I have a close friend who experienced this. Just because the church has no official policy doesn't mean it doesn't happen. People showing up at your door for years when you've repeatedly asked for it to stop happening, including new addresses you move to after asking not to be contacted again (I've witnessed this personally, and it is deeply distressing and invasive), is harassment no matter what the intention behind it. And of course there is no official policy of "shunning," but individuals among your friends and family can be counseled that contact with you seems to be interfering with their faith and should be curtailed for their own spiritual good.

I can second this. I left over a decade ago. I've moved through four states, and probably a dozen addresses in that time. This is the first year where missionaries have not shown up at my door. I always had the same conversation with them: "Elders, I left the church for a reason and have no desire to come back. If you ever need water or to use the restroom, you are welcome to come by. I understand that what you are doing is hard, but you are not welcome to teach." I would never see the same elders twice.

(I also detailed some of my leaving in hopes that it helps others)

I can third this. I left about 7 years ago. I have moved from Wisconsin, to North Carolina, to Virginia, to Texas, and then to Washington. The Mormon church managed to find me each time. (I briefly moved to Pennsylvania for work for about 6 months between living in NC and VA, and that was the one time they never found me).

I have always rejected all attempts to "re-activate" me. I have never provided notice of my leaving, and I have never as much as attended church once in any of these locations. Several of the moves I didn't even leave forwarding addresses or change of address at the post office. Heck about a year ago I missed some important documents from the IRS, because even they didn't know my new address. They were contacting a previous address, yet the Mormon church had already visited me (against my requests) a total of three times at that new address.

The Mormon church in fact does encourage harassment of ex members, they just don't advertise it as harassment. I am assuming the top comment in this feed that claims they never promote harassment is probably from a current member. The church promotes and encourages members to visit ex-members "out of love" to "save them". It even goes as far as assigning certain members to "re-activate" specific lost members as a task or chore that they must report back progress on.

So the members are harassing, but they do it under the guise of "love" and "salvation". The leaders of the church teach this twice a year in their worldwide broadcast conference (General Conference) where they tell stories (generally fictitious but claiming to be true-to-life) about how active members have gone to ex-members' homes and pushed and prodded for months and years to get members to re-activate. They will hail these persistent efforts to ignore the privacy requests of the ex-members and to push them even despite threats, because according to the story it eventually worked. They will laugh and say that "the spirit" will eventually get through to these ex-members if you just push them hard enough. This is all harassment. Yes, it is done naively from brainwashed members who think they are helping, but it is indeed harassment.

Imagine breaking up with a significant other who then continues to say they know you were meant for each other. They keep showing up at your work and at your house trying to get you to fall back in love with them. They are convinced that if they insert themselves back into your life that you will feel that love again. But you want nothing to do with this person. That person feels like they are doing something out of love, but to you it is harassment.

I've watched countless families destroyed over mormonism. It is toxic, but in the most crafty ways possible. Looking back, I did it all. I harrassed exmembers and gained pleasure from it. I thought I was truly helping them. We would laugh afterward at the threats we got. It was harrassement but I did it... i was brainwashed without realizing it. I am sick to my stomach for admitting it, but I was guilty of these acts for 30 years. My perspective has changed with many years out of the church. But trust me, it is part of the Mormon culture. I speak from experience. I am guilty of harrassing hundreds of people against their will as a Mormon.

Further, it is worth noting that according to Mormon doctrine, someone who is an active member and leaves the church is "an apostate". Depending how far they went through the ladder of Mormonism (such as going through the temple or even working at the temple) this actually destines someone to a future life in "outer darkness". This is a place reserved for basically only apostates (people that left the church). The mormon church has even taught terrorists and hitler will be able to seek forgiveness in the next life and go to a lower form of heaven, but not as low as outer darkness. This literally puts people who leave the church as worse than mass murderers.

Thank you for sharing. And this is part of why I shared. Because I feel that I myself harassed and enabled this abusive behavior. It is weird, of all the places to actually feel welcome talking about this, it is Hacker News. When I talk about this with friends I'm often met with "Mormons are the nicest people I know." I'm sure others experience this too.

> The mormon church has even taught terrorists and hitler will be able to seek forgiveness in the next life and go to [the Telestial Kingdom [0]], but not as low as outer darkness.

For those that think this is hyperbole (though I heard you only went to outer darkness [Hell] if you had active proof of god and rejected him), I have heard the exact same teachings and have never lived in any of the states jacurtis mentioned. This belief is also why when you're a Mormon, you feel the need to save those that left.

[0] (this says that those that leave are on the __same__ level as mass murders) https://www.mormonwiki.com/Celestial,_Terrestrial,_and_Teles...

FWIW, my friend was able to have her name completely removed from the membership rolls, and she was never visited after that except by random missionaries who didn't know who she was. Nobody she talked to in the church told her of the existence of this process, even when she was directly begging to be completely forgotten and never bothered again, which makes it sound like a conspiracy theory or an urban legend, but it exists, and it works. My guess is they had to set it up to comply with a law or fulfill the terms of a settlement. You'll have to look for it online, because I forgot the name of the process and who helped her with it, but any of the online ex-Mormon support groups should be able to point you in the right direction.

Is the potential forgiveness of "terrorists and Hitler" all that surprising? The story of Saul of Tarsus is at the core of Christian theology; the whole concept of the religion is sort of premised on the universal availability of forgiveness.

No it isn't surprising, but that's also not the point of the comment. If what you're taking away is "anyone can be saved" then you're __REALLY__ missing the point.

Educate me? I'm trying to understand.

The church (LDS) has 3 kingdoms of heaven (see link wiki I provided above). The lowest tier of heaven is where Hitler would go were he to accept Christ, in the afterlife. Presumably someone would do a baptism for him and he would have to accept it or not. The post is saying that those that leave the church would be placed into the same grouping as Hitler (tier 3).

My actual understanding, having grown up in the church, is that ex-members would actually go to the Terrestial Kingdom (tier 2). Though it depends on how you interpret "rejecting the gospel". The distinction depends on if I rejected the gospel or was a good person who was blinded by the evils of the world. The church is a little vague on the subject and I can easily understand an interpretation of ending up in the Tellestial Kingdom (tier 3). It can entirely be interpreted that I rejected the gospel and so am placed into the same category as mass murderers.

In my upbringing it was taught that the only people that went to hell were those that outright rejected the gospel with knowledge, so that puts a lower bound. See Doctrine and Covenants 76[0].

[0] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-test...

Side note: You can only get into the Celestial Kingdom (tier 1) if you accept the Mormon doctrine while on Earth (there are also 3 subdivisions of the Celestial Kingdom that you can move through within the afterlife, but you are not able to move kingdoms).

> Side note: You can only get into the Celestial Kingdom (tier 1) if you accept the Mormon doctrine while on Earth (there are also 3 subdivisions of the Celestial Kingdom that you can move through within the afterlife, but you are not able to move kingdoms).

This just isn’t true that you have to be a Mormon on the Earth to receive the highest degree. We believe you have to have a body to receive your ordinances, but there’s a reason people visit the Temple after they have done their own ordinances and covenants and that is, so they can do temple work and baptisms for those who have passed, and they do this as proxies for the deceased much like Paul taught baptisms for the dead(1 Corinthians 15:29).

> It can entirely be interpreted that I rejected the gospel and so am placed into the same category as mass murderers.

That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a bad place though. (Also if you choose to never accept Christ until the final resurrection then that’s your choice, but I don’t think you’re doomed to it). Here’s a quote from that D&C 76 about the tier 3 as you called it or the telestial as it’s called there:

> 89 And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the telestial , which surpasses all understanding;

> 90 And no man knows it except him to whom God has revealed it.

So, the glory itself exceeds all understanding it reminds me a lot of 1 Corinthians 2 particularly 9 & 10.

> 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

> 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

I think we’ll all come to see God’s and Christ’s great mercy at the Judgement seat.

I guess I'm saying, there are mainline Christian denominations where this would also be the case: Hitler would have to agree to be saved, and the ex-member would have to in some way renounce the faith, but the outcome is the same, right?

I'm not trying to make the point that there isn't pressure on people to stay in the church. I know nothing whatsoever about the LDS church. People that say there's pressure, I believe them. I'm just making a nerdy theological point about "Hitler-salvation" as a threshold.

The point was the contrast: "Killing a few million people? Forgivable" vs "Leaving the church? Unforgivable". IE, there's a very severe built-in "don't you dare leave us" mentality.

Very much this.

Here is a comment where I detail the organizational trends that I believe justify my comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22276276

This sounds like a situation where no one can win 100% of the time. Some people who are left alone after leaving the church complain that they're "alienated" by their neighbors, while those whose neighbors try to keep them involved are victims of "invasive harassment". And those who are content don't mention it, so no one hears about them.

Any time I've heard of someone wishing not to be contacted, I've seen members of the church respect that desire. Of course that doesn't stop everyone (because not everyone may be aware of that desire). Instead of looking to criticize, please try to understand that people are usually just trying to be friendly and respectful, even if it doesn't always seem that way.

> Of course that doesn't stop everyone (because not everyone may be aware of that desire).

This is only true to the extent that the church is extremely efficient at tracking down ex-members and sharing this information with local congregations and extremely inefficient at remembering that people have requested multiple times with multiple authorities never to be contacted again.

People are visited by members of the church, acting as members of the church, introducing themselves as representatives of the church, visiting an address given to them by the church, and asking for a person they've never met by name, at an address the person has recently moved to after leaving the church. Again, I've witnessed this firsthand, in front of my own eyes.

Think of the effort it takes to pull that off. It's not an innocent oopsie.

"...visiting an address given to them by the church"

If that person is really an "ex-member" (meaning they had their name removed from the church's records), then this simply could not have happened, at least not in the name of the church. I've seen firsthand what happens to a congregation's records when someone removes their name (no surprise - their name, address, etc are removed from the list, and there's no conspiracy of tracking people behind their backs as you seem to imply).

That said, it's certainly possible that someone was operating on old data or otherwise mistaken (maybe the person visiting just asked another neighbor about the person who lived there, not knowing the history, but trying to be friendly?), but I can assure you that the church would not give someone a name and address of an ex-member who's had their name removed from the records.

ADDED: To respond to a couple of replies here: I suspect the church's central records (in SLC) may retain some data about ex-members (I have no firsthand experience there one way or another) - at least where permissible by local privacy laws, but I've dealt with records at the congregation level for years (which is what missionaries or other members would use to contact someone), and I can definitively say that ex-members' info is removed from those records (not just marked as "inactive" or otherwise). Does that mean you will never be contacted by a member of the church again in your life? Absolutely not (for reasons explained above that have nothing to do with the church's records). You will have the same chance of being contacted by a well-meaning member or missionary as anyone else in your vicinity (which is more than many people realize).

In my friend's case, the process of removing her name from the records was something she learned about online in an ex-Mormon support group. Nobody in the church told her about it despite contacting multiple people in the church multiple times to ask to stop getting contacted. When she heard about it, her first reaction was that it was probably an urban legend, since nobody from the church even told her it existed, much less suggested it as the right way to accomplish what she was asking for. She was pleasantly surprised when it turned out to be a legit thing.

How can you keep doubting that this happens consistently and by design? When my friend connected online with other people who left the church, she heard lots of stories identical to hers. They're not crazy people. They're just people who wanted to leave the church.

> If that person is really an "ex-member" (meaning they had their name removed from the church's records),

This is the issue. The names don't get removed. Everyone that leaves is just "inactive". Tell me you don't see that. Tell me you don't see people talking about how to get them active again. Because I've been to a lot of wards and seen that discussion in every single one. "They are just inactive".

I've told members to their face that I left, and they have responded "oh, you you're inactive?" I guess not attending church for over a decade and having a bad taste in my mouth isn't leaving, it is inactive.

We don't do this in normal society. If you stop showing up to play sports with your friends, you aren't considered a team member anymore. Especially after you tell them "I don't want to be on the team anymore." How would you feel if everyone on that team just kept saying "oh, they're just taking a break. They'll come back." You know, decades after you left...

> The names don't get removed. Everyone that leaves is just "inactive". Tell me you don't see that.

I don't see that. If they're removed, they're removed, at least from any lists that local leaders, members or missionaries could see.

> If they're removed, they're removed, at least from any lists that local leaders, members or missionaries could see.

This is exactly the kind of dishonest bullshit line that local leaders use when people ask to be removed and not contacted again. I don't know how these "lists" work internally in the church, but local leaders can happily say, "Sure, we'll remove you from the list. Done! No more visits!" knowing that they haven't done what the person requested, knowing that the church will continue to send people to that person's home, even if they move hundreds of miles away. They believe this is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for a believing Mormon, which is why it's so important to call it out in public. The only way they will back off from this kind of behavior is if it harms the public image of the church.

Exactly this, and I thought I was clear with my analogy with the sports team. I have told at least a dozen missionaries and a handful of bishops to not contact me. Yet here we are.

When someone says "I'm out of here" you don't follow them around the country, calling them by name "Hey, so are you ready to come back?" To put it in other words "No means no." following people around like that is harassment and borderline stalking.

You're welcome to your own opinions, but I actually work with church records at a local level, and this is the truth. I have siblings and neighbors who have left, and there's absolutely no remaining evidence (that I or my local leaders can see) of their info or that they were ever members of the church.

It comes down to what you're specifically asking. If you ask a local leader to remove you from a list, they may remove you from (for example) a local list of members who are open to being visited. That list would not represent your membership record in the church. In most cases, the removal from a local list like that is both appropriate and what the person actually expects (after all, it's not like your contact info was obtained from a spam list or something; you would have to have been baptized in the church, professed to believe in the church's doctrines, voluntarily consented to being a member, provided personal data, etc, so a retraction of all that is a relatively serious decision).

On the other hand, if you want to remove your record from the church as a whole (the entire organization), you'd need to be clear about that with your bishop (local leader), and they are instructed to give you details about how to go about removing your record from church headquarters.

If you asked specifically about removing your record completely, and a bishop didn't tell you how to do that, that would be a (frustrating) mistake, and I believe that leader should be corrected (it's in their handbook of instructions). It's rare enough that some leaders may just not be as familiar with the process.

In either case, it sounds like you had a bad experience with that, and your frustration is understandable. People in similar situations have been very vocal about that kind of thing, but I know that in the majority of cases (many that I've seen firsthand), those kinds of mistakes are rare and local leaders will help however they can.

EDIT: The line about you volunteering information (or your parents doing so on your behalf) isn't meant to place blame, but rather to simply point out that significant, deliberate effort was put into creating your record in the church. In that light, it would be crazy for a local leader or member to knock on your door, hear you say "remove me from your list", and interpret that as full authorization to remove your record completely. You certainly have the freedom to do that, but an offhanded remark at the door isn't really appropriate for that level of action.

> On the other hand, if you want to remove your record from the church as a whole (the entire organization), you'd need to be clear about that with your bishop (local leader), and they are instructed to give you details about how to go about removing your record from church headquarters.

This is exactly how my friend was treated at every step of the way. They pretended that she hadn't actually asked for the right thing in the right way. It's shameful. She asked over and over not to be contacted ever again, by anyone, by any part of the church, in any locality. And to this day, people just like you pretend that it couldn't have happened that way, that she must have done something wrong.

"Gaslighting" is a word that I think is used way too lightly these days, but that's what the church did to her. It started before she left and was the reason she left. Every time she talked to people inside the church about the things that were happening to her, the reaction was, "Are you sure it didn't actually happen this other way?" They rejected her story of what happened and believed their own version instead.

> those kinds of mistakes are rare and local leaders will help however they can

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that even you can even pretend to believe that without it hurting a little bit.

I'm sorry about your friend. If it's a case of abuse (as it sounds like), I'm truly sorry, and I don't know anyone - inside or outside the church - who would think that's okay. If she wants her name removed (and it hasn't already been done), that can definitely be done - she just needs to talk to the bishop or stake president and formally request it to be removed (it's really not a complicated process).

Those stories should be heard, and there absolutely needs to be transparency. It does come with the side effect of making those cases sound disproportionately "typical", when they really aren't. I've never experienced or known a victim of abuse in the church (that I know of), but it does break my heart to hear about it happening, and I would encourage people to speak up when it does happen (especially to higher-up leaders who can do something about it).

Bad people slip through the cracks (as they do in any organization). It's unfortunate, but the church is doing a lot to help prevent those wrongs and mistakes. I absolutely still stand with my assertion that "mistakes are rare and local leaders will help however they can".

It's a little bit more complicated than what you're hinting at, but this REALLY misses the point:

> I don't know anyone - inside or outside the church - who would think that's okay

Nobody who was complicit in how she was treated ever decided it was okay or would have stood by the reality of what happened. All they did was have enough faith in the church to feel sure that the actual situation must have been different from the way she described it. That's how virtually every around her felt (or pretended to feel,) not just a few miscreants who slipped through the cracks. Even her parents. They retreated into a fog of believing they didn't know what happened. They had faith that if they heard the complete truth it would vindicate the church, so to this day they believe they haven't heard the truth about what happened yet.

> you would have to have been baptized in the church, professed to believe in the church's doctrines, voluntarily consented to being a member, provided personal data, etc, so a retraction of all that is a relatively serious decision).

*at 8

Remember, you get baptized __at 8__. If you're a male, you get the priesthood at __12__. You're talking about consent and volunteering that information. There's a reason we legally don't allow people that young to give consent. The way you are framing this conversation to me is rather disgusting. You are saying that it is my fault that the church has my information. The church has my information because __I was born into it__. Yeah, I believed at 8. I even believed at 16.

This also doesn't explain how the church has continually had my address as I've moved hundreds of miles across the country multiple times. And the issue is that every time these missionaries come I tell them I don't want to be contacted. I've talked to several bishops about being removed. They all said I won't be contacted. Then I move, and it starts over. So forgive me if I feel like I'm being stalked. I know many ex members who share this experience.

So if you agree that we should be removed, don't blame us. Maybe, instead, there is a systematic problem. Because as it stands, every time a missionary knocks on my door saying "Brother Godelski", I hate the church a little more. I don't blame missionaries. They are welcome to food, water, and to use my bathroom (they have a tough job). But I tell them there is no teaching (and I don't try to pressure them out either).

So what do I do? Do I be hostile to the messenger? (I don't have that in me) Because this has been happening for over a decade, over 4 states, and over a dozen residences. So forgive me if I don't take your message lightly. I don't know how to be more clear.

Edit (in response to your edit):

> In that light, it would be crazy for a random hometeacher/ministering member to knock on your door, hear you say "remove me from your list", and interpret that as full authorization to remove your record completely.

To me, this sounds crazy. No means no. No does not mean maybe. No means no. If someone wants to call me and say "Hey, the missionaries said that you wanted to be removed from the records, is that true?" I'd be okay with that. But saying that "no means maybe" is spitting in the face of those trying to leave.

> No means no.

Local leaders don't have direct control over the removal of someone's membership record, and that's a reasonable safeguard against local leaders/members (deliberately or accidentally) performing such a significant action on behalf of potentially hundreds of other members. Most companies operate under similar safeguards when it comes to data security and deletion requests (requiring some kind of procedure rather than hearing you just say the magic words "delete my account" and not even verifying your identity). I imagine the church is legally required to keep some of that data for tax and reporting purposes, so it's not quite as straightforward as it might sound.

> Most companies operate under similar safeguards when it comes to data security and deletion requests (requiring some kind of procedure rather than hearing you just say the magic words "delete my account" and not even verifying your identity)

Under GDPR most companies have a button you can press. Sure, might stay cached for 90 days or whatever, but essentially you are just telling them. There are ones harder, where you have to email them (like going to a Bishop...). The worst are that you have to verify your identity with legal document.

And I'm not saying the church doesn't have to expunge all records of you existing within their institution. I just want something akin to a Do Not Call list. Right now I feel that the church respects me just as much as the telemarketer that I ask to take me off their list (they're legally required to btw, but they usually don't. I worked in one of these centers, they tell you to ignore "customers" like that).

It actually doesn't remove it from Missionary records. Missionary records are intentionally kept separate from church records. I was a missionary and we visited people who have left the church (and had their name removed) many, many times. We have left their records behind after we were told to fuck off for future missionaries to continue to contact. If the threats get violent enough a missionary might choose to remove it from missionary records (we did this only once during my two year mission, after someone threatening to kill us and posting pictures of us at our apartment). Other threats were just shrugged off and I guarantee missionaries that came behind me re-visted that member again and probably still are to this day.

What "missionary records" are you talking about? I'm not aware of any official, separate missionary records. I was also a missionary and the only records/lists we saw were those kept by local wards. Were they perhaps (unofficial) manually-stored paper records kept by previous missionaries or something?

Each mission area has an official notebook of paper records that are maintained by the two missionaries that cover that area. These records were never synchronized with other data sources.

Occasionally missionaries might receive a request to locate an inactive member whose active family doesn't know where to find them (I only saw this once in two years, and nobody involved seemed to take a moment to think about the bigger picture of what they were doing).

There are personal info data brokers e.g. Acxiom. Maybe the church is incorporating such sources when tracking down "lost" members.

> Occasionally missionaries might receive a request to locate an inactive member whose active family doesn't know where to find them

I've seen that too, though as I understand it, those only come from (standard membership) records that are moved from a previous ward (not removed) and the leadership doesn't know which new ward the person should geographically belong to (they might only have a rough geographic idea). The intention is one of trying to help provide assistance and support to people who are - at least in terms of the official records - still members of the church. That won't happen with people whose records have been officially removed from the church.

As for a "notebook of paper records", unfortunately there's very little that can be done to completely avoid inaccuracies in those, but the church has been working to make more of those things happen electronically (which would solve the issue of not being synchronized). It may not be in place everywhere, but that's the direction it's going, so it will definitely improve.

> This sounds like a situation where no one can win 100% of the time. Some people who are left alone after leaving the church complain that they're "alienated" by their neighbors, while those whose neighbors try to keep them involved are victims of "invasive harassment".

You're getting downvoted because both can be true.

How would you feel if your closest friends and/or family stopped talking to you because of how they voted? Or if they didn't stop talking, if they only talked about how you voted wrong (you know, basically Thanksgiving dinner but more frequently). What people miss is their friends and family. And in the end, do you really want a friendship back if you were only friends because you shared the same religion? That's what these people are saying. I say that as someone who went through it.

As far as the missionary problem, dkarl explained that pretty well.

I've had something similar happen to me. My brother left the church and ever since the only thing he wants to do is talk to me (and my kids) about how I'm wrong to stay in the church. I don't recall us ever having a religious conversations prior to his exit so it's been a bit jarring. I get that he possibly feels he's got to share his point of view, but at some time (especially after he's made his point) he's got to let me live under my own understanding. And anyways I'd just like my brother back, he was fun.

I'd have to disagree it doesn't necessarily enforce or push shunment but there is enough 'only way to heaven' talk that it makes family relationships with those still in perilous, and if you're underage and mentally out... gl trying to convince parents to let you resign without getting kicked out of the house.

I left and told my wife I was going to but still it's been a bit of a stressor in our relationship, but I couldn't no longer be part of such a malicious organization that causes so many suicides inside the state of Utah and has such a horrific history of racism.

I live in Utah. When I resigned from the Mormon church the entire ward shunned me and I was ostracized by my family. My home teacher told me that the bishop told the men in the priesthood not to associate with me.

My experience leaving was as follows. I don't feel bad nor bitter but it did have some negative repercussions.

I knew at 13 I did not believe and didn't want to follow but was forced to continue attending and forbidden to speak about my lack of belief to siblings. Come 18 I was suggested to move out which I happily did. My father sort of eventually accepted but would try to slip in religious sermons when he could. My mother on the other hand freaked completely out. Parents took all pictures of me down in the house leaving pictures of siblings. They gave a piece of property my non-Mormon grandfather left me to my brother with my mother calling and explaining they were doing this because I had left the church and she had never forgiven her mother and brother from leaving. Pretty rough but I got over it. Luckily I never built much social identity around the church so that was less of an issue. Also I left young and at 18 who cares what your parents think because they are stupid anyway :).

I don't think ostracism or social punishment is official policy but it is there in practice and likely very pronounced for some people.

I still have a sister and brother who are very and irrationally hostile towards me but the other siblings are friendly enough and seem ok. I don't talk about church nor discourage their belief, I simply don't participate. Mom never did get over it and we were never close again until her death. Sometimes she would call me saying crazy things but I didn't hate or resent her for it, I understand where they are coming from, in my belief they are mistaken and deluded and behaving improperly but hey people do that in many venues.

I felt like my leaving was a threat to a carefully constructed fragile synthetic narrative for people close to me who chose to remain. Even though I never actually argued against nor condemned the religion.

I suppose I should feel worse about the whole incident but what I really feel is a sort of pity. Like someone would feel for an alcoholic or drug addict desperately rationalizing their destructive behavior. I don't hate the church nor resent the behavior of family members. I understand, besides what they think has little bearing on my world at this point. Very happy I left early though. I imagine the process as an adult married with kids even is quite an emotional slap. I don't want to tell others what to do. If people are happy claiming to believe those things I'm ok with it. But I won't do any such thing even if it means social problems.

Ostracizing ex-members occurs in nearly every tight knit social group, especially ones predicated upon adherence to some ideology. It’s a basic tenant of human tribalism, and religions are perhaps the most tribal social groups we have ever invented.

I can't speak for the LDS church, but my brother left Christianity 5 or 6 years ago. I similarly left a few years later. Initially telling my parents was extremely uncomfortable, which stands to reason. They come from a tradition where parents are made responsible for their children's continued participation and adherence to the church, with eternal consequences for anyone who leaves.

Every time we see my parents they say goodbye as if it's the last time they'll see us. They continue to speak as if we're still participating in the church, and they cry every time my brother, who lives 3 hours away, leaves to go home.

A month ago my parents' church sent my brother a letter threatening him with damnation if he didn't return to Christianity and guilting him for not following in his parents religion. It then suggested he would be excommunicated (which has specific meaning in the denomination, it's not exactly shunning) if he didn't tell them where he was attending, or he could resign. It was sent as registered mail, and written in a way that was meant to be humiliating. My brother wrote back that he happily resigned.

I expect at some point I might receive the same communication. In the Reformed church this is both old and new. The idea of excommunication had existed since before the church came over from Europe. But in recent times churches have found it a useful, quasi-legal way to enforce conformity and allegiance. If that environment is as totalizing a force in your life as the church intends to be, you will find it very difficult to leave. That threat will worry you. But once you've left it often just feels hurtful and vindictive. It doesn't have the reformative effect it is intended to effect.

You are both making broad statements about the church and using anecdotes to support those statements. Why should I believe either of you?

I'll support tomrod. Because his experience, though not exact, reflects mine. You can see many others coming out of the woodworks too. People that were taught to hide their feelings because that's the only way they can amend their relationships with their families. Eventually enough anecdotal evidence is just data. I'll give support to tomrod.

This was my experience as well (Utah native). I did not experience any shunning when I left, nor have others in my extended family.

Any shunning I have seen was due to other factors than merely leaving, such as the reasons behind leaving (one of my cousins was shunned for drug dealing and running from the law, not for leaving).

The Mormon church has a lot of experience with people leaving and appears to handle it pretty well in general. Of course leaving a religion is a hard and often agonizing decision and is painful personally, and people sometimes project these feelings onto others.