For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; (Matt. 10:35-37; Luke 12:51-53)
For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Matt. 12:46-50, Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2011 01:56PM by kolobian.
kolobian Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For I have come to set a man against his father, > and a daughter against her mother, and a > daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; > and a man's foes will be those of his own > household. > He who loves father or mother more than me is not > worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter > more than me is not worthy of me; (Matt. 10:35-37; > Luke 12:51-53) > > > For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven > is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Matt. > 12:46-50, Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21)
That totally contradicts other parts of the Bible (what else is new?): "If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen." 1 Jn 4:20
Aren't God and Jesus complete crack ups? They are the ultimate comic duo IMHO.
My answer to the original question is "No, it's not appropriate".
Naaah, theres no contradiction. At least not to a bible literalist, afterall the first scripture makes it clear that you are only brothers if you are both doing Gods will. Fearing guilt by association seems to be a big problem for mormons because of that kind of thinking.
It's so sadly silly really. Kinda like disowning your friend that stops believing in santa for fear of not making the good list.
it was their official doctrine to shun...as it is with the Amish..... so how does one EXPECT to be shunned in a "forever family" religion? how can people say that an exmo should expect to be shunned??? just sayin!......kinda riles me up!! ok i give up...leaving it here!! :(
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2011 02:49PM by bignevermo.
I've cut ties with lots of members of my family for lots of different reasons. I have family members who are racist. I have cut them off. They're dead to me.
I have family members who actively fight gay marriage. I have cut them off, too. They're also dead to me.
The point is, I have cut ties permanently with some family members for choices they've made and I don't regret it for a minute. I don't think people deserve special consideration simply because they share DNA.
Having said that:
If I were a super hardcore kolobian king & priest-in-training, trying to magnify my priesthood and become a god, and a member of my family broke their covenants (which to me are sacred) and turned their back on our eternal family (which is what it would mean to me) then yeah, I can understand shunning that person.
That's one of the many reasons I left the church. Me and absolutes don't always mesh well. But I can see how a kolobian would feel justified in shunning someone who (to them) has turned their back on their eternal family. To a kolobian, they might not feel they are the ones doing the shunning at all. They might feel that the person who left is the one who shunned them.
i cant imagine shunning any of my family.... maybe the fact we are all adopted makes us closer? or not..... dont know....adoption is all i have ever know..... so to me...... it aint right!
First, these sayings reflect tension between Jesus and his family, who at one time tried to restrain him because they thought he was out of his mind. His family apparently did not become followers until after he was believed to have been resurrected.
(Details and dynamics like these argue, in my mind, for Jesus being real person with real problems rather than Jesus as purely myth.)
Second, Jesus followers were divided into three main groups: disciples, followers, and sympathizers. Each group had a different level of commitment to Jesus and his ministry, with disciples having the greatest commitment. There sayings you quote are directed at the disciples, who were expected to leave everything and remain with Jesus full-time. It was not something Jesus expected of everyone.
Reference: Sanders, E. (1995). The Historical Figure of Jesus (pp. 117-131). ePenguin. Kindle Edition.
The problem, as it often is, is context. What did Jesus mean and who was he saying it to?
kolobian Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So it's ok for jesus' disciples to shun their > family members?
You assume what Jesus demanded shunning. I don't read his words that way. Again, it is a matter of context. Jesus expected God to initiate the kingdom during his ministry. Many of Jesus' sayings reflect the great urgency he felt and his belief that the usual order of society and its values would be upset, including usual family relationships.
When God's kingdom did not appear and change the social order, the church settled in for the long haul, the demand to choose between God and family softened. For example, the disciples could travel with their wives. Yet Jesus words, taken from a different context, remained. Shunning is a punishment and I don't see that this was what Jesus had in mind. Rather, he was presenting a radical choice based upon his belief of the coming of God's kingdom.
Also, if you look at the Gospels, Jesus accepted the social outcasts--people who where considered wicked. While he was demanding, he knew people would fail and he accepted them and associated with them. This is hardly shunning and it made enemies for him in some circles.
Obviously I disagree with the assumption Jesus was demanded shunning. However, as to shunning practiced by some churches and families, it shows a lack of love and generosity, and it harms the person it is done to. It is a terrible practice.
A question for you: Is it "OK" to devote oneself to a demanding medical career or a career in politics or to one of the arts or to some other activity that makes family secondary?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2011 05:06PM by robertb.
Evil prospers when good people do nothing. Or something like that.
Oh well, that's the way the ball bounces... Are you f-ing kidding me?
Say a person's husband is relatively old and has been sick for years... He dies. Is it acceptable to respond "Well, you should have expected it. Time to move on with your life. Go to Vegas! You knew this would eventually happen, so quit your whining. Buck up."
How callous, cruel and cold-hearted. The grief can continue off and on for years, no matter what causes it.
Yes, I digress, but shunning is cruel, and I refuse to just accept it as par for the course.
I saw that as saying that Jesus should come first, but not that you should shun. As far as the part about families being at odds, that seems more a 'prophecy' of how things will be if you follow Jesus. I didn't see anywhere where Jesus said that it was great to shun your family or fight with them. He just predicted that it would happen. I suppose it is open to interpretation, but that is how I read it.
I've heard/read/seen it done in many religions, including one of my childhood friends who was disowned by his father for becoming 'wayward.'
I remember being shocked and outraged when I watched Fiddler on the Roof, when Tevia disowns and rejects his daughter because she did not marry a Jew. The scene where she is begging him to acknowledge her, and Tevia turns his back on her is horrible. I don't understand how anybody can put any religion above their own children...
But I seriously doubt folks who've never been the victim of such atrocious behavior have a clue.
Its not a parent or sibling's role to decide what a child, brother or sister believes. A parent's role is to give the child all the tools it requires to successfully navigate the often rough road of life. The sibling's role is to mind they own bidness.
Mormons aren't loyal to the family or family members. Their loyalty resides solely with the cult.
To live with and love mormons doesn't alter that fact.
Just for the record, almost everybody does some sort of "I have no (son/daughter/cousin/uncle/grandfather/you name it)" to family members who will not stay in the family faith. Scientologists call it "disconnection", Jehova's Witnesses call it "disfellowshipping", Fundamentalist Christians have a number of terms for it ("leaving the flock", "abandoning your walk with God", etc.), Muslims call it "shirk."
My point is, every religion that I've heard of deals with non-belief in member with similar ways: they try to get the member back on their team, and if it doesn't work, they dump them. Fair? No, but the people who run religions know that if apostacy goes on, more people might follow member X out the door and that might force the religions to change - AND RELIGIONS HATE CHANGE. Change led to Protestantism in Western Europe, change created the scism between Rome and the Eastern churches, higher educational levels today are killing religion in the West and the various religious hierarchies are unhappy because of it. So this is why COJCOLDS is pushing a "back to the old-tymey religion" campaign; they can see no other way out but clamping down.
"My point is, every religion that I've heard of deals with non-belief in member with similar ways: they try to get the member back on their team, and if it doesn't work, they dump them."
Sorry to be a little OT, but Islam mandates death for those who leave the faith (for males, that is--there is debate among Islamic scholars as to whether women should also be killed for leaving Islam). The death penalty for Islam is still in force today; there was even a documentary fairly recently on UK TV about ex-Muslims in Britain who live under the constant threat of death in their neighborhoods because people know they've left Islam. Here in the SF Bay Area, I have talked with Muslims who no longer believe but who cannot let anyone in their families or communities know, for the same reason. I just mention it because it's not similar to "dumping" ex-members, as many faiths do...it's far worse.
That's terrible, if that's what you're used to. I don't know of anyone personally that has done or experienced that, no matter what the family member has done. Sometimes some people find it necessary for preservation of their own happiness and peace of mind, or to protect themselves or others from harm, to limit contact to certain extents, with other family members, to set certain boundaries, but to completely cut them off, to pretend they're dead? Never. Even if a brother became an unrepentant murderer, I'd still acknowledge him as my brother, but that doesn't mean I'd give approval or excuse what he'd done. Would I allow him to hurt me or others? No. But he'd always be my brother.
I just don't have any experience with that, and can't imagine going that far. It sounds horrendous. I'm sorry you've had to deal with that.
by her immediate family.... and Mr.'s above post cited 2 cults for his example that a lot of religions do it.... dont know about Islam.... i thought they just killed all the infidels!! :) but actual shunning by the whole community.... never heard that in a Christian community...dont mean it hasnt happened.... but i never heard of it.... the JW's literally wont speak to you!! what a way to treat a child!! BTW... my friend is still a JW and has been fellow-shipped back!! oy vay!!
For as long as I can remember thinking about religion, that has been one of the stupidest excuses ever...along with using it as an excuse to hurt others.