Talk:Ex-Mormon/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Revisit of WP:NPOV as it applies to this article

Hello again. I think you were more generous in your Kosher and Fishy labels than I might have been in your position. So thank you. But I still have some problems... more than I previously alluded to. I agree that the text should be factually based as you have said. But simply quoting facts does not necessarily clear it from POV. Here are some of the passages from WP:NPOV that refer to concepts where I believe this article has problems:

• Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias.

• The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

Perhaps you think that this means that this article should give as much weight to Mormonism as it does to Exmormonism. That is not correct. This is an article about Exmormonism. If you disagree, then perhaps you should tag the Catholicism page NPOV for not giving equal weight to Judaism, and the Hell page for not giving enough weight to Heaven. Reswobslc 19:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I actually think the article should not even exist. However, given that it exists, it should not give any weight to Mormonism. However, it may give appropriate weight to Mormon sources. . I would greatly appreciate it if you would not be sarcastic in this conversation and instead Assume Good Faith. --Anon 64 12:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Having an article about Exmormonism doesn't make the encyclopedia sympathetic or in opposition to Exmormonism any more than having an article about Nazism makes it sympathetic or in opposition to that. If you disagree, then perhaps you should tag for deletion every page that presents a POV, and see how long you last. Reswobslc 19:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Having the article does not make wikipedia sympathetic. I never said so. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the points that I make not to the points you are imagining that I am making! When you do otherwise it is simply impolite.--12:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.

This is not a problem. The article is ABOUT Exmormonism, just like the Judaism article is ABOUT Judaism. The statement you're talking about refers, for example, to giving a heavy bias to criticism of Mormonism on the Mormonism page, or having a big long article about Exmormonism and only a stub for Mormonism. Reswobslc 19:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem. It does not matter WHAT the subject is, DEBATES are to be described, represented and characterized. That is not done here. You are ignoring the points that I have brought up. Do not worry about other articles like Judaism or Mormonism unless this article refers to and relies upon them. --Anon 64 12:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas.

• Religious bias, including bias in which one religious viewpoint is given preference over others.

• But it's not enough just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

This applies to controversial subjects and Exmormonism isn't one of them. Hardly anyone disputes what Exmormonism is. Although Exmormons hold the POV that the Mormon church is false - a POV that is subject to controversy - the idea that an Exmormon is a former Mormon is not disputed. Reswobslc 19:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing about that statement that says it only applies to controversial subjects. The policy applies to all of wikipedia. If you want a dispute about what ExMormonism is, I am game. I consider it to be nothing special or worthy of an article, because it is mislabeled. However, that is really irrelevant to the point that I was making. Do not dismiss my objections by claiming that they do not apply when the policy does not contain that limitation. --12:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

Again, what an Exmormon is is not controversial, even if by definition an Exmormon holds a POV that in fact is.

That has nothing to do with it. Even if the article were about white bread, if there were OTHER VIEWPOINTS they would need to be presented in PROPORTION TO THEIR PROMINENCE. You are seeking to dismiss the problems this article has with WP:NPOV by declaring it is not controversial. That is not a substantial reply since WP:NPOV does not demand that the article be controversial. And it shouldn't. An article may be ABOUT a non-controversial topic and yet the WRITER of the article chose a slanted Point of View.--Anon 64 12:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can.

Reputable is in the eye of the beholder. The sources used meet Wikipedia's criteria, even if they don't meet the general Mormon believer's criteria. The whole concept of bias and denial that goes along with any POV is that generally any source that doesn't represent the beholder's POV is considered "unreputable". Where applicable, you can't apply that substandard standard here. Reswobslc 19:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes reputable is in the eye of the beholder. Its a problem with this part of the Policy. But this article has few sources and other reputable sources have been removed when I have added them. The article is Highly POV. --Anon 64 12:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources.

Like I said, there is negligible opposition to the currently stated definition and description of Exmormons and Exmormonism. Reswobslc 19:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

But you are wrong in two ways 1). You do not know how much opposition there is, and 2). NPOV is not determined by democratic vote. --12:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

• We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.

I suspect this article is in some ways hopeless on this matter since by its nature this article is POV. It is sort of a POV Fork or a covert vanity article. I really do not think it should even exist. That is my POV. However, once I get over that POV and recognize that my arguments about vanity and fork would require long effort (effort I do not really care to involve myself in at this time) I am pretty much able to look at things objectively and when I do, this article is very clearly slanted. Changes I made previously were utterly rejected (or neutered) in direct contradiction to the NPOV policy. I have not returned here because I was working NPOV elsewhere (on yet another article where I actually have no personal interest either!). --Anon 64 00:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should tag all articles you find POV for proposed deletion and see how far you get. See WP:PROD for instructions on how. Happy tagging and good luck. Reswobslc 19:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should assume good faith. I have worked on other articles that I felt should be deleted before and came away with what I think is an excellent article after working very hard with people who held various opinions on the subject. Your sarcasm is not helpful to this process --Anon 64 12:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

POV right at the start

The article starts right off with POV and self reference:

Exmormonism refers to the culture of individuals who refer to themselves as Exmormons

That is almost a nonsense statement. It is not a culture. And self referential. Exmormonism is a group of ExMormons. That is a really bad opening statement. And the article continues in that bad POV perspective all the way through. --Anon 64 13:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to make this more NPOV per writing for the enemy ;) - let me know what you think? --Trödel 18:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought you gave it a good start. I added some words as well to reflect the sense that not ALL (perhaps not even most) ExMormons do this and also not ALL activities that ExMormons do are "ExMormonism". --Anon 64 12:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is no different from how the Jew article starts off: Jews are followers of Judaism or, more generally, members of the Jewish people. Give us a freaking break, or at least be fair and go over there and NPOV their page too. Reswobslc 19:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we are working on this article not the one about Judaism. You cannot find flaws elsewhere in wikipedia and say that because it is bad in one place it should be bad here too. The first sentence was really truly awful here. "It refers to what it refers to". --Anon 64 12:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

POV right to the very end

The last sentence is:

The webmaster was the first ever to be excommunicated for a website

Who says so? How would anyone know? AT BEST it is what someone CLAIMS. And should unverified claims be reported as though they were facts? They should really be avoided altogether but if they are presented it has to say "Someone claims X but there is no way for that person to know this or for any third party to verify it. But rather than present something and take it away, just do not present it at all. --Anon 64 13:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In order to make this false statement, you actually deleted the reference off the end of the sentence when you quoted it (link)! Come on... only amateur trolls do this. Reswobslc 19:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again I remind you to assume good faith and do not call names. I have not made the statement false. I never declared it was false. You are reading things into my words that I am not saying and thereby NOT properly reading my objections. My comment was not that it was false but that it was unverifiable. As an unverifiable thing it does not really belong here. See WP:VER where one of the first things it says is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". The fact that the statement is referenced does not make it verified. Perhaps you do not really understand the point I was making?

I also encourage you to review the Policy regarding assuming good faith: WP:AGF You have strayed badly away from that and are starting to go to personal insults which is not a good thing. --Anon 64 12:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

How the article is trivial, unencyclopedic, vanity and/or unable to be objective

It is likely that there are almost no sources other than from those who are claiming to be "ExMormon". This means few objective third party perspecties (I found one that was immediately trivialized). Look at how many of the footnotes and citations are all from one point of view (often the same 2 websites). Just this alone suggests the vanity side of things - advertising a perspective -- and argues that the article should be reduced to a stub or eliminated. This is an encyclopedia not a "club" or advertising program. --Anon 64 13:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to WP:PROD it, and one of two things will happen: you'll say hip hip hooray when it gets deleted, or you'll get a virtual told-ya-so when it doesn't. Reswobslc 19:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion. There have been other articles that I thought were worthless additions and over the course of time they became -- if not valuable, at least reasonable encyclopedia articles though the application of WP polices. So, if this article is going to be included it should meet wikipedia standards. It does not.--Anon 64 13:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:PROD is for "uncontroversial" deletions, which I get the feeling this doesn't qualify for. I see this subject as being notable enough to warrant a section in the Mormonism article, just not an article of its own. That's why I asked how people felt about merging it. But no matter what happens, I don't think anyone should be saying told-ya-so. -DejahThoris 03:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not think its really a good article for wikipedia at all. However, I prefer to keep pages clean. This is a balance sort of thing -- should all controversies on a subject be included on that page or should there be a reference to a separate page that goes into more detail? I like the latter solution to keep articles "readable". Note: Even though I consider this article to be ALMOST a vanity article, I do not PROPOSE that it be deleted. Though it is not a very encyclopedic article, I prefer to err on the side of including more rather than including less. --13:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for the sake of discussion, what would be your criteria as to whether a topic merits its own article? It takes the exact same amount of space on the Wikipedia database, and articles about religions are already long enough as it is. Clearly there is a subjective bias that goes into deciding what's notable enough for an article - for example, every Mormon prophet has his own article, as does every Pokemon character, each of which are arguably less significant than the group of those who have denounced Mormonism. Someone visiting the Mormonism article on the other hand probably wants to learn about Mormons not Exmormons, which would make talk about Exmormonism off-topic except for a brief mention. Further, Exmormonism would still exist - albeit as a redirect to Mormonism (assuming it's merged there as suggested). I am sure you can imagine what that would stir up, and if you think about it, I'm sure you can guess what people will do in return: recreate the Exmormonism article. I realize that the idea of "Exmormonism" may be insignificant to some and just an afterglow of Mormonism, but it matters to others who will gripe if it's merged, just like people will gripe if I merge Alcoholics Anonymous into Alcohol. In light of that, what would be the benefit to such a merge, other than the temporary satisfaction of the few Mormons who would feel like they "scored one for their team"? Reswobslc 06:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not know we were talking about different teams. We are talking about an encyclopedia and what is best. I have to admit that I am LDS, even more importantly, I really appreciate relgion regardless of denomination or even provenance. I simply find religions fascinating. Suffice it to say that I may be biased on several levels so I don't like to enter this fray too often.

For me the problem is a group of people that would never exist if there wasn't such a thing as Mormonism wants to proclaim to the world they are no longer Mormon, no longer believe the tripe they heard as children, and have rejected a religion they once believed. Worse, they want to use WIKI to vent. The only thing that can be said is that this group of people became disaffected from the Mormon church. What else is there to say???

Is it particularly novel that group disaffects from any religion?. No! Name a religion and you will find people who have decided it was no longer of worth. Are exmormons any different from excatholics, exbuddists, exjehovah witnesses, exbaptists, exchristians, exmoonies? Heck no. There is absolutely nothing that is unique about them.

This at best is a short paragraph in any article on Mormonism that would clarify that the LDS church is no different from every other religion that has ever existed...some people have become disaffected. In addition, it could be added to other articles that are centered on people who have become disaffected with organized religion.

The article will always be POV because it is a vanity article; it will never be anything else. There is nothing else. There is no such thing as exmormonism; there is no doctrine, no uniformity, just individuals with one thing in common...they are no longer Mormon. A good humanist once asked me to go out at night when the sky is clear and look at all the stars; then scream at the heavens about all the wrongs in your life. Then ask a question; do you think the stars or anyone else cares about our personal rant? We all need to ask that question of ourselves sometime.

I admire those many individuals who have found something else to move towards after having left the church. Unfortunately, there is only pity for those that simply cannot leave their previous religion alone. I hope you can just move on someday. Until then, WIKI really isn't a place to assuage your feelings. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The team is Wikipedia. It is not Mormonism or ExMormonism or Judaism. I think Stormrider's objection to the group is an interesting subset of my basic problem: ExMormonism is not really special. When people leave ANY group to which they have close ties of various sorts, the psychological processes and views are essentially identical. ExMormonism is just a version of "Religious Disaffection" or something like that. And there is no "culture". No "common activity". It's a very narrow label for a special tiny subset of a behavior that, to one degree or another, everyone may take part in. Many many of us leave something during our lives, if we are healthy, even if that is only leaving our parents (and hence teenage rebellion as well as homesickness). This article is like focusing on the minor uptick on one part of the heartbeat that is common to most human beings -- only it is an even less critical subject. It is a triviality -- a vanity article. But I accept that others may (probably do) feel that it is a really important part of their identity and is somehow connected with their sense of personal worth or values and hence requires some kind of encyclopedia article since feelings are somewhat important too. So I accept its existance as an article. But once I make that hurdle I want it to fit in with policy here and this article really does not fit at all. Once the article bumps up against the policies, people who identify with the topic may be offended. I am reminded of something described in WP:VAIN

Unintended Consequences.

A word of caution. Before you write a vanity article on yourself, your group, or your company, remember that, once the article is created, you have no more right or ability to delete it than does any other editor. More than one user has created a vanity article, only to find that, in the normal course of research, other Wikipedia editors have found new material that presents the subject in a less-than-flattering light. Generally, such material will be added to the article, providing it is verifiably true and noteworthy — to the chagrin of the original creator. So, before you create a vanity article, you might want to ask yourself if there is anything publicly available in your past history or that of your group or company that you would not want included in the article — because such material will probably find its way into the article eventually.

Having said that, I do not like it to go into the article on Mormonism with a statement saying "Just like every religion on earth it has people who are disaffected" because that seems to make the topic a non-sequitur (which I believe it really is) but why bother to include a non-sequitur as a note? If you are going to include things like that in an encyclopedia AT LEAST keep it separate from other better articles! (But make a link).

Regarding Pokemon's, I agree that there is too much trivia in Wikipedia (and Pokemon characters have annoyed me in that area), but I recognize that many users may be children and the articles may be of some value to them as an actual reference. Just because I do not particularly value that information (because I will never use it) does not mean that others would not use it -- and strangely -- use it in a way that one should use an encyclopedia. Its just a juvenile focused entry, but not invalid. Surprisingly.

Finally, I agree with Stormriders assessment that if you are emotional on this topic, this may not be a topic that you will do a good job editing. I am not emotional on the topic. But I became interested when I saw that thing about "informal internet survey" which I find to be an offensive sort of source. Good grief! Quality of sources is important! And when I read that little phrase I was bugged -- it was a blaring flag of POV. That is when I noticed the POV of the article. So I did some research. When I put together my research -- which presented other views, as appropriate with wikipedia policy, they were protested, deleted and attacked. (The comments and my responses are still preserved on this talk page). I discovered that not only was the POV in the article, it was not accidental but intentional and protected. Which raised my interest level even higher. I was busy elsewhere though. Now I am here. I have no feelings toward or against Exmormons -- any more than I would have feelings for or against ex-Wikipedians or Ex-Bhuddists or Ex-Seventh-day Adventists. Their "ex" status with regard to such things is pretty much irrelevant to me. (I should admit though that I would be fascinated with someone who was an "ex-dog" or an "ex-caucasian". I have not seen any articles on the topic of ex-dogism though.) --Anon 64 13:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps then Alcoholics Anonymous is similarly non-notable, as AA members are "ex-drinkers" and should just move on with their lives instead of dwelling on something they've chosen to rid themselves of. Perhaps AA should be merged into "alcohol" since it's just a group of people who shot off from the group of those who drink. Perhaps AA is a vanity article meant to advertise their "club". What do you say? Reswobslc 14:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I say that Alcoholics Anonymous is the registered trademark of an actual organization that has an incorporated presence. It is a major social institution that is well known around the world. For these COMBINED reasons it is noteable. However, I would object to an article about "ex Alcoholics" or "ex Alcoholism" since these things (while they exist) are not noteable, In the same way, "ex Mormonism" or "ex Catholicism" are not noteable. As far as the AA article being a vanity article, I have not read it, so i cannot say. However, once again I would point out that we are working on THIS article. Not on AA. So if there are problems with that article, let's leave it to others. You cannot use bad logic to properly justify this article. And pointing to other articles as you have done, is a form of bad logic. Articles should stand or fall on their own merits. --Anon 64 18:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Question about ExMormon

Is it really true that ExMormons are not to be confused with Jack Mormons? Isn't the word really associated with ANYONE who leaves the Mormon Church? Aren't they ALL "ExMormons" if they no longer identify with that group, even if they are not particularly emotional or antagonistic? Should this article only focus on the intensely disaffected? Why aren't Jack Mormons also "ExMormons"? Along that same line ... How is Ex-Mormonism functionally different from Anti-Mormonism? Is it actually just a version of anti-Mormonism (and hence a sort of religion in itself?) --Anon 64 13:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The term "Jack Mormon" has had two different meanings. In the 19th century it was a term used by those who opposed the church to describe a person who had not joined the Mormon church but was sympathetic to their cause and helped them. Currently, the term is usually used to describe someone who is a member of the church but is not living some aspect of the gospel that is outwardly visable (as opposed to all other mormons who don't live the gospel perfectly but seem to have word of wisdom/chastity under control) - like smoking or drinking. Neither group is the same as an exmormon since neither definition includes people who have been a member and now are not. --Trödel 14:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Trödel: a Jack Mormon is someone you'll find at church on Sunday to a varying degree, and is someone who when asked will claim to be Mormon, and who will probably snicker and say "but a pretty bad one at that" with a beer in his left hand and his right arm around a hot girl. An exmormon is someone you will almost NEVER see at church, either because he is enjoying sleeping in on Sunday, or he's out camping with a beer and a hot girl (and/or his kids), or he's at a different church altogether, and in contrast to the Jack mormon, the Exmormon will claim to not be a Mormon. An Antimormon is someone you'll hear about in church, someone sent by Satan out to destroy the church as prima facie evidence that the church is true, but who doesn't really exist - except perhaps in the form of a flagrantly vocal Exmormon who's picketing the Mormon semi-annual conference in Salt Lake City. Mormons don't currently have any significant numbers of people interested in killing them for who they are, like for example, Jews do (anti-semitism) but if they did, then Antimormonism would likely be an appropriate term. Reswobslc 14:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What is an ExMormon?

I understand what you are saying about Jack Mormons. It makes sense. But the antimormon thing is harder to understand. I read it 8 times and could not make any sense of it. So let me ask my questions again, but in different words to make things more clear:

1a). Is leaving the Mormon Church sufficient to be an ExMormon? (What source validates the answers?)

-- I would say "Yes" and I would use the Dictionary as a validating source where the pre-fix "ex" means "former" so that ExMormon means "former Mormon". I would also point out that my edit stating that you must leave in overt disagreement was removed as being wrong -- that just leaving was sufficient.

1b).Is it possible to be an ExMormon and yet still self identify as a Mormon? Is it possible to be an ExMormon, not identify as a Mormon and yet have no disagreement with the Mormon Religion? Is it possible to be an ExMormon and disagree with the Relgion and yet have no animosity toward it? Is it possible to be an exMormon and have animosity toward the religion and yet not join with a group of like minded people? What is the common element?

I suppose it is possible to be anything and say anything. It's possible to be a crook and self-identify as innocent - that has absolutely no bearing on the definitions of crook or innocent. All of the "possibilities" you bring up are certainly all possible. The common element is a disaffiliation from Mormonism - that is, as of one date a person claimed to be Mormon, and on another later date they claimed to not be Mormon. Animosity is not a deciding factor. Joining with a group is not a deciding factor (i.e. Jews don't stop being Jews simply by failing to associate with other Jews), but the fact that many Exmormons do join groups is important in establishing the notability of Exmormonism. Reswobslc 19:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

So, if it is possible for a person to claim anything, then it would be appropriate to use objective, non-NPOV, verifiable sources, right? From what I just read, you have declared that the definition of separation from the Mormon Faith is the defining element. Not animosity. Not group membership. So being ex-mormon has nothing to do with any of that. Yet this article is all about those things. And you say the reason is that "many" (But how many?) do this. If it is a common thing then ok, its a common thing and a reasonable discriminator. But if it is not common, then it is not a special discriminator. And in that case, then this phenomenon is simply a specialized version of antimormonism reserved for people who are former members. So this underscores a key issue: the opening paragraph is wrong since "ExMormonism" is defined as "behaviors of exmormons" yet we cannot say what that behavior is, we can only say that there are some scattered behaviors that are evident among some (an unknown fraction of) exMormons, but certainly not all, and we are utterly unable to detect if it is a general or a rare set of behaviors. The article entirely fails to recognize this and may, in the process, misdefine and misexplain exmormonism, giving only the view held by some (few or many? We do not know) that exmormonism is a set collection of behaviors by some exmembers. That is the POV. --Anon 64 22:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

2).Do all ExMormons engage in the same universal and distinguishing sets of behaviors and thoughts that define them as a group? If not, what fraction do? (what sources validate the answer?) 3). Of the sets of behavior that are engaged in, and which are established as group defining behaviors or thoughts, how are these different from antimormonism? (What sources validate these differences?)

In reference to the questions you numbered 2 and 3, while I'm tempted to answer you here, I'm going to decline for four reasons. #1, you can learn about that in far more detail by visiting Exmormon web sites, and probably are truly outside of Wikipedia's scope. #2, the question (and the answer to it) are not important for any ongoing Wikipedia procedure such as AfD or any proposed action to the article, #3 the fact that you actually show an interest in asking such questions actually gives weight to Exmormonism's notability, in direct contradiction to the non-notability arguments you've previously made, unless you're trolling, which leads me to reason #4 which is that I believe that you are (especially when you demand sources for a talk page). Reswobslc 19:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Your refusal to answer questions are not legitimate. First, you are suggesting that we get answers regarding bias from biased sources. Second there is no AFD in question here. The questions are related to this article and improving the definition. I suspect though that because this article is a vanity article, these questions are very very hard to answer and that may be at the heart of any failure or lack of effort to answer them. But difficulty does not make the questions invalid. It may suggest that they are more valid. I am willing to acknowledge that the article may have a reason to exist. So I am seeking to improve it. My asking questions is in that direction. ( It has NOTHING to do with establishing its noteablity. That is really poor logic. If you need for me to elaborate on this point please ask, however, I would point out that simply discussing something as though it were noteable is not the same thing as declaring it to be noteable.) The first thing to do to improve that is to ask: WHAT REALLY IS THE SUBJECT? That is the question I am seeking to resolve. If you are unable or unwilling to help in that process, it is ok with me, but please, do not also be an obstructionist later. Join the conversation and seek to improve or bow out. Do not refuse to participate in a fair review and exploration of the subject now, and then later get upset when changes are made that you do not agree with.

One last time I am going to ask you to refrain from personal insults. If you continue to do such things, I will request an administrator attend to the issue. I have pointed this out to you before. You seem unable to post without insulting. Please get control of this tendency. Again, assume good faith. Discuss the article.--Anon 64 22:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you chose to "warn" me on my talk page about "personal insults" (AKA on Wikipedia as personal attacks), I chose to reply there regarding that. I am not sure where you justify saying that my refusal to answer questions is "not legitimate", unless it's only that way because you say so. "Requiring" people to answer questions is behavior consistent with trolling. If Exmormon sites are too biased of a source of information for you to learn about Exmormonism, then you're also asking the wrong person if you're asking me, as I'm an exmormon and I carry that same bias. If you want to learn about issues critical of Mormonism from a Mormon source, try FairLDS.org. Otherwise, this discussion page is getting way too long and too irrelevant and I feel the discussion is pretty much done. Reswobslc 00:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I chose to let you know that there is a problem. Here is how I justify the sense that your refusal is not valid:

1. Wikipedia depends upon CONSCENSUS. 2. Conscensus is not a vote, but it comes about by virtue of a DISCUSSION. 3. I started a discussion about the DEFINITION of Exmormonism -- Because I think there is a problem with the article that starts right with the definition.

I am not asking you as an EXMORMON to do anything. I am asking you to do things as a wikipedian. I prefer that you leave your status regarding this article entirely out of it. I am also not requiring an answer, but if you do not participate in the dialog, then you should not later complain. However, I think you should know by now that asking questions and discussing the answers is part of the process on wikipedia. IT IS NOT TROLL BEHAVIOR. Please assume good faith. The length of a discussion page is not a measure that the discussion is over. The discussion is relevant, it is on the topic of this article. However, if you want to stop participating in the discussion that is fine with me. --14:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that these questions are relevant to the definition of the term. --Anon 64 18:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Investigation into "What is an ExMormon"

I have been researching on the web to determine what an exmormon is. The only definitions I can find are mirrors of wikipedia. In other words, I do not find any objective third party definitions. I went to www.exmormon.com. I found that this was a ministry site called "Saints alive in Jesus" who claim "We are a Christian nonprofit corporation founded upon the call of God to witness Jesus to those lost in Mormonism and other cults". Thus, they are not a good source of information if the article is simply about people who left Mormonism. I have asked a person I know who is a former Mormon whether he participates in web page creation, group meetings, helping others leave, or so on. He said that he had no interest in the Mormon Church any more but he did not have any interest in those activities either. He had a busy life in his occupation and he had 2 girlfriends and that kept him busy enough. He did not care about either Mormons or ExMormons and did not care if people wanted to be Mormon or not. (it was Saturday afternoon, he was drinking beers, so maybe he was a bit more flamboyant than he normally would have been). I asked him why he left the Mormon Church and he said that he is excommunicated but he thinks about going back but he is having fun and the Mormons are too restrictive. He said he cannot be a good Mormon. He is just a sample of one so his opinions do not count for an encyclopedia (or should not). But I was trying to test my idea that the idea of "exmormonism" described here, is really just a subset. So far, I have not found any good evidence other than his statement either way, yes or no. I am unable to verify that "ExMormonism" as it is described in this article really exists in general. I am also unable to determine to what degree it is a minority position and to what degree it is a majority position. However, it is troubling to me that the main site -- exmormon.com -- is basically some sort of Church or something with an antimormon agenda. It seems to me that the article tends to be a commercial for this website. --Anon 64 14:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have seen the other site, www.exmormon.org that is apparently not affiliated with exmormon.com. This one is called "Recovery from Mormonism" (Certainly POV there -- but they are not wikipedia). The people who founded the webpage have a section on "who this group is and why this page is here" and say that they believe the page is helpful to people who want to leave Mormonism. Looking around at this website, it was originally a blog of stories about how or why people left the Mormon Church. They claim to have 220+ letters from fromer mormons but I was only able to detect about half that number. The website claims to get 160,000 hits a day, but as a former owner of a website where such things were really important, I know that hits are not the same as unique visitors -- and may not be significantly related to any actual numbers of people interested in the page. I am looking for some sense of the numbers of people who engage in such website behavior vs those who do not. So far, the number who engage in this web type of behavior seems to be few, but they also seem to be quite active.

However, there is advertized on the page an Exmormon Foundation, who are holding a meeting in October. They have a mission statement. And if that mission statement is an indication of what Exmormonism is (and I think it may be close), it is a form of antiMormonism. The statement is rather long but here are selected passages:

"We are former Mormons, sympathetic non-Mormons, or non-believing Mormons of record who left or rejected Mormonis after having discovered that its claims are false...We want the world to know of the harm it causes, the families it devastates, the methods it uses to control minds, and the half-truths and deceptions by which it deludes the public...We want to warn those who are not well-acquainted with it that Mormonism is not what it claims to be. We have been there, and we want the world to have the facts."

If this is what Exmormonism is, then it is a subset of antimormonism and, if it includes both former members and sympathetic non-Momrons then it something that is unrelated to prior membership. --Anon 64 15:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting comment in archives

Given the current discussion it is interesting to see what the VERY FIRST comment on the article was. You can read it in the first archive. It basically asks: is this article really appropriate? --Anon 64 13:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

ThaIf this article is not appropriate, then the following are also not appropriate and you might want to tackle them as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ex-Roman_Catholics

Just because there is controversy over an article does not mean that it is not appropriate. The controversy shows that there are many people who feel it is worth spending time and effort on the article. If the article were unnecessary, nobody would be working on it and it would have withered away long ago. Greenw47 15:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There is an article on Anti-Catholicism because there is such a thing as those who are anti Catholic. That is the same reason there is an article on anti Mormonism.

It seems like the best reasons presented to maintain the article is that there are other articles that are pointless, weak, and also should not exist. Since they exist this topic should exist. If that is the best reasoning available, this should be a short discussion. Any more discussion really supports the conclusion that this is a vanity article for those who are desparate to be recognized as unique when there is nothing unique about them.

Individuals join and leave different religions every day of the year. Those that leave a locally redominate religion all experience similar, if not identical, difficulties regardless of religion. Those who leave the LDS church are not unique.

More importantly is Anon 64 recent discussion on the definition of exmormons. I find it compelling evidence that those who insist on being recognized as Exmormons really are just anti-Mormon. Without their mutual, aggressive position against the LDS church they do not exist. Those that move on just choose to be something positive i.e. I am Catholic or I am an atheist. Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You mention Anti-Catholicism. As a matter of fact, I did not mention this, but as part of my resarch I looked up "AntiMormonism" and "AntiCatholicism" in wikipedia. I also looked up "ExCatholicism". I found both Anti-Mormonism and Anti-Catholicism but I did not find Ex-Catholicism. Please assume good faith. I do not feel that "Just because there is controversy over an article does not mean that it is not appropriate" as you imply. I have felt that the article was a vanity article and highly POV and that this was the reason that it might not be appropriate. I noticed that I have not been the first to ask this very same question. It is not a matter of it being controversial, its a matter of it being a bad article for wikipedia. However, I accept that it may be wanted. So I figure, "Make it better". To do that requires an effort to define what is being discussed. I am doing my best to do that. --Anon 64 01:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Second Sentence Issue

The second sentence is:

Exmormonism refers to the state and characteristics of being an exmormon, including the activities of creating online discussion groups; [1] providing support groups for those who want to leave Mormonism; [2] writing about their experiences as Mormons and why they left; [3] documenting how to formally leave Mormonism; [4] and writing pamphlets [5] and online webpages [6] on the issues they have with Mormonism.

Question: If ExMormonism is just a matter of leaving the Mormon religion without animosity or group membership, do these activities really correspond generally with ExMormonism or do they correspond with some subset of Exmormonism? How can we know? If we cannot know, should the article state that this is definitely what Exmormonism is as though it were a certain fact? I am not arguing that some people do not view it as a certain fact, but it is not a question of what some people imagine to be true but what is really the case. In other words: 1) Either ExMormons are just people who leave Mormonism and hence Exmormonism is the collected activities of all or most of these people OR 2) ExMormonism is a specific subset of behavior and then "ExMormon" refers to people who exhibit these behaviors uniquely, OR 3) the term "ExMormon" and the term "ExMormonism" are not actually connected despite the apparent root similarity. I am unable to detect any other alternative explanations. If my analysis is correct, then it means that the first and second sentences cannot be correct. I note that the second sentence uses the word "includes" but unless the list that follow are unique and distinctive to the population overall, then it is a biased and POV list and might properly include many (a huge number) of relatively non-noteable behaviors (such as "picking up the kids at school".) --Anon 64 22:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The list is useless anyway and seems to be written by someone who is threatened by exmormonism or confuses them for anti-Mormons. Notice that participation is left out, but creation and provision is named. Either way, the references aren't representative of the millions of exmormons and aren't authoritative either, and are internet biased. The list could go on forever, by the way. Anon166 15:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought that such a list might be forever, as you said. I got to thinking today, that perhaps exMormonism is not really a matter of being ExMormon but rather it *might* be a relatively new "ism" that is related to the specific web pages that I researched. In other words, It is possible that previously people were "former mormons" but that when the two websites I researched came up, their activities and the activities of their supporters became "exmormonism". I am interested in seeing if there is some evidence of that. --Anon 64 19:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Exmormonism is a lot more than what can be brought up in a search engine. And there really are no Exmormon activities other than the Exmo conference held in SLC. Also, keep in mind that even though the LDS church is a cohesive religious organization, Exmormons are not always in agreement over why they left. Note the NPD vs. PFT conversation at RfM.

I agree with Anon166, that list is silly. It confuses Exmormons with Anti-Mormons. Greenw47 15:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a problem with it being a lot more than what can be brought up in a search engine: I am unable to find the term in any definitive sources offline. I cannot even find it on Amazon (which I tried so I could go to a bookstore or library to do research). Thus, if it is not on-line, it is not too verifiable and that becomes a problem for wikipedia guidelines.

I believe that one common element about "Why they left" is that they no longer believe in the Religion. So this is an area of agreement.

So far, ExMormonism has so much overlap with antimormonism that they look like different shades of the same lipstick. However, I think the list is wrong because when it comes to Exmormons, some are not involved in this phenomena of "exmormonism". I do not know if that some is many or a few. And their activities are mundane, so if Exmormonism includes the common activities of exmormons, it would include breathing and sleeping but not web blogging or supporting others leaving Mormonism. --Anon 64 02:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Found -- Another Definition or Article for Exmormonism

I found this article in the "mormondictionary.com". Don't know if it is a biased source or not but, based upon my research so far, I think the first paragraph is close to dead on.

Ex-Mormon, also written as exmormon or exmo, generally refers to those persons who have voluntarily chosen to leaven the Mormon Church because they disagreed either with its teachings, or with the practices of the Church. While technically anyone who has left Mormonism may be termed anEx-Mormon , the term is usually reserved for those who, after leaving, oppose Mormonism. Ex-Mormons do not constitute a single group and are only defined by what they oppose: the Mormon Church, Mormon beliefs, and its members. Some ex-Mormons join other churches, such as Evangelical Christian or Catholic, and some become agnostic or secular humanist. Their only common factor is opposition and hostility to Mormonism. As such, they can be classified as Anti-Mormon.

Because Mormonism is distinct subculture with its own traditions and even vocabulary, transition out of Mormonism can represent a very real culture shock. A similar problem confronts those converting to Mormonism. Ex-Mormons feel that this means Mormonism is a cult, but really it only shows that Mormonism has a unique culture that separates it in some aspects from the broader American culture. Also, since Mormonism is very family oriented, transition from the Mormon Church can also mean a painful break with family. The emphasis Mormons place on cooperation means that they frequently work together communally to help one another. In modern American culture, which is highly individualistic, such communal cooperation is viewed negatively. Among Ex-Mormon, such cooperation is portrayed as “group think,” whereas for Mormons it represents fulfilling Jesus’ admonition to serve one another.

Many ex-Mormons feel that faithful members must be brainwashed or easily duped to continue being Mormons. In chat rooms and in ex-Mormon literature, Mormons are invariably portrayed as incapable of free-thought. This is obviously untrue as the many examples of faithful Mormons in every conceivable field at various universities, businesses, and governments throughout the world show. The truth is that ex-Mormons, having rejected as foolish what they once believed, must find someone to blame and so they inveigh the Mormon Church and its members for supposedly tricking them. Ex-Mormons do this to preserve their own sense of pride and to find an excuse for their behavior.

I have not found a copyright for this source. It might be copyrighted. But I think that at least the first paragraph is very close to right. For example, as far as I can tell the one unifying principle is not their having left the Mormon Church but their active overt opposition. This had already led me to think that it was a version of antiMormonism, which this article also thinks. As I said, I do not know if the article is from a biased source but it seems (to me) that in the first paragraph, it is saying what appears to be the unvarnished and unbiased truth -- I had been thinking of writing a paragraph that is similar until I saw this one. It says it better than I could have said it and recognizes both realities that anyone can be exmormon but that the term "exmormonism" has a specific reference to what is clear to me is hostility to Mormon beliefs.

I do want to double check that this is not a mirror of an old version of a wikipedia article. These mirrors are EVERYWHERE! --Anon 64 20:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that source is wikipedia - I'll see if I can find it in the history --Trödel 17:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not - couldn't find a match - though there is much similar language. I suspect since the entry wasn't added to mormondictionary.com until 6 Jun 2006 - that the source of at least some of the material there is wikipedia or one of its mirrors. --Trödel 18:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I should have warned you that I already did a pretty extensive search in the history to detect it. I believe that this is actually a separate and independant article. (Very rare). It seems well constructed. --Anon 64 02:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, that source has a flaw in that it makes a broad generalization that Exmormons are anti-Mormonons are the exact same. Anti-Mormons might be a subset of Exmormons and Exmormons might be part of a larger anti-Mormonism movement, but we run into difficulty because so many who have left never talk about their experience and so many who are anti-Mormon have never been members. The unifying theme of Exmormon communities online might be that they discuss their experience in Mormonism and they share a common background.

Here are some examples of leaving something without becoming anti. I dropped out of college for a few years, but I'm not anti-education. I don't drink anymore, but I'm not anti-drinking. I left my band when I started grad school, but I'm not anti-music. I quit listening to heavy metal as I grew up, but I'm not anti-heavy metal. Some people just grow out of things or just go through a phase. As alien as the concept is for devout Mormons, some people just have no more use for Mormonism or religion in their lives. Either they joined for social reasons, a love interest, or religious reasons, then when conditions changed in their lives they left. The girl they joined for married somebody else, they found a new group of friends, or they found another religion. Likewise, the Mormon that was born and raised going to church might leave because he doesn't want to spend the time. He might find another religion, marry a girl who is not LDS, or just find that religion is not satisfying. There are many reasons and I've only touched the tip of the ice berg. I'm sure that my Mormon friends (yes, I have LDS friends still) will attribute somebody losing interest in Mormonism to some kind of sin or decay of testimony, but many who leave do not feel that way. There are even people who feel that Mormonism helped them grow up to be good people, but just don't feel they need to be a part of it any more. Greenw47 15:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not convinced that connecting exmormonism and antimormonism is a flaw. As I have researched references, I am coming to the conclusion that they are essentially the same thing. However, the way you have discussed describes a very important problem with the whole issue and with the article as it exists right now. The article connects exMornons with Exmormonism. However, that connection is not really well established except by the root term. But Exmormons do not apparently all participate in Exmormonism as the article discusses it. Moreover, Exmormonism sources show that not only are former mormons involved in exmormonism but also non-mormons. So former membership is neither necessary nor sufficient to meet the conditions of exmormonism.

We really need a good definition of Exmormonism that meets the evidence that is verifiable and respresents every reasonable view, if that is possible. But if Exmormonism cannot even be effectively defined, then it should not have an article. Currently there are deep flaws in the definition. --Anon 64 02:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Indicative but not conclusive

I have researched both the web and UserGroups and I have found no references to the term "exmormonism" prior to 1997. It hard to actually detect any in text (it is found in URLS) before 1999. It suggests that the term may have been invented on the internet, perhaps as shorthand reference to the two webpages www.exmormon.org and www.exmormon.com. (I have read that the latter page is both a ministry and a business). --Anon 64 20:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

More indication

I found a copy of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. I notice that this is a work that is described on wikipedia as being slanted toward the LDS. So it would not be unbiased. But I was looking for any reference to "exMormon". I did not find it. KEY: The work was completed in 1992 per its cover page. This again suggest that the term "exmormon" is more recent than 1992, and may refer to the people who participate in certain webpages. As a check, I found that the encyclopedia contains "anti-mormon publications" (but not antimormonism). I copied the first paragraph and it says: "Antimormonism includes any hostile or polemic opposition to Mormonism or to the Latter-day Saints, such as malinging the founding prophet, his successors, or the doctrines or practices of the Church." I read through the list of anti-mormons and noted that many were former mormons:

• Philastus Hurlbut, 1834, Excommunicated 2x for adultery. source of many many books after him.
• A whole bunch in 1844 (Law, Cowles, Fosters, Higbees)
• Fanny Stenhouse in 1876 (excommunicated for some reason)
• Ann Eliza Young in 1878 (wife of brigham young)
• Fawn Brodie 1945 (wrote a very famous book)
• Edward Decker (Current - runs exmormons.com)
• Jerald and Sandra Tanner, 1959.

The list suggests to me that exmormonism is a form of antimormonism, as I suspected previously. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism thinks so. --Anon 64 03:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, written by LDS scholars and lay ministry, is relevant to an NPOV discussion on Exmormons. As demonstrated before, people who are employed by the LDS church are contractually obligated to be pro-LDS (not a surprise). Would we use a book published by the Vatican as authority on Ex-Catholics? Just plain silliness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_Mormonism

I think that problem that everybody is running into is that it is so difficult to define Exmormons that we try to lump them into a group with which we are already familiar. Ever notice how people who are ignorant of Asia lump Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans all into one group? Anybody who speaks Spanish is from Mexico, right? And if we talk loud enough, they all understand English! LOL. We all know how silly that is. Let's not make the same mistake with Exmormons.

Once again, not all Exmormons are hostile toward Mormonism. That's what makes pidgeon-holing them so difficult. Finally, just because it is difficult does not mean we should give up. Greenw47 15:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I am not sure that there are any unbiased sources. WP:NPOV says that when there are conflicts like this, the proper response is to give all views appropriate airing. So that is how the Encyclopedia of Mormonism might apply. (I hope you noticed that I did describe it as biased). The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is (as I understand it) not produced by the Mormon Church or a Mormon Publisher but instead by MacMillan who takes responsibility for its contents. In addition, in my research I read that there are many contributors to that encyclopedia who are not Mormon. I do not know who wrote that anti-Mormonism article that I quoted, I will go back and find out. BUT.. here is the most important thing the research confirmed: No reference to ExMormonism prior to 1998. Why is this important? It is the time that the websites by that name first came to the web. --Anon 64 02:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Update The author of the antiMormonism article is William O. Nelson. I do not know who that is, but I had said I would find out the name, at least. --Anon 64 11:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it strange that some Mormons desperately insist that all exmormons should be anti-Mormon, which is a separate action, not a former affiliation. And what happens when they aren't? They can't exist? This is an example of the false dilemma or black and white fallacy, either for or against. Some editors here seem to suggest that if an exmormon is not anti-Mormon, they shouldn't even be allowed exist. Because they aren't useful enemies? It is a religious bigotry if there ever was one, perhaps indicative of the worse human tendencies. It is also evidence that anti-Mormonism is a useful invention of Mormonism, tending to their doctrines of necessary opposition and salvation by persecution. I guess it can now be said that exmormons aren't cooperating. Anon166 18:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what Mormons generally say, but if they say that exmormonism and anti-mormonism are the same, there is a good reason: The activities are essentially no different. However, exmormons may not be the same as antimormons. I think that this highlights a disconnect between the terms exmormonism and exmormon. --Anon 64 02:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What a wonderful example of the pot calling the kettle black. You of all people can be accused of exactly what you constantly accuse every Mormon. This article is not about "there are people that leave the Mormon church and they are called Exmormons". This article attempts to make leaving a religion into life's passaion. How terribly they were hurt, how hypocritical those terrible church members are, and dagnab it, my family and friends want me to rejoin.

The only ones who insist on identifying themselves by what they once were are those who are still in transition (hopefully) to something else and those who are committed to staying exmormon and are going to make certain that everyone in the world knows it. A case of this is who I am not rather than stating who I am. It is a pitiful situation to be in, but some are determined to stay in it.

Of course it would not be so fun if we could just continue to wine about those terrible mormons and how stupid they are. How they continue to wallow in ignorance and total unenlightenment. They are without reason and the great intelligence that exmormons have. Such children who need the opiate of the people.

Just read Anon 64's comments and his reserach. Don't try to defend your sacred cow by pointing out all the others that are of similar ilk. Don't try to make it benevelent or something it is not. The issue is that this topic is a vanity topic at best. There is nothing unique to the fact some people have left the Mormon church, the Catholic church, or any other religion. They experience nothing that is unique, they are not alone; they are in fact similar if not exactly like everyone else that leaves a predominate religion. The purpose of the article is to go further than stating some people left a church; it wants to make the religion the problem rather than the simple fact that some indivdiuals left. Is there anything else to say? No. You left. As Green as said their reasons for departure are as diverse as there are indivdiduals and can not be pidgeon holed. The stop trying to paint the group with broad brush strokes. You left. You are then rightfully called exmormon, but who cares? You want an vanity article to provide say it was okay? To validate your choice? You don't need a reason for leaving. You left; it is okay. Forget about it. Tell your friends and family that you love them, but you jus aren' interested. Placate them by listening or just sever the relationship. It does not matter, but this article has no other purpose than to be a vanity article to meet your personal needs and that is not worthy of a WIKI article. Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for referring to my research. I think the article needs a good definition of Exmormonism. The definition falls apart when you connect it to Exmormon -- meaning someone who left the Mormon Church. The connection between that population and the activities that are described as Exmormonism are not very closely aligned from what I can tell, but the connection between anti-mormonism and exmormonism.. I should not say connection I should say overlap ... is pretty strong. We need a definition that works to make the article valid. --Anon 64 02:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Stormrider wrote: You left. You are then rightfully called exmormon, but who cares? You want an vanity article to provide say it was okay? To validate your choice? You don't need a reason for leaving. You left; it is okay. Forget about it. Tell your friends and family that you love them, but you jus aren' interested. Placate them by listening or just sever the relationship. It does not matter, but this article has no other purpose than to be a vanity article to meet your personal needs and that is not worthy of a WIKI article. Validate a choice? That would be implicitly assuming there is a valid reason to stay. Interesting POV push there. Rather than go into that here, I suppose that you should just ignore us and move on, taking your own advice. You did say you didn't care, right? So, Exmormons rejected Mormonism. Get over it. It happens. There is nothing you can do to take this common identity away from them, because Mormonism effectively placed it there by controlling the social milieu against them. Likewise, you seem to be ranting that Exmormons shouldn't be acknowledged to exist on wikipedia after taking so much time and "research" to explain how they are really something else altogether. What a red herring that was. To refute you, I would say that this article serves the same purpose as the Mormonism article--to simply answer questions about a term or phenomenon, not to validate any choices. If you insist that Exmormonism has a sinister agenda on wikipedia other than describing it factually, that would be a psychological projection on your part. Anon166 21:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoken like a true doctor of the law; well done, but entirely missing the point. You have attempted to paint all exmormons with this article and have done a lousy job. Lousy not because of personal inability, but because the group is so diverse you can not achieve a respectful definition except to say the only thing they have in common is they were once Mormon and now are no longer. Why do you fight this so? Every reason you fight only supports the worst perceived agenda of LDS.

If you want an article; great. The best you can say is:

"Exmormons are individuals who were once a member of one of the sects of Mormonism. However, they now no longer believe in any Mormon religion. They have left for a diverse set of reasons." The article then attempts to provide reasons, but they don't cover all the reasons for this diverse group of individuals. The only thing in common is they were once Mormon. All of the reasons the article identifies are comments already more fully explained in Anti-mormonism.

Then the article proceeds into the quaint diatribe of the disaffected. Nothing unique; nothing that is only about the difficulty of Mormonism; it is the same process of for any individual who disengages from any major religion.

Mormonism, what a pathetic analogy. Mormonism is a body of beliefs that bind a group together; they devote themselves to that construct. Exmormons (there is no such thing as exmormonism regardless of how many times you try telling yourself it exists)do not have a unifying belief system...absolutely nothing that binds them together except for the fact they are no longer Mormon.

The reason for my current participation was the continual reverts of Anon 64's edits. The same puritanical, protective stance of anyone that does not toe the line of the radical exmormon cadre of editors here. The fact that he is one of your own only further goads the group. He is not enlightened enough, he must still be a disallusioned believer, or at least a wolf in sheep's clothing. Unfortunately, he speaks from a position of objective analysis and thoughtful review. No agenda and no axe to grind unlike the typical exmormon editors on this page. Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Anon 64 does not speak from any position of objectivity whatsoever when it comes to this article. It may appear that way to the extent you (Storm Rider) and he share the same POV, but to say that any person who edits this page regularly is objective is just a poor demonstration of fibbing. If he were truly objective, he wouldn't have put so much focus into the TENS OF THOUSANDS of words he's spoken about it, and ZERO about anything else on Wikipedia (except for Homosexual agenda, which incidentally is hotly related to Mormonism given the recent headlines of the Mormon church meddling with gay marriage politics). Anon 64's changes get reverted on the basis of incorrectness as he tries to insert patently incorrect information into an article about a group he isn't part of that he knows nothing about except enough to despise them for having a POV opposite his. There's no shame in those reverts, and nothing wrong with it. Anon 64 is trying to fallaciously define Exmormonism out of existence, with an argument of the form "Exmormons do this and say this, and therefore this, and therefore that, and therefore something else, and therefore Exmormons don't actually exist". It's fruitless. The discussion is pointless. Anon 64 has gone to the extent of creating new sections THANKING people for replying to his posts, as apparently he recognizes how one-sided they are and sees some sort of thankable value he enjoys when someone replies to him. Who cares? Exmormonism doesn't need his approval to exist any more than gay people need my permission to be gay. Reswobslc 16:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As I have promised previously, I have reported what I perceive as your personal attacks to an administrator. I have asked you before, and I ask again: Assume Good Faith. --Anon 64 10:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to contradict or support the objectivity discussion - Anon 64's edits are of a seasoned editor, and the username looks like it was specifically created just to edit a couple of controversial topics (maybe more in mind) because the controversial nature of the topics and the likely discussion could easily overwelm the reputation of a good but infrequent editor.

That is the beauty of wikipedia, his arguments here have to stand on their own and be persuasive without an appeal to authority (other than the use of references documenting the subject of the article). And other editors can't use ad hominem arguments (except for claiming that the single purpose edits means his arguments are false) because there is very little history on which to attack. --Trödel 17:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your positive words. I am probably a seasoned editor due to my professional background and my long presence on the web, but I am a relatively new contributor to wikipedia. However, your main point is right: New or old, my arguments must be self supporting. That is how I view it.--Anon 64 10:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're right - 64.178.145.150 looks an awful lot like him, probably where the number 64 came from in the first place, and he could have sockpuppets as well (and/or this could be the sockpuppet account of another as as you suggest, which would be perfectly legal when used for this purpose per WP:SOCK). However, contribs of 64.178.145.150 seems to indicate a huge concentration of Mormonism-related articles over a fairly long time span. I would figure that a person who touts some sort of noble interest in upholding the goals of Wikipedia and who disclaims any desire to spit his POV upon it would not have an edit history so concentrated on Mormonism. I'm not in a position to know what else he does with his socks, except that his day only has 24 hours just like mine too and he's gotta eat and sleep just like me. I would wonder just where does he get the time to do anything else. Reswobslc 22:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those are my edits. I was chasing links around (some were Mormon related) and that is how I ended up on this page. Later I chose this screen name because people objected to the anon IP -- and anyway, my IP address changes every few weeks. I do not think it is right to characterize my edits as predominantly mormon related. I disagree that Homosexual Agenda is mormon related. Mormonism never came up even once. I cannot link the two concepts in my mind even now that you have raised the possibility. I think you are looking for "things" to believe about me. Rather than do that, just assume good faith. If you do, you will almost certainly be right! --Anon 64 10:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I ignore people's claims of motives - Anon 64 obviously thinks there shouldn't be an article. And, quite frankly, I don't know where I stand - there is definately people who oppose the CJC - that they are not organized in the sense of a non-profit or other affiliation doesn't change the fact that they have simliar interests etc. The only question for me is, whether there is any difference between exmormon and anti-mormon - i.e. is the only thing that makes the ex-mormon article unique is the opposition - or is there something to be said about former mormons that do not oppose the church. --Trödel 01:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am starting to change my mind after doing my research. I now think that Exmormonism is a form of Antimormonism. I have tried to argue with myself against that by observing that Exmormonism claims to "help people struggling with Mormonism" or "help people transition out of Mormonism". But Antimormonism ALSO does that, so this is not a discriminator. When I mentally reduce it to the idea that "Exmormonism is a form of antimormonism espoused by former members of the Mormon Religion" that also fails because some of the ExMormonism sites clearly identify key members as having never been mormon and hence not "exMormon" as the word would suggest. In short, there is almost nothing that discriminates between Exmormonism and AntiMormonism in the largest context. However, I think it is fair to say that Exmormonism is something of an internet / web generated antiMormon concept that is dominated by former mormons, even if not all exmormonism proponents are former mormons. However, I also note that antimormonism has been dominated by the influence of former mormons, so it is almost as though antimormonism is an outgrowth of exmormonism, except that the term "exmormonism" is probably less than a decade old. --Anon 64 10:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I accept that my edits may have been "bad" sometimes and should have been reverted (not all of them). But now I am going to systematically look at the problem and seek to make edits that recognize the reality of things based upon a plain look at the evidence. At this point, I must admit, the article seems very weak to me. If a basic definition cannot be found that fits the verifiable evidence the article should be deleted. But I prefer to try to work through that first and find a working defintion first. Then when I do make my edits, I expect others to respond with similar efforts and logic before they make changes. --Anon 64 02:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Trolling Warning

I am opposed to the trolling warning for the following reasons:

1. I believe that given the previous comments by the person who put it on the board, that it is directed at me. I am the only person he has accused of trolling. But I object: I am not trolling and my edits or behavior do not match the definition of trolling.
2. If it is not directed at me, I see absolutely no evidence of any trolling on this page. All of the correspondants have been here for a while and, as far as I can tell, are generally attempting to make honest edits to the article, even though some do not evidently agree.

In either case the trolling warning is inappropriate and wrong. I have included it in my request for administrator action and asked that they remove it. --Anon 64 10:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A precise definition of trolling is somewhat subjective, as it requires judging someone's motives - the opposite of assuming good faith. The same subjective determination applies to your suggestion that I've singled you out by adding {{trollwarning}}, to which I reply, Assume Good Faith. The warning doesn't say anybody in particular is a troll, or that trolling is conclusively present. No evidence of trolling is required for the template to be placed. It only says to people, please think twice before you respond, and assume good faith. That's a good idea, whether everyone's a troll or nobody's a troll. Reswobslc 13:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the trolling warning is long overdue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anon166#Inappropriate_comments_at_Exmormonism Anon166 15:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This just makes me laugh out loud. If you can't beat the guy into submission, throw enough crap at him in an attempt to make him go away. Do whatever it takes to preserve the sacred cow of group think and above all, do not take your head out of the sand to ensure your sacred cow is preserved. All hail to group think!!! We are Exmormons, we know the truth, and we will not tolerate anyone, cerataintly not a fellow exmormon, to think, say, act differently than the prescribed manner we have instituted. Either think exactly as we do or shut up and go away.

Anon 64, I would urge you to just ignore it; it simply does not matter. It makes them feel good, it reassures their thought process, and helps the feeble minded to think they have painted the other guy or group as sufficiently wrong. The problem is that everyone can read the discussion page and judge for themselves. Objective, thinking people will see immediately who comes closest to being a troll. I would point out that I see no evidence of trolling from either side at this point; except for this action which itself is trolling and desiged to goad.

Continue with your research. Shining light on this topic is worthwhile and helpful to WIKI. This is not a place for personal soap boxes. At best, this article is a personal saop box to whining people who simply can not leave what they supposedly left alone. Seems like I heard someone say that before... Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Just ignore it - it isn't worth wasting time discussing --Trödel 18:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no power or will to excommunicate dissent. I wonder who does that anymore? Anon166 18:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do intend to continue as best I can. I am running out of sources. Reswobslc says it is not directed at me and if the trolling warning is long overdue, it cannot be directed at me, so I feel better about it. I do not see any evidence of trolling at all though. To me the warning is nonsense and since it is not directed at me, I do not feel any problem with removing it. If there is no need for such things, then they should not be on the talk page.--Anon 64 01:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the trolling warning is useful because of the occasional comment like the comments about forced behavior control copied from the freedmofmind website to this talk page. See archive (scroll down a little). --Trödel 02:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That's sort of interesting and sort of an eye-glazing exercise. A weird mix. But it has nothing to do with this article. I have not seen such comments before, but I am inclined to go to the archives in detail for a review of prior discussions and maybe I will see more. But I have re-thought the removal; I think that there just might be some tolls here. --Anon 64 04:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem - it also is a reminder to the regular users to not take new comments as an attack - but to WP:AGF in responding rather than responding in a confrontational manner - I know from personal experience it is easy to be sensitive when the topics is something about which you care deeply --Trödel 12:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a different warning would be good for Assume Good Faith, but I understand about being sensitive when the topic is something about which you care deeply. That could be part of the problem with this article. I do not really care deeply about the topic of exmormonism itself, but I like to work on pages. (I already found my next one that is even more POV than this one - about an indian mystic). However, there are people who do care deeply and I think that they get offended. I believe the first warning about keeping cool is good advice in that case, but the one about trolling has a different purpose. --Anon 64 13:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responses

I thought no one was paying attention! Felt lonely! Thank you for your responses, I have been posting research. When I feel I have done all that I can do, I will work to develop a definition and first paragraph for the article so we can proceed from there. I think the current opening paragraph is not correct. --Anon 64 02:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Your "research" is biased. Anon166 04:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to be objective. I have researched on exmormon.org, exmormon.com, google.com, www.irr.com, wikipedia, and yahoo groups, as well as a local library and bookstore. I have not found every source to be productive. I have presented general results from exmormon.org, exmormon.com, google.com, wikipedia, and the local library. What other sources do you recommend? --Anon 64 11:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I recommend that we all take a break from editing this page and find something else to occupy the time we spend here on Wikipedia. There are MILLIONS of articles covering just about every concept in contemporary society. Surely we must have more interests in life than the trivialities of former Mormons. If twisting your brain is fun, try playing chess, as at least you have a fair shot at winning in exchange for your mental efforts. In this discussion, there is no possibility for winners, as Mormons and Exmormons will continue to do tomorrow what they did yesterday. Have we got anything better to do today? Reswobslc 16:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not feel that your recommendation will improve the quality of the research. If you do not want to contribute here, this is an individual choice, it is not one that I share. But I am not interested in a war between mormons and exmormons. I am looking for wikipedia to be the winner.

Anon166 -- I ask again: What other sources do you recommend to reduce the bias? --Anon 64 10:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I recommend unbiased editors to reduce the bias. Because Mormons are religiously sworn to Mormon allegiance, and are expected to agree to and believe unverifiable claims about Exmormons, this makes their participation here a conflict of interest and matter of bias, because their ethics is also informed from the same source. If memory serves, you previously tried to quote Mormon religious leaders here in negatively defining the moral character and motives of Exmormons. Anon166 14:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

We are in agreement! Unbiased editors reduce bias. That is why I like to edit articles that are biased in areas where I have no personal interest. I can be unbiased. (Yes I used Mormon sources previously. I do not mind doing that. I am not biased for or against them. But, on the other hand, you are biased against them. I will probably bring them back later, if the article stays as it is, though I am starting to think in another direction. If I bring them back it will be to balance the POV.) Incidentally, you said that my research was biased. I would still be interested in how it can be made less biased. I have asked twice before and you have not really given a definitive answer. Do you have one? --Anon 64 01:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

POV is when someone argues their opinion or demands that it be inserted. Saying that exmormons actually exist is not POV, because it is a fact. Considering your pro-Mormon edit history here, it would be unfair to characterize anyone else's POV by comparing them to yourself. The article is about Exmormons, not Mormon doctrine on Exmormons. I can see how one can be confused about this however. I've said it before, but POV fixations are easily spotted by the false dilemma of black and white thinking, This "either-or" thinking replaces the NPOV with a two-valued "balance" of pro- and con- positions. Such a debate mindset is why someone here would argue that exmormons are anti-Mormon (or not exist at all), because it serves them to justify inserting Mormon doctrine and erase any NPOV on something they perceive as morally wrong. It may even disturb them psychologically to see something they dislike being treated fairly and respectfully. To use an analogy, this oppositional POV mindset is very typical of gay-bashers who stalk down and terrify gay people because the stalker is struggling with the idea of being gay themselves. In terrifying their sexual "opposite" they suppress it inside themselves by "proving" to themselves how un-gay they must be. By this analogy, one could see how this applies to some believers by proving how good they are in opposition to the enemy (but first framing the issue as black and white to establish opposition, because the opposition frames the mind of the attacker). However, there is no Mormon balance allowed here because Mormonism is exactly what Exmormonism is not, and religious POV never applies (except to possibly delineate asserted religious doctrines). Any balance needed here would be among different types of Exmormonism, and the article is not that involved yet. In fact, one such school of exmormonism would include the idea of erasing any vestige of siege mentality among Mormons.Anon166 22:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comparing your oponents to stalkers is getting pretty close to Godwin's law in addition to being a borderline personal attack - maybe a refocus on the specifics of the article will help. --Trödel 01:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Opponents? I think you've explained it more clearly then. Anon166 01:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Anon64 wrote: I do not feel that your recommendation will improve the quality of the research. If you do not want to contribute here, this is an individual choice, it is not one that I share. Are you not the same one who is questioning the need for this article? Anon166 19:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I still am sort of questioning it too. But my research has led me in a direction that I did not expect so I am re-evaluating. --Anon 64 01:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I request a few additions?

I've never posted to Wikipedia and I don't know all of the etiquette...

I was wondering if somebody who knows how this works would be willing to consider the following additions to the exmo page:

1. It would be really nice if "Outer Blogness" could be mentioned as the flip side of the LDS blog network "the Bloggernacle" (which has its own Wikipedia entry)

2. I think that the definition of "cultural Mormon" should be extended to include people who identify with their Mormon heritage and do not live a Mormon lifestyle.

I have written a post gathering opinions on the definitions of different types of Mormons [1] which may or may not be useful to Wikipedians ;-)

Thanks, 86.201.36.80 17:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)chanson

Neutrality Check

This article is listed for a neutrality check... But I have to say, it sounds quite neutral. I've read the past discussions, but the article in its current form is well-referenced and seems to present an accurate and neutral picture. Anyone oppose removing the neutrality check tag? Porlob 20:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the POV check in compliance with Wikipedia:POV check. Porlob 13:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge "LDS Apostates"

The LDS Apostates article should become a section of the Ex-Mormon article about the LDS church's view of former memebers. The subject of that article and this one are the same. That is, we're talking about the same people here, with diffrent names depending on who is talking about them. Since former members are more likely to refer to them selves as Ex-Mormons, that should be the article title (likewise for Former Latter-day Saints, see above). LDS Apostates should be condensed into a section in this article as the "official LDS church view" or something of the sort. Porlob 14:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - "apostates" should never have become an article. -Visorstuff 18:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything that should be merged; that article should just be deleted. Visor & Porlob, should we just request or speedy delete or is there another process that is recommended? Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, merging and then removing the offensive and POV portions would take the least administrative time. Otherwise, we would have to work through other bueracracy (ie waiting time on deletes, etc.), whereas there is consensus for this move. -Visorstuff 18:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. CaliforniaKid 03:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have merged info from the Apostates article into what was formerly the "Ex-Mormons as anathema" section, which is now "Ex-Mormons as viewed by Latter-day Saints". I got rid of some unneeded fluff, but it still doesn't seem quite right, to say nothing of it being unrefereced. Anyone want to take a stab at cleaning it up? -Porlob 12:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess I missed a few things, but have been reading the archives to try to get up to speed. I agree that LDS Apostates was redundant. Just to bring me up to speed, what parts are still considered POV? Greenw47 14:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Major clean up

I did a top-to-bottom cleanup of this article. I am not an ex-Mormon but know the subject -- and English :-) -- quite well, so if I have cut anything important please let me know. There are some uncited portions in the article that need refs that someone should find refs for. Peace. CyberAnth 02:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge "Former Latter-day Saints"

I propose that a shortened list from Former Latter-day Saints be merged into Ex-Mormon. There is also an "Ex-Mormons" category which can be more all-inclusive. There is really no need for that kind of "List" article, when all the background info is on "Ex-Mormon" and all the people are in the "Ex-Mormons: category. Any thoughts? Porlob 12:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

During my recent major cleanup of this article, I placed :See also Former Latter-day Saints and Category: Ex-Mormons at the top of the article. However, I think your proposal is sound and should be incorporated. CyberAnth 00:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

first of all, I think that Ex-Mormon is culturally a different group of people than former church members. The Exmormon community is quite an active community, whereas, the bulk of those who leave the church, according to research, don't do much in the way of interacting with it or others on the topic. Exmormons tend to interact with other Mormons, exmormons and others. I vote no on the merge of these tow articles for other reasons not listed above, but at least here are some things to consider. I also think this type of list article is interesting, especially in light of a similar "mormons" page and more. -Visorstuff 18:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

One place to look for precedent would be pages about Catholicism. There are pages for Catholic and Catholicism (which might get merged), Anti-Catholicism (which even has a list of Anti-Catholic websites), and finally a List of ex-Roman Catholics. The fact that there is a separate page for Ex-Catholics suggests to me that merging might not be necessary, unless we are going to suggest that the Catholicism related pages be merged, too. I'm just a fan of consistency.

btw, I like the opening of the Ex-Catholic page:

This page lists individuals in history who were at least nominally raised in the Roman Catholic faith and later rejected it or converted to other faiths.

Last but not least, I'm glad at least some of my work has stayed here - basically in its orginal form: "LDS scripture teaches that Satan is actively seeking to destroy the souls of men" Greenw47 15:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

(Unindent) You know, I was the one that originally proposed that merger, but I've come to support the existence and further development of the Former Latter-day Saints list article. That article, however, is currently being considered for deletion. If it is determined that it should be deleted, I think we should merge a few of the more high profile people into a new section here (only people who are famous for being Ex-Mormons, like the September Six, but not famous people who just happened to be Mormon and no longer are, such as Eliza Dushku), and just use the Ex-Mormon category for everyone else... -Porlob

General changes

There was no standard of how the word "ex-Mormon" was presented throughout the article. There were multiple instances of "ex-Mormon", "Ex-Mormon", and even "exmormon". I've standardized those. I think "ex-Mormon" makes the most sense, but if anyone would like to changes those to "Ex-Mormon", go for it. :)

Also, the "Saints Alive" external link goes to Ed Decker's ministry, and appears to have been posted by Decker himself... Should it remain? It does seem to be in line with the other links, providing resources by and for people who have left the church, but on the other hand, it's got a pretty extremist "anti-Mormon" bent (perhaps it belongs there instead?), and was posted by its own proprietor. Any thoughts? -Porlob 13:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Standardizing to "ex-Mormon" indeed makes the most sense and I have kept this in my recent major cleanup of the article. Regarding the Decker link posting, it is relevant and one may now consider me to have placed in the link. CyberAnth 08:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks for all your hard work, by the way. :) -Porlob 03:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"Outer darkness" for "sons of perdition" who "deny the Holy Ghost"

"...in terms of their doctrine of "outer darkness" for "sons of perdition" who "deny the Holy Ghost", although this doctrine has other interpretations."

The above is heavily jargon-laden and therefore inadequately accesible. Can someone re-word and/or explain this for everyday non-specialists? CyberAnth 05:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Gratitude Press

Near as I can tell - this is a self published arm of Lesley Reynolds. There was a Gratitude Press Canada that published books on alcoholism that is defunct. However, the Gratitude Press: Salt Lake City or Gratitude Press: Utah seems to have no relation to that group. --Trödel 14:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Cyberanth's unusal reversion

In reviewing the book[2], without copying the entire 124-page book to this article, do you have any support for the new edit? If it was true, wouldn't it be in the original edit? Either prove it or delete it. Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

OR?

There seem to be quite a bit of original research and assertions made using mostly primary sources in some of the sections. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree in fact Gratitude Press is a self publisher and has no releation to the "Gratitude Press" in Canada in the mid-90s. --Trödel 17:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Important Fix

I think it's important to understand the differences in "Ex-Mormon", "Excommunicated Former Mormon", "Inactive" and "Apostate". These are not mutually-exclusive definitions.

An excommunication implies a former member's church membership being revoked for a time as a result of some deviation within LDS theology. Not necessarily a moral deviation (such as adultery) but the vast majority of cases are such. This person may still identify with the church for support and follow the basic tenets of the religion but must wait a specified period and go through a "repentance process" before being rebaptized. However "apostate" implies somebody who not only leaves the church but actually turns against it. These people have differing motivations but are now fundamentally against the church. They may also have asked for their name to be removed from Church records for one reason or another.

Finally "inactive" is not the same thing as "Ex-Mormon". In LDS circles being "inactive" generally means not attending church for some time. Are we willing to call Roman Catholic Church members who go to church on Christmas and Easter "Ex-Catholics"? I'm going to try to fix the wording of this article to be fair to so-called "Ex-Mormons". I would like to see a source that says that most former Mormons went against the practices of the church before becoming "Ex-Mormons". It's kind of a broad claim, especially because the Church does not release information on why people were excommunicated resulting in only hearing one side of the story.Primalscreamtherapy 00:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)