when I've tried to correct a misconception about our beliefs or teachings.
The Church does not endorse ANY disavowment or disowning of people who fail to practice, change their religious affiliations, etc.
Families are not only advised but expected to remain open and supportive of their family members, whether they go on missions, leave the Church, or whatever. That doesn't mean endorsing behavioral changes that Mormons believe are immoral, it just means not disrespecting or shunning people over such changes. The Church encourages fellowship, not shunning.
Though it's obviously addressed less frequently, the Church would not support someone cutting off a vendor or changing a normal relationship in any way due to changes in religious affiliation.
Many Mormons went through such an affiliation changes themselves when they entered the Church, and endured their own measure of intolerance by doing so. There is no intent to inflict this disrespect and pain on others, regardless of one's personal level of agreement.
This is not to detract from the fact that the Church has significant cultural affects on Utah and that non-members can sometimes feel out of place. Just to clarify that the Church does everything it can to encourage members to be welcoming, supportive, and tolerant. Unfortunately, it won't always work out that way, but that's the goal.
By the same token, it's not difficult to imagine a scenario where you lose your job because you live in, say, NYC, and you broke with the sacred values of the left. E.g. revealed you voted from Trump.
This happens all the time. We see it on the large scale in the media quite regularly (e.g. Palmer Luckey, Brendan Eich, etc).
Moral communities are often pretty much the same, whether secular or religious.