The article says that when Romney was a bishop apparently there was a part member family in the ward. The husband, a catholic, would not join the church and the wife was thinking of taking the kids and moving to Utah.

Here is where the article gets it completely wrong. It states that breaking up a family is "anathema in a faith in which families come first". Are you kidding me? Families DON'T come first. Mormonism does.

Apparently the husband wasn't antagonistic to the church so they started fellowshipping him by giving him "callings" like manning a grill and setting up tables. Any guesses what would have happened if he wasn't interested in participating??? Sadly, after 11 years he joined the church, most likely because if he didn't he would not have been allowed to attend his own kid's weddings.

I understand that statement about how families come first. That is a true statement, in the context of the Eternal Family and how it functions in the "tribe" - with it's beliefs about the importance of following the church's ordinances, etc.

Leave the "tribe" aka church and you are no longer a member of the Eternal Family in their belief system.
That is a real problem for "part member" families.
Their only recourse for this situation is to baptize the non-member by proxy after they are deceased in the hope they will accept the gospel later. As I recall, isn't that the job of the teachers on Spirit Prison -- to teach the gospel?

So, yes, it's a true statement that families come first -- that is a total believing Mormon family that has participated in the ordinances: baptism, gift of the holy ghost, marriage in the temple, etc.

Skip any of those steps, leave the LDS Church completely, and you are no longer part of the Eternal Family according to their beliefs as the family sees those actions as a betrayal and rejection of them personally and the Eternal Family as a whole.

Having lived this religion for decades, I know all too well how this works! Fortunately, some LDS folks are not so exclusionary and can be more generous and gracious to those that leave and recognize their "agency" and how that plays into their beliefs.

The LDS Church as a governing body is accepting of repentance, and returning to the flock.

Individual members, however, don't even listen to their own prophets advice and often exclude, ostracize, and shun those that left.

It is often so prevalent, that if one leaves, the expectation is at least one or more members of the family will ostracize them in some manner. I don't believe that is what the church teaches, however. I have a whole page of quotes from the leaders and prophets on how they are not to be "clannish" etc.
Nor do the members
always follow their own

11th Article of Faith

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

I'd be interested in any written church policy that demands in some manner that members be cut off, shunned, ostracized, etc.
If it exists, I'm not aware of it.

so that we can comment?

Here's the link

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/07/nation/la-na-romney-faith-20111208