3rdgen: I totally agree that it is unloving, unfair, and bigoted to disinherit family members simply because they don't share the same religious beliefs. My point was that it should not be illegal to do so. To let the law step in and say what a person who is of sound mind can and cannot do with their money is a patently bad idea.
That said, older people can be easy targets if they are no longer of sound mind or are so dependent on others that they dare not resist any "suggestion" as to whom they should give or leave their money to. Courts properly can and should review those cases to decide if there has been any undue influence or coercion.
I think the Society is definitely encouraging an alienation of affection of family members by their shunning, almost "no contact," policies. They even discourage minimal contact, such as email.
I do not know this as a fact, but I have good reason to believe that the Society has certain representatives whose job it is to visit older, infirm ones to encourage them to leave their money to the Society instead of to "worldly" relatives who would just use the money for selfish, maybe immoral, purposes. If this could be proven in a particular case, that would be a time for the Court to step in.
I know it's unfair and hurtful for people to be disinherited because of someone's bigoted and self-righteous opinions of their beliefs or non-beliefs. But as long as they are of sound mind and not under undue influence when they make those decisions, I wouldn't want the law to interfere. Would you want the law to tell you who you can or cannot leave your money to?