Talk:Ex-Mormon/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Source

"Leaving is not something that ex-Mormons usually take lightly. Research shows that 43% of Mormon disaffiliates left due to unmet spiritual needs." <------- This is a bold claim that needs a source, and a reputable source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Primalscreamtherapy (talk • contribs) 00:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

DOA

This article needs to be deleted unless it can meet some criteria for being encyclopediac:

• It needs real sources, not pure original research links and links to questionable polls.

• No more loaded, unverifiable statements, like "Many Ex-Mormons leave the church because of its hypocrisy. . ."

We need this research because obviously Mormons are going to believe that all Ex-Mormons left the church because of adultery or something, and all anti-Mormons are going to believe that former members became disenchanted with the church for one reason or another. This bias forms the bulk of the article and needs real sources for the article to continue to exist.203.131.167.26 10:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite was badly needed. Thanks. It's OK to cite biased sources as long as you make it entirely clear that your source has an agenda. e.g., "Mormon authors frequently accuse Ex-Mormons of being guilty of adultery or other sins (ref), whereas critics of the church tend to list less sinister motives, like disenchantment with the church's teachings (ref). Evangelical group A claims that the majority of Ex-Mormons join Evangelical Christian groups, but Mormon authors XYZ have disputed the claim (refs)." This way you can include some of the more controversial claims without endorsing them. CaliforniaKid 17:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the page history, CaliforniaKid's last comment was exactly 666 bytes. Spooky. Reswobslc 06:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Entirely intentional, I assure you. CaliforniaKid 10:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. This is spooky. CaliforniaKid has the right idea. Whether we're linking to LDS pages or not I'd like to have the point of view of the link clearly made out in the appropriate paragraph. Regardless, an unscientific survey with loaded questions and unknown parameters has no business being the basis of any information.203.131.167.26 10:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

After taking a long break from all things Wiki, I have come back to get involved in this article again. It is coming closer and closer to becoming a really nice article. (It is truly humbling to see an article improve in my absence.) The very fact that there are so many people contributing and ironing out details proves that it is a relevant topic that deserves an entry. Over time, this article has become less and less POV. We have discussed the validity of having Ex-mormons contribute and active Mormons contribute, and we have always come to the conclusion that the two balance each other out, or they are balanced by third parties. Let's continue to work to create an article that is both relevant and NPOV. That's my goal, and I commit to working together with any who would like to work together toward that end. Greenw47 13:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Anon 166's position is contradictory to WP:NPOV

I have copied the comment by Anon 166 on POV here so that the discussion is more clear. In the quote below, I have underlined the passages where Anon 166 has a position that is contrary to policy. I present a few objections to his opening comments. Then I quote the policy regarding NPOV.

ANON 166 wrote: 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)

Thank you for your replies. There are a number of problems with it. First, based upon the fact that you are replying to my specific request, It appears that you have decided that when a person does not edit to your liking it must be a "proMormon" Point of View. That is simply not so. Second, a person may argue strenuously for a neutral point of view -- simply arguing your opinion in this regard is not necessarily a biased POV. Third, I do not know anyone who has said that ExMormons do not actually exist. I do not know why you have suggested it. There is no such statement here. You are reading more into the discussion than is here.

Fourth, and to address the largest part of your argument, you do not seem to understand NPOV. You have made a few points above, that I have underlined, which are precisely contrary to WP:NPOV. Here are direct quotes from WP:NPOV:

• "When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed."

• "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly"

• "One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate.

• "For the purposes of working on Wikipedia ... "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics."

• "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the... elimination of viewpoints."

Your position is completely contrary to the stated policy on wikipedia regarding NPOV. You can research it yourself.

When you remove statements of fact regarding other points of view your views contradict WP:NPOV and your actions in the past have been in violation of that policy.

(I have not addressed the parts of your argument about being persecuted. I see no persecution here and I do not believe that ExMormons are treated like homosexuals, who, in my experience, are not treated that badly any more. But even if they are, it is really irrelevant to this article or this discussion. This is an encyclopedia not a club or self-help group).

Lastly, I note that you declared my research to be biased. I have asked you for help on this. Once all of the suggestions that are not contrary to WP:NPOV or unrelated to the article are removed, this comment of yours does not help. Can you suggest how the research can be less biased? And while you do, Assume Good Faith. Note that my research, which you declare to be biased, has included a variety of sources in keeping with the NPOV policy. Note also that the policy actively supports such research in the interest of NPOV. Instead of criticizing the research, why not help it along? I have asked some questions, with the intent of clarifying the first core issue of the article: "What is Exmormonism?". It turns out that it is not really what is described in the first paragraph at least. --Anon 64 22:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

First, I have no need to address your original and personal research. Second, I think your attempt to argue for a religious POV push without asserting the religious POV itself is a bait and switch. Third, the Mormon POV you are arguing for, without restating it here, is not significant, which explains why you are arguing for it categorically. The Mormon leadership's view on exmormons is only significant to Mormonism, go place it there. 99.9% of the world is not Mormon, it will never be a significant POV on any non-Mormon view unless it coincides with a wider view. Mormons are not exmormon, by the way, perhaps the name confuses you. Is there a Mormon leadership POV in the evolution article or the many Native Americans articles? Surely they have an original viewpoint on it, but it isn't significant. What you fail to realize is that NPOV means neutral, and excludes a Mormon leadership POV that has been rejected by exmormons (and this rejection makes it all the more bias from their rejected opponents). We have included all of the verifiable and relevant Mormon doctrines that apply to exmormons, and if there were more, I would like to know. If there were an objective statistic taken from Mormons concerning exmormons, I would like to know. But the reader deserves more respect than to assume that Mormon authorities are neutral or factual as channeling their self-proclaimed divine authority and that their bitterness and condemnation of exmormons can be taken as neutral and unbiased. I note that you stated elsewhere that you have contempt for the article, and the article's subject matter, and have admitted placing information here that does not belong, so you can't lecture me on good faith. Anon166 17:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It is ok with me if you do not address the research. However, you already DID address it by criticising it. Yet your criticism was not helpful to the article. I am asking you to help. If you do not help I cannot do better. Incidentally, I notice that you believe my research is "original". Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with WP:NOR before you suggest that. The requirement in wikipedia is to research an article. That is a REQUIREMENT. Just because you are doing research on the article, does not automatically make it original research per wikipedia policy.

You seem to be suggesting that I must confess some particular point of view before editing. I note that this is an area of disagreement throughout wikipedia. Jimbo Wales, for example, believes that we should not advertise ANYTHING regarding our point of view, but simply keep things neutral by following policy. Others believe it is impossible for a person to be neutral on many topics and should advertise their biases. Jimbo disagrees but respects those who hold that view. Wikipedia policy does not take a stand either way. So you know: I particularly agree with Jimbo. I have done so for years while working on various things all over the internet, not just wikipedia. I have consistently resisted ever describing my personal beliefs on matters, and I have been attacked by people on both sides of many issues for this. It does not bother me. But so you know: I have no interest in exmormonism one way or the other. I am entirely unaffected by it in my life and neither interested nor threatened by it. However, I do like wikipedia and want articles to be good. That is my Point of View.

Once again, you assert a position contrary to WP:NPOV. I am not arguing for a religious POV. I am arguing for a balanced POV, which is what the policy requires. You should note that my previous edits were both from a Mormon view and a secular view. You did not like either one.

Your view that "it is only significant to Mormonism" is contrary to the policy which states that all perspectives must be included. Furthermore, that the view has been rejected by ExMormons is not sufficient reason to reject it here. Indeed THAT POSITION is contrary to NPOV. There are many articles on wikipedia where proponents of some view of the subject disagree with others. Both views must get a hearing according to NPOV. The NPOV guidelines remain there, even though you reject them. If you are unable to abide by wikipedia policies with regard to this article perhaps you should not attempt to edit it here. It may be too emotional an issue for you.

I have no problem with your notion that "the readers deserve more respect than to assume that Mormon authorities are neutral". That also goes for exMormon sources as well, by the way. As I have said from the start, this article is a POV push. It might be a POV fork. Your views certainly seem to suggest that is so.

I have never stated that I have contempt for the article. I have said that I think it is "Unencyclopedic". I have said I consider it "POV". I have said it might be a "POV fork". I have said it might be a "candidate for deletion". I have disagreed that it should be "merged with Mormonism." I have said that before we take any drastic measures, we should try to improve it.

There is no doubt in my mind that I can "lecture you in good faith", though I do not believe I am lecturing you in any way. You may reject what I am saying but you are also rejecting the policies of wikipedia.

I will shortly be working to improve the article. I earnestly encourage you to join in to make it better. Alternatively I encourage you to attend to other articles. I ask you to not be obstructionist. --Anon 64 19:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I will make sure any Mormon claims that are asserted as factual ends up in the Mormonism article under their doctrines, where your edits can be properly assimilated and evaluated. Anon166 19:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not pre-arrange an edit war. That is totally inappropriate. I will follow wikipedia policy in the edits. You must also do so. Wikipedia policy is that ALL relevant viewpoints must be included. Please keep an open mind and assume good faith. Remember, when you joined wikipedia you agreed to abide by those policies. Also, you agreed that you would allow articles that you contribute to, to be edited by others. This is part of wikipedia, ok?

Incidentally, you are not allowed, per policy, to discriminate against sources in that way. --Anon 64 20:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

War? I've seen your previously deleted edits, which you admitted were POV pushing. You are still conflating Mormon and exmormonism entries, so it is necessary to rearrange information to where it belongs. We'll see how that goes over there. I note that you are trying to dictate the reception of your original research before the fact. Anon166 20:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you seem to be promising an edit war. If not, I apologize. As for POV pushing, I do not think I ever said that. If so, I miscommunicated. I am seeking balance and NPOV. What you may have seen me say is that this article is a POV Push. I think that is on record. It might be cruft. However, I do not think you can find me saying I am going to push a particular POV except an NPOV. If so, find it and then let me correct the misperception I may have caused. I am not conflating Mormonism and ExMormonism. I am not even referring to Mormonism. I am still trying to figure out what Exmormonism is. I am not trying to dicate anything. I presented my research for comment. I requested your comment and help and all you seem interested in doing is fighting me. I am not interested in fighting you. I realize that since you have contributed so much to the article, my comments are a bit like saying your baby is ugly. I did not mean to insult you. But the article is not good. It needs work. I hope you are willing to be open minded. --Anon 64 20:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that User:Anon166's accusation above that User:Anon 64 asserted there was no such thing as Exmormons is confusion of my previous statements. I have repeatedly stated that there is no such thing as Exmormonism; there are only exmormons. –Ism in the English language implies a belief, ideology, or doctrine. It is deceitful to name this article Exmormonism because Exmormonism does not exist. Exmormons exist; they may believe in Buddhism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Hinduism, or any number of other –isms. There are no unifying characteristics of Exmormons except that they were once Mormons.

I suspect that the reason this article is entitled Exmormonism is an attempt to validate Exmormons' belief that they are unique. There is no reason to validate their “Ex-ness”. They simply exist, without question, by separating themselves from the LDS church. They are similar to any other individual who is no longer a part of a specific group. The title of this article should be changed to Exmormons so that readers will understand the true topic being discussed. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You may be right generally. I had not thought about it that way, but I am having a really hard time finding an objective defintion of Exmormonism and no references to it prior to the creation of websites with that name. There is no good connection between being a former Mormon and the behaviors ascribed to exmormons in this article. This is one of the problems I am having.

However, if there is no such thing as ExMormonism and ExMormons becomes the article name, then it really becomes very little more than a dictionary entry. However, my research suggests to me that ExMormonism may be a modern type of antiMormonism or a name for a special area of antiMormonism. Perhaps the best answer is to merge Exmormonism in that regard with anti-Mormonism and ignore ExMormon because that is a dictionary entry. However, I would like to see if the article can be improved first. If it just can't be for various reasons, then we should consider other options. --Anon 64 22:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"I suspect that the reason this article is entitled Exmormonism is an attempt to validate Exmormons' belief that they are unique." No. That is your POV. Which may not be correct. 172.207.177.133 23:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The reasons the article was originally titled Exmormonism are irrelevant. The relevant questions are

1. Does exmormonism exist? - If we answer in the affirmative, we must do so on the basis not only that it qualifies as an "ism" (which I don't think it does), but that it has been treated as such by the scholarly community. That means that we need to cite sources that deal with "exmormonism" as a coherent ideology, not just with "exmormons" as a group of people who used to be Mormons. Since I don't see such sources listed, I think it would be best to rename the article "exmormons".
2. If exmormonism exists, does it include everyone who has ever left the church, or only those with a certain hostile mentality? The article as it stands implies that all exmormons share a choerent ideology called "exmormonism". I think that at least some exmormons would object to this implication.
3. If exmormonism exists, has it been treated as a coherent ideology often enough in scholarly literature to warrant a wikipedia article on the subject? Or should it be relegated to a subheading or footnote?

I personally think that, at the very least, the current article should be moved to the heading "exmormons" and a new article should be created under this heading that considers the question of whether "exmormonism" exists as a coherent ideology, with references to scholarly publications that treat the issue. If there are no such publications, then this heading should be converted to a redirect that points to "exmormons".

An article called "Ex-Mormons" need not be only a dictionary entry. In fact, this article as it stands would make for an excellent entry under that header. It deals with polls, trends, recovery groups, church policies, and the like. It does not attempt to treat ex-mormons as a monolithic people group, but rather explores some of the varieties of their experience as recorded in both popular and academic publications. Certainly the article is warranted, if only by the sheer number of books and articles that have been written on the subject.

Unless there are significant objections, I suggest we promptly move the article to a more appropriate heading.

CaliforniaKid 22:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There didn't seem to be any objections, so I chose to move the article. I hope this wasn't out of line. I chose a hyphenated spelling because a google search revealed about 3,000 hits for "exmormon" and about 25,000 for "ex-mormon". The latter seems, then, to be the more common rendering; the unhyphenated rendering is apparently popular only in certain vocal circles. In any case, most writing guides advise that the prefix "ex" should always be used with a hyphen when it means "former", as in this case. CaliforniaKid 04:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That's something I was hoping would happen for a very long time. Thanks. Greenw47 14:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Smithsonian

I removed the bit about the Smithsonian rejecting the BoM. Their updated statement says simply that it is not used as a guide for archaeological research. It takes no stand on BoM historicity. CaliforniaKid 06:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point, kid. If any book they do not use were to be considered 'rejected,' then almost every book in the world would be considered rejected. I went looking for a copy of the original statement (with no commentary by either side) from the SI, and came up with: this letter from 1997. The link you included took me to a FARMS web site with a lengthy commentary on the letter from SI. Greenw47 17:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The FARMS article also includes a copy of the updated statement:

In March of 1998 the Director of Communications at the Smithsonian began using the following brief response to queries about the Book of Mormon:

Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the Office of Communications. The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archeological research and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CaliforniaKid (talk • contribs) 20:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Still Editing

I wanted to mention that I am still interested in this article but I have become rather busy in what is often called "real life". This has hindered my ability to work here as I wanted, but I shall return in a bit. However, I have done one bit of research. I used "Google Trends" to look up ExMormonism and found it to be a term that is searched for too little for Google Trends to track it. --Anon 64 18:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Under the heading of "Still editing", just fixed a few references so they are consistent with the rest of the article and the rest of Wikipedia as a whole. No major substantive changes. Greenw47 19:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm still here. This article looks great! Greenw47 —Preceding comment was added at 15:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

LDS views of Exmormons - Improvements

In the past, we only had anecdotal information on what church members thought about Exmormons. Finally, time has permitted me to search out a Church-approved manual, which I hope all will agree is more useful. This might not reflect how all members view those who leave, but it is helpful in understanding how apostates are seen in the eyes of the LDS church. Greenw47 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Question about the use of sources. The following text

although this doctrine is officially applied only to those who have had an "unshakable" spiritual witness of the truth of the faith.

has a citation to this web page. http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_beli.htm The web page says nothing about official application of doctrine. I would like to know why the citation was added. What is its purpose and what part of the sentence is it supposed to be backing up? Greenw47 (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

post-Mormon

A friend of mine who is a professor at CU Boulder refers to herself as "post-Mormon" (like postmodern)-is this a common term or her being clever? Chris 06:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Postmormon, or postmo, is commonly used by the exmormon community. Most use it when they are past the period in their life of being even an exmormon. gunnerclark 22:58, 15 May 2007 (cst)

See e.g. http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/. The "post-Mormon" trend has been around for at least several years, and differs (if at all) from other ex-Mormon trends in emphasizing the positive aspects of life after leaving the Church and positive relationships with Mormons, as opposed to emphasizing criticism of the Church - at least, that is sort of the impression I've gotten. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 02:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That's accurate. Greenw47 (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed tags

Sorting through the liberal usage of "citation needed" tags, I have found that many of the points where citations have been requested already have citations. For example, some sentences have tags in the middle of the sentence where there is a citation at the end of the sentence. I've just cleaned that up. Also, some of the citations have opened doors. I hope others will see the humor in my remarks as I edit. I'm really trying to keep the mood light because this topic can get rather heavy in a hurry. Cheers! Greenw47 (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree; you have begun some much needed clean-up of the tags. I do have a question on the Reasons for leaving section; can't that be summarized that individuals lose faith? It seems a bit presumptuous to assume that there is in one reason or specfic set of reasons. Also, the current section reads more like a diatribe "cult-like temple ceremonies" among others smacks of something more akin to anti-Mormonism rather than an individual coming to a conlusion that they no longer desire to be a member of a church. We would go a long ways to improving the article by removing this type of writing in favor of a more realistic approach to why an individual finds another faith or seeks to leave a church (any church). --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Storm Rider! Long time, no see. Good to see you again. You know, it just seems that this article is being held to a ridiculously high standard in comparison to other articles. I'll have to look at the current section on why people leave. I don't think we'll ever please everybody. But I think we can attempt to find a way to plainly state the reasons people leave in an NPOV way. Greenw47 (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It will certainly be an improvement to get rid of all the tags; some of them are pretty silly. Excellent work and I am glad to be of help.

I have alwasy felt and read that persona does not leave a religion for a single reason; it is both multi-faceted and complex. To attempt to portray an individual's choice in a single manner undermines the significance of their choice; and in some ways I think it belittles their choice. These are thinking individuals who have arrived at a decision that is significant for them; my desire would be for it to be portrayed as such.

The leave for what else section could be fleshed out a little bit. I think exmos join a broad range of different churches and different religions. I have not heard that they join primarily Protestant churches; that would really surprise me if it were true. Do you know if any research has been done in this area? I would be curious if there has been a preference for a specific denomination etc.

I will continue to lend a hand. Again, you are doing great work here and deserve a big thank you from all of us. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Two sources concern me. The exmormon survey only had 4 respondents. Not a good source. Also the text on some study of where exmormons go is now about 25 years old. It may not be correct for current situations. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Dig a little deeper. There were actually 413 responses. The link to the study just needs to be updated. Getting on that right now. Not sure what you mean by "some study." Greenw47 (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add something else. This article now has 36 citations. Please, anybody, show me another article this length on wikipedia that has had this much CFR-ing. Greenw47 (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, bad cites are not indicative of quality. The poll for example does not meet wikipedia standards for Reliable Source. You might be able to hold your nose on that IF the poll made sense but there were 4 answers, they were supposed to supply up to seven reasons for leaving. That would make 28 reasons with 0 double votes There are a total of 52 reasons listed with many duplicate votes. So, I squint my eyes at this poll. It really is not a great source. Im surprised I have to say this. It is well known that self published internet blog type things without editorial oversight are bad sources. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thus my invitation to dig a bit deeper. Please look at the updated link with 413 people responses. Since linked content is dynamic, it's important to put our thinking caps on. The poll was really easy to find. Greenw47 (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I see quite a few cites that are used to support what looks to me like Original Research. I will develop a list of things that I think could improve this article. I will also review sources.--Blue Tie (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Then, as a good citizen of wiki-land, please find some better sources. It's one thing to sit on the sideline and point out what's wrong, but it's another to roll up your sleeves and contribute. What's your plan to contribute to finding better sources? If you really are concerned about the quality of articles, please let us know how you intend to improve the quality. Otherwise, go to the list of articles that need improvement. There are many. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_with_unsourced_statements Greenw47 (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is not how it works. If there aren't good sources, I cannot be charged with finding them. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I got to thinking about Blue Tie's comment about the poll. I wanted to know for myself whether the poll is usable for this or other wiki articles. When in doubt, go right to the wiki rules on sources. I just looked up wp:selfpub and found that self-published sources are usable if they meet the following criteria:

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Let's go through the analysis:

• Is the source relevant? Yes, it's relevant to this article. It's about exmos and this article is about exmos.
• Is it contentious? No. It does not seek to disprove founding claims of the LDS church. If the poll sought to prove founding church claims incorrect, it would be contentious.
• Is it unduly self-serving? Telling where exmos go when they leave. There is no self-promotion in that. Nobody is promoting a religion.
• Does it involve claims of third parties? No. There is no hearsay being used to back up an assertion in the article. Nobody is being asked why their friend or relative left, only about himself/herself.
• Does the source involve claims about events not directly related to the subject? It makes no claims about events.
• Is there reasonable doubt as to who authored it? No.
• Is the article based primarily on this source? No.

That should put this issue to rest. If anybody has done a deeper analysis on self-published sources, please let me know. I don't want to reinvent the wheel. Greenw47 (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your analysis. I agree that the poll is relevant, but I do not know if it is contentious or not. As a self-published, little known source there has been no opportunity for others to comment. I believe that the stats when there were four people who were supposed to give only 7 answers each suggest that the poll is, in fact, self serving. It may be third parties. We do not know who participated in the poll -- whether they were mormons, ex mormons or people who were neither. I think that there is substantial doubt about who authored these responses. And though the article is not based primarily upon that source, that section of the article is based entirely upon that source. In short, I do not think you answered the problems. There is a Reliable Sources noticeboard that could address this matter. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Just passing through, and I'm not going to edit anything, but that poll is a poor source for an encyclopedic entry. There's no indication how the sample of answerers was generated, toward the top it equates "TBM" active Mormons to "nazi-fanatics", and the number of "voters" on each question varies - at times wildly (clearly the poll software doesn't track by voter). There is reasonable doubt about who MPC############ is and what his reasons for taking this poll were. And, finally, I couldn't find what in the polls backs up Citation #8. Interesting poll? Absolutely. Trustworthy source? No. Townlake (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome, Townlake. Please give us a bit of background on how you came to be interested in the article. Greenw47 (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically was just wikipedia-surfing, haha. I do applaud your long term efforts to improve this article - please take what I put above as constructive criticism, as intended. Townlake (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested Articles

Since there's not a disaffiliates portal, I thought I'd touch base here. The following articles are requested to establish the notability of sources at Criticism of Mormonism:

• David Persuitte, archaeologist
• McFarland & Company, a publisher
• Michael R. Ash, scholar at Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research
• Marvin W. Cowan, linguist
• The Institute for Religious Reseach, an Christian apologetics resource
• Richard and Joan Ostling, authors of Mormon America, Harper Collins
• Palmer H. Grant, author of An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, Signature Books
• Steven R. Gibson
• Diane Wirth
• Mormonism Research Ministry
• Gregory A. Prince
• William Robert Wright
• Ron Wood (Mormon)
• Linda Thatcher
• Floyd C. McElveen
• Moses Rischin, Jewish historian, coined the phrase New Mormon History
• Deborah Laake and Colleen McDannell, opponents of sexual repression
• Gregory A. Prince and William Robert Wright
• George Mitton
• Rhett James

Articles which meet certain criteria could be featured on the front page of Wikipedia! Remember that some of the issues that the persons and sources listed have addressed can be controversial, so please remember to review the guidelines for such articles. Please forgive the shameless plug. Thank you. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfixable Article

All right - after reading the article over I've determined that it's an unfixable article. Nearly every link points to a loaded source or cites a single example as evidence of a large trend. Every source is biased and sources even tangentially sympathetic to the LDS Church are only cited to show evidence of how cold and judgemental Mormons are. I'm going to move onto other areas of Wikipedia because trying to fix this article would result in a huge flame war with bitter ex-mormons. This article probably shouldn't even exist in retrospect but it consoles me that the only people who will ever view it are the same people currently editing it - ex-mormons.Primalscreamtherapy 00:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And yet another person who wanted to see the article removed disappears. Just another in a long stream of those who don't like the subject but can't really say why. Greenw47 (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

New Poll

Though I see no problem with the poll that is being used, it seems to be an issue for some. The reason for including the poll is to help readers understand why some people become Exmormons, not to address whether or not those reasons invalidate founding LDS claims. The poll will be created so that it fits wiki standards from the beginning. That way, if the question ever comes up again, it can be dealt with easily. Greenw47 (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the poll is self-published. Created a new poll will not overcome that. --TrustTruth (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain where I think you are getting confused. I think you misunderstand the guidelines as they apply to self-publishing. Self-publishing in itself is not an absolute bar to usefulness as a source. The Wikipedia guidelines are just that. They are simply guidelines. Having said that, how can a poll be self-published? The information comes from multiple sources and there is no opinion given on the results of the poll. It only gives numbers that are reported by several people. Once again, the poll does not say anything whether or not the reasons for leaving are valid or founded. That discussion is a can of worms in itself. The poll only addresses the reasons that people give. I don't see why there is a problem with that. If we had a poll that addressed reasons people buy brand X over brand Y, it would not mean that the brand X is better. It would only address reasons people prefer it. There is no bias in that. The only issue I can see is that people don't like the reasons that are given and possibly take offense to them. Greenw47 (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, who said anything about reasons for leaving being "valid or founded"? I thought we were talking about the appropriateness of including an online poll. We're not talking religion here, we're talking online polls and self-published sources. Relax! :) Let me give you an example as to why this poll, as included, could be problematic. I know ex-Mormons who are just apathetic about the whole thing and wouldn't even think of visiting sites like exmormon.org because they just don't care. I also have a good friend that participates in exmormon discussions. The problem with the online poll is that it doesn't necessarily attract the apathetic ones, but it does attract people like my friend. The poll therefore has a self-selection bias. To be frank, I don't think the poll is a problem in itself as long as it's clear that it is an Open access poll and that the results are therefore non-scientific (due to the self-selection bias, etc.). I don't think you need a new poll, it just needs to be couched in appropriate terms when it's cited in the article. --TrustTruth (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, sometimes it takes discussions like this to clarify things. The language can be couched to let people know it's an informal poll. :) Greenw47 (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Article tag

This is a poor Wikipedia article. It has so many POV, weasel word and original research issues that it may need to be re-written. I have no problem with the existence of this article, but it's pretty bad as it stands. It reads like an axe-grinding sob song! I cannot possibly be the only one who sees problems with this article. Anyone else? --TrustTruth (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in this article, TrustTruth. You seem to be very concerned about the quality of the article, as well as the quality of articles on Wikipedia as a whole. Please come up with a list of things that need to be rewritten and we can work on them together. Don't start with a laundry list. Just start with a few. Greenw47 (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove the citation and original research tags? They are not "graffiti" but rather an honest attempt at improving the quality of this article. I'm going to revert their removal. As far as what can be improved, I marked several items with tags in the article. In addition, there are certain phrases that read more like an essay than an encyclopedic article. For example, "Leaving is not something that ex-Mormons usually take lightly". That may be true, but that phrase is drawing a conclusion based on available evidence. That's qualifies as research (see Wikipedia:No original research). If we can find someone who published that conclusion, then its inclusion would be fine. But original research is not appropriate. There's actually a lot of that going on, as well as reliance on dubious sources. I'm thinking specifically of the online poll cited. Citing that poll is fine, but it needs to be identified for what it is (a non-scientific poll), otherwise the reader may assume it carries the same weight as the academic journal cited elsewhere in the article. Thoughts? --TrustTruth (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Those questions have been asked and answered. Please see the history of this discussion page. It is rather lengthy. Greenw47 (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's good etiquette to bring questions to the discussion page (so you can be directed to the lengthy history of how the question has been asked and answered, and how repeatedly hammering on points that have been solved is counter-productive, clouding any legitimate issues that might need to be fixed. Greenw47 ([[User talk:Gre

enw47|talk]]) 19:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not going to go down that road with you. The issues I have raised are certainly legitimate and they deal directly with Wikipedia policy, not with some discussion in the history of the talk page. Please respond to the issues I raised before removing the fact (et al) tags wholesale.--TrustTruth (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that there was a broken link. Greenw47 (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Your removal of the improvement tags appears to be done in bad faith, as evidenced by your calling these tags "graffiti". Please stop these non-constructive edits. The tags you removed should have remained in the article. I will outline the reasoning behind each one by quoting the related sentence, then commenting on the tag:

• "Ex-Mormons commonly begin their journey toward disaffiliation from Mormonism and the LDS church because of skepticism over the authenticity of their Mormon spiritual experiences. Reference:Unauthorized Investigator's Guide to LDS Church, Moroni's Book of Mormon Promise" — this reference does not support the sentence; it mentions neither the word nor the concept of disaffiliation. Your reasoning was "calls for a source already given" but let me point out that this particular tag is used to call on others to check the source, not to add a source. Any neutral observer would conclude that this citation is not applicable to the statement.
• "Others cite recovery from group expectations, fraud and abuse.Reference:Exmormon Foundation mission statement" — this reference says nothing about the sentence; doesn't contain the words "expectations", "fraud", or "abuse", nor does it even imply any of those words. Reference is not applicable to the sentence; hence the verify source tag. The tag after "Others..." is consistent with Wikipedia's policy on avoiding weasel words.
• "Ex-Mormons' social and psychological support structures previously provided at church are usually replaced with new peer groups, including other ex-Mormons, members of a new spiritual affiliation, new employment, often the ex-Mormon's own family of procreation, and sometimes surrogate family members. While challenges must be overcome and effects may remain, most ex-Mormons adapt to live contented, productive lives, and do not regret their decision to leave Mormonism." — This paragraph constitutes an entire section, and it contains no reference; hence the "unreferencedsection" template. It also reads as unencyclopedic; reads more like a self-help manual. Please justify here on the talk page why that template does not apply to this section before deleting the template. Thanks. --TrustTruth (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you might be misunderstanding the meaning of weasel words. The word "other" is not used in the sense that you might be thinking. It is used in the context of why people leave. Some leave for reason A, some leave for reason B. Greenw47 (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop reverting these tags with no discussion. I clearly outlined the reasoning behind the tags above. Please give me the courtesy of a discussion before reverting, as I have done for you. Thanks. As far as weasel words, editors use them to imply that one source's statements apply to the general population. Since the reference at the end of the sentence in question makes no sense, the simple solution is to find a reference that does make that statement, then make the subject of the sentence work based on the context of the reference. Not a huge deal. As far as the final paragraph, I'm ambivalent about any POV bias because there's no reference to check. If a reliable cited source makes that statement, then fine. But it needs a reliable cited source. We may want to consider getting a third opinion. --TrustTruth (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you are again removing the tags and calling them graffiti, so I have submitted this issue to third opinion negotiation. --TrustTruth (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave you an explanation. I offered to start with your weasel word tag. Why do you want to start an edit war? Greenw47 (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I made good-faith edits, you reverted them multiple times w/o explanation, and I'm the one who started an edit war? LOL. Whatever dude. BTW I addressed the weasel word tag above. I think it might help to make it clear where I'm coming from on citation requests, to start off. Wikipedia policy states that citations are required for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." That's the standard I hold myself to when editing articles. It's okay for a reference to be used more than once by the way. However, just because an article has a bunch of references doesn't mean the article is necessarily well-referenced. That is where I am coming from. I invite you to read over Wikipedia:Citing sources. --TrustTruth (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, slow down. One issue at a time. I offered to start with one topic, such as the weasel word tag. My perception is that you are misunderstanding what weasel words are. It looks like you are saying that the weasel word tag applies because when the words "some people" are used, they are being used in the general population sense of the word. Maybe so, but not in this article. The way I see it being used is "some Ex-Mormons leave for reason A and some leave for reason B." I don't see anything being applied to the general population. Let's not start discussing several points at one time. That will just muddy the waters. In the mean time, there is no need to tag up the article again until some of these issues can be resolved. Greenw47 (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked the reference attached to this sentence — "Others cite recovery from group expectations, fraud and abuse" — and still don't see the connection to group expectations, fraud, or abuse. Are you talking about the sub-articles that page links to? I checked a few but still couldn't find the words, other than a vague reference to abuse on a mission in Wagner's article. It might help to have a reference next to each one of those words, and to have the reference point to a specific claim from an ex-Mormon that backs up each part of the statement. By the way, I see the purpose of tagging an article as reminding those on the talk page what one is talking about. You tag, then discuss and resolve, then remove the tag. --TrustTruth (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ex-Mormons commonly begin their journey toward disaffiliation from Mormonism and the LDS church because of skepticism over the authenticity of their Mormon spiritual experiences.[6][verification needed] See Step 3 here. http://www.lds4u.com/lesson1/moroni10.htm Greenw47 (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I read through it, but I don't see where it talks about beginning a journey of disaffiliation. I understand what he's saying about the problem of distinguishing among hallucination, strong feelings, and spiritual confirmation, but that's about all I see. The statement — "Ex-Mormons commonly begin their journey toward disaffiliation from Mormonism and the LDS church because of skepticism over the authenticity of their Mormon spiritual experiences" — seems like original research because the article isn't drawing a conclusion, just describing the problem of distinguishing among those three things. What do you think? Don't you think there's a better reference out there? --TrustTruth (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Good faith, non-excessive tagging should not usually be reverted without substantively addressing the concerns raised. In some cases, articles will be drive-by tagged and the editor will not detail their concerns. However, that does not seem to be the case here. As a general concern, there seem to be a lot of self-published sources being used in this article. Better sources should be used whenever possible. Vassyana (talk) 04:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought policy was that self-published sources do not meet the standards of a reputable source. If it is not peer reviewed it hardly qualifies as reputable. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer-review is not necessarily required, as reputable publishers with an established editorial process and reputable experts may also be unquestionably reliable references to cite. However, that does not seem to be a consideration in this instance. "Links to avoid" may be a useful reference for this discussion. If a source is not appropriate as an external link, it almost certainly is not appropriate for the higher standard required for a reputable reference. Vassyana (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, thanks for taking a look at the article and thank you for your comments. Some of the sources given are the only source available. I understand that some of the sources are not the best source possible but they are the best source available. If the poll is an issue, a new one can be created. However, I can almost guarantee that new editors will drop by to try to discredit it as soon as it is completed. Greenw47 (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Latter-Day Saints and former members of the church are broadly studied. I sincerely doubt the self-published references are the best sources available. I'm quite positive in most cases, they are simply the best sources easily accessed online. If a well-published author on religious studies or the LDS, a religious history expert, or another established professional contributed an article to a website, that might be considered a reliable source. A commonly accepted example is course material and articles posted to a university department website by a respected professor. If a website is a user-driven community, has no expert authors and/or has no reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, it is almost certainly not an acceptable source. In the few cases where claims can only be cited to self-published and/or unreliable sources, they should not be presented. Vassyana (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, thank you for your comments. I will take them into consideration as I continue my commitment to improving this article. Greenw47 (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving on

Is this really necessary in the article? "Latter-day Saints are taught to have a loving and hopeful attitude toward ex-Mormons and to invite sinners, or "lost sheep", back to the fold." Greenw47 (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems relevant to the section "Latter-day Saint views of ex-Mormons". However, have you seen the source cited? It's some kind of children's book. --TrustTruth (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's come up before. Not the best source, even if it is published by the LDS church. It is partially relevant in that it does state the view that members are taught, but it's just not really Encyclopedic as a source. Greenw47 (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The bit about Faust comes off rather awkward. I don't see how it ties in with the rest of the section. Greenw47 (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. The section is entitled "Latter-day Saint views of ex-Mormons" -- what Faust says applies perfectly. He's a Latter-day Saint. He's got an official voice. He's talking about ex-Mormons. Help me understand how this doesn't apply. --TrustTruth (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The Brigham Young quote is a bit more appropriate. The Faust quote is redundant. Greenw47 (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Faust quote may actually be more appropriate because it is more contemporary. Having a quote from this century rather than just one from the 19th century would seem more helpful to the reader as indicative of current views. I think having both would be best, though. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Alanraywiki. I just moved it around a bit, and it flows a lot better. Greenw47 (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It certainly does flow better. Thanks for doing that. Alanraywiki (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, check out the first paragraph. It looked like a Design by committee (in the Pejorative sense). In my opinion, and I could be wrong, the sleeker and leaner the better. Greenw47 (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the first paragraph in the LDS view section? I just added a summary paragraph and reorganized the section based on it. I guess I wasn't really making it leaner, but it serves as a decent guide to the section (the other sections do this well) and helps improve the flow. --TrustTruth (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay I see your edits now. Looks like some of them were reverted. --TrustTruth (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I preferred the paragraph order on "Latter-day Saint views of ex-Mormons" that Greenw47 did. It is more chronological in nature and brings us to the present day view instead of going back and forth. Regarding the lead section, I prefer it in its now reverted version. Just one sentence looked a little sparse. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I reworked the order a little. --TrustTruth (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, what the bleep happened to the paragraph "Latter-day Saint View of Ex-Mormons"? Somebody butchered it. Please, before making drastic changes, see the talk pages. Greenw47 (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

Let me know if I've gone to far revising the intro paragraph, but I think it paints a fairly accurate picture. One thing though, there must be more of a spectrum of affiliation to Mormonism, and not the tidy compartments of Jack Mormon, Cultural Mormon, and Ex-Mormon -- and regular Mormon for that matter. Thoughts? --TrustTruth (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The old intro paragraph was an over-inclusive pretzel. Now it looks a bit more tidy. In the end, the article is about Ex-Mormons only, not Jack Mormons are inactive Mormons, cultural Mormons or anything else. Under See Also, there was mention of Cultural Mormons and Jack Mormons, just like other articles give a nod to other viewpoints in the See Also section.Greenw47 (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The edits under "Latter-day saint view of Ex-Mormons," on the other hand, was a butcher job. I have not been able to go back edit by edit to see how that happened, but it looks horrible. Not to mention, a lot of hard work and useful citations were thrown out wholesale. The sections are now messed up as well. Some things that were sections have suddenly become subsections and they don't fit. Reasons for leaving, for example, is not part of "Latter-day saint view of Ex-Mormons." Reasons for leaving is a section where reasons for Ex-Mormons to leave the LDS church are mentioned. Greenw47 (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to re the LDS view paragraph -- I didn't delete anything, just rearranged the order of the statements that were already there. I can see how it might look like a hatchet job at first glance in the "differences between revisions" view though. You can check for yourself though -- nothing was deleted. As far as the two subheadnigs, I was trying to organize what was already there into a coherent flow. It turns out to be a microcosm of the rest of the article and -- to me at least -- seems to work well. The rest of the article is organized around the two general concepts of "reasons for leaving" and "post-disaffiliation issues", and the LDS view part is organized in the same way. I think it works, but am open to other ideas as well. --TrustTruth (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please explain when you make a major change. That was a bit confusing. Greenw47 (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll give credit where credit is due. It looks nice. I've added a few things, too. Greenw47 (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --TrustTruth (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

LDS view - section intro

Storm Rider - I don't understand where the POV is in the statement "Latter-day Saints view leaving the church as having potentially devastating spiritual consequences", or how changing it to "Latter-day Saints view turning from the influence of the Holy Spirit as having potentially devastating spiritual consequences" changes addresses any POV issues. Since the article is about people leaving the LDS church, I think it makes sense to keep the former. Moreover, since this section intro is introducing the rest of the section, this particular sentence is introducing the idea addressed in the first paragraph of the "Consequences of leaving" subsection. Switching it to "turning the influence of the Holy Spirit" disconnects the intro paragraph from the rest of the section. --TrustTruth (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What I believe is happening in the section is borderline OR and synthesis; that is what motivated me to begin to edit it. LDS believe that the Holy Spirit guides everyone to truth. If someone is following the direction of the devil they certainly are not following the direction of the Spirit. Falling away from the church is more often seen as leaving the guidance of the Spirit. This is identical to many Christian churches; you find exactly the same beliefs in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy as well as several others that believe in Apostolic succession. The tone is as if the LDS belief is strange when it is mainstream. That type of tone is POV and unnecessary.

I have found people leave the LDS church for an incredibly broad range of reasons. It can be simply because they have come to a conclusion they do not enjoy organized religion...any organized religion to a complete shift in doctrinal beliefs. I find it odd that we are trying to cover every reason. Quoting from one lesson does not begin to cover the full range of LDS thought.

My concern with POV was more with the language "may range from condemnation of them as apostates..." Apostasy is falling away from one's religion, but calling someone an apostate is not so common within the LDS church unless you have someone who leaves the church and then actively fights against it. Ed Decker is someone I would call an Apostate, but even with him I would find it difficult. When I read his story I felt as if he did the right thing inn leaving the church. How anyone can not find Christ in LDS theology is beyond me. He was someone that need to be spoon fed and his path was better found elsewhere. I am more comfortable with another term, Anti-Mormon is the more common term. For the common individual who ceases to participate one is more prone to hear the even more common term "inactive" than any other term. Does that make sense? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources for what you're saying, no one will stop you from adding them. However, I think this section is pretty well-sourced and I think we've rooted most, if not all, of the original research out. There are certainly OR issues in the remainder of the article, but one thing at a time. I do agree that the range of reasons / range of LDS view of ex-Mormons could be better stated than it is. I'd agree that most ex-Mormons are not viewed as apostates, but then again some are. Hence the distinguishing between disciplinary councils for some (for apostasy), and no discipline for others. All of this is sourced and cited. However, I think the concept of the range could be explained better, because there's probably too much emphasis on the concept of apostasy (which I think is generally defined as publicly / loudly leaving and denouncing the doctrine or the leadership; my sense is that the majority of people don't leave that way). That being said, apostasy is still one end of the range and needs to be addressed. --TrustTruth (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In the words of StormRider, why not just say "LDS believe that the Holy Spirit guides everyone to truth. If someone is following the direction of the devil they certainly are not following the direction of the Spirit. Falling away from the (LDS) church is more often seen as leaving the guidance of the Spirit." If that's LDS belief, just put it into the article. I don't have a problem with that. As I have heard a million times (OK, maybe not a million, but a LOT) leaving is also equated with losing one's testimony. A personal testimony of the truthfulness of Book of Mormon and a personal testimony that Joseph Smith restored the gospel are central to be a member, no? There are people who believe it, then something changes. Greenw47 (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sounds fine by me. --TrustTruth (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV issues

This article still has some NPOV kinks to get worked out. I added citations requests where they seemed appropriate, and tried to remove some of the loaded words, but there's still more work to be done, especially with the loaded words.--TrustTruth 19:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The psychologial impact section has no Mormon-specific references. That paragraph could apply to any religion. --TrustTruth 23:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TrustTruth, but there is still more wrong here. The "Psychological" issues subsection is non-NPOV, in that it implies an equation of: leaving the Church = following your "intrinsic" spirituality, while staying in the Church = pursuing spirituality based on extrinsic reasons. Notice that is a totally separate issue from the stated conclusions of the referenced study, on the psychological merits and burdens of intrinsic versus extrinsic spirituality. Unless this paragraph can be seriously rewritten in a way that connects the study to a relevant, NPOV point about the psychological issues of leaving the LDS Church, which I don't think it can be unless the article gets into such specifics, this whole paragraph should be removed. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 02:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on those loaded words. I took out "cult-like" on the temple ceremonies. Not sure where that came from as I was on a wiki-vacation for 1/2 year or more for graduation and my new job. As far as psychological issues, they stem from teachings that exmos remember from when they were active members. For example, being taught that people leave because they are "deceived by Satan" and how apostates live in a "dark and confused" world, too prideful to recognize their own mistakes, losing the spirit of the Holy Ghost, etc. How does that not affect how somebody perceives s/he is being treated after leaving? There's also no controversy as to whether these attitudes exist toward exmos, as the sources I've found are official, current LDS manuals. Greenw47 (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to chime in here. Most people i know that leave mormonism have more psychological pressures and issues at stake than i've ever seen/experienced from other "main stream" religions. Mostly due to so many doctrinal citations and policies stating, more or less, "if you dont believe, its a personal fault of yourself or deception from satan" which can be very damaging to the average follower. Theres also the issues of feelings of resentment or abandonment from those that feel they where lied to. Or in situations in which their family has, (and this has happened enough to be of note), more or less disowned their children over their "apostacy". To say that such actions/perceptions are not psychologicaly damaging would be horribly missguided/missleading. Sono hito (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Range of exmos

Shouldn't we discuss the range of Exmormons? I mean, there are some who just leave quietly all the way to some who become active anti-Mormons. On the net, there is a lot of confusion. Some think that exmo automatically means anti. It would be nice to have something addressing the difference. Greenw47 (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. It's definitely not black and white -- there's a continuum. In addition, I'd venture to say that, depending on your definition of an ex-Mormon, most are on the "leave quietly" end of the continuum -- just kind of fade away. I also think that most ex-Mormons are not viewed by Mormons as apostates. Of course I can't back any of that up with empirical evidence, and maybe my experience doesn't match the average person's. Maybe the Jack Mormon / Cultural Mormon discussion in the intro could be moved down into a new article section that explains the range of ex-Mormons. --TrustTruth (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, got kind of busy with other projects. I think the difficulty in addressing the range is lack of documentation. For example, people who just leave do that, just leave. There are those who leave and want to educate others in what they think is important to know about Mormonism. There are those who leave and join other religions. There are those who have no problem with Mormonism, they just don't want to go to church. There are those who feel judged: single adults, childless couples, divorcees, for example. The difficulty is, the most outspoken ex-Mormons are not the best representation, but they are the only ones who have anything to say. Thus, the skewed view of ex-Mormons. Greenw47 (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess I am naive. It seems strange to quantify or label a person who leaves a religious organization. Their reasoning will be as varied as there are individuals. Without doubt there will be groups with similar reasoning, but none will have the full list of identical reasons.

When I read ex-Mormon.com I mostly come away with pity. This is the group that appears incapable of leaving it alone and moving on. More importantly, I find a rather high degree of naiveté; there seems a need to think their situation as unique. You can look at every society where a predominant religious organization exists and find that the odd "man" out has suffered from some degree of social discomfort. You find this with Catholics, Buddhists, Hindu's, etc., yet this group of people people, exMOs, want to make their situation unique, unusual, and important.

What I find funny is that there are so many comments that "TBM"s just think that exMOs have a word of wisdom problem, that TBMs don't really understand, but every time there is a social announced the first thing done is break out the coffee and tea in the morning and the booze in the afternoon and revel in their choice to wear immodest clothing. This in itself appears to be oddly childish. An adult finds no pleasure in sneaking booze, they just drink because they enjoy it. There is no need to gloat about, it is just done. More importantly, it is not a reactionary choice.

This article does not address this part of the equation. The article should not focus on an ex-Mormons perception of the LDS church, but should focus on the phenomenon of why this group exists. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Storm Rider, you're better than these comments (broad, sweeping generalizations). However, if you would like the article to address the points you feel are important, you know what to do: write it! Ready, set, go! Greenw47 (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Boy, that was a long time coming. It is one of the unique things about these types of forums; comments are made and a year later we can come back and pick it up again. I would not disagree that some of what I said is generalization; most I am discussing these noisy minority that can't move on from the LDS Church. In reality, the reasons individuals leavea religion are varied and invariably complex. I doubt that we can adequately cover the motivations in this article. Hope all is well with you; it has been too long. --^StormRider 18:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been a LONG time. Life just keeps happening, and I don't get a lot of joy or relaxation out of working on this type of article. I prefer to leave it to others and then come back if things get too out of control. I only came here looking for a quote, and out of curiosity checked this talk page. Things are good with me, hope the same for you. Greenw47 (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

External Links.

I've been trying to add my vibrant, growing exmormon community, the Reddit Exmormon Forum to the external links section. It seems to be in line with one of the other links in the section, which is exmormon.org.

I fail to see why one is allowed while the other is being fought against by random editors. 4.42.176.201 (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Exmormon.org has been around for a long time and has been mentioned in books (reliable sources). Reddit has not. WP:EL contains guidelines of what should and should not be linked on Wikipedia. Reddit fails several reasons in WP:ELNO, it also fails WP:EL#ADV ("you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent"). Ultimately, Wikipedia is not a link farm, repository of links, or internet directory. Your energies would be much better spent to get this new forum listed on DMOZ. tedder (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the forum is not new. We're 16 months, which is like 16 internet years (I kid, I kid). Second, you failed to mention any book exmormon.org is mentioned in to back up your point, or why inclusion in a book automatically qualifies the site for wiki linkage. I'm not sure what you think my motivation for linking the reddit to this article is. I feel we have become one of the strongest exmormon communities on the internet, and are very relevant to inclusion here. A google search for 'exmormon forum', for instance, produces us before it produces exmormon.org.

Regarding WP:RS, perhaps Tedder is mistaken: Reddit was founded in 2005 and is mentioned regularly in traditional media, though age seems to be a poor metric for determining inclusion/exclusion of online communities. The question isn't a source or it's authority, but whether the community is appropriate for mention. The exmormon subreddit has a sizeable and healthy level of activity (many new entries daily, hundreds of comments on top entries) and is currently showing subscribed membership over 1000. Chiming in as someone that has no ownership, membership or involvement in the exmormon subreddit, I'd disagree on WP:EL#ADV: They've become a healthy, bustling forum used by ex-mormons, with content, links, news and commentary focused toward ex-mormons and their views and issues. Further, because peer-ranked content sites behave differently than subject-specific blogs, they've got broader visibility: I routinely (a few times per month) notice their material on the main Reddit page. Disqualification shouldn't be arbitrarily because 'we already have a link'. If a few standout communities exist, their inclusion doesn't turn wikipedia into a link-farm.

Alternately, would mention via the Reddit wiki page be a valid compromise? Something akin to 'and an active community (subreddit) on social-news site Reddit' being incorporated into the descriptions of online haunts of ex-mormons? User:ArtDent 24.119.20.116 (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that a ridiclously inflated number of links to ex-mormon groups and societies are necessary. The purpose of this article is certainly not to simply advertise them. The extreme negativity, hostility, mis-represented facts, exaggerations and negative spin that these groups actually hold in regards to the Church is somewhat dauntingly unsuitable to have any connections with an encyclopedia. I also think notability is a key option, ex-mormon.org is by the far the most notable and therefore gains significance, the rest are all background runners as far as I am concerned. Routerone (talk) 10:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

And this would be comparable how to the fifty-two (52 !) external links at the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article (many of which can be considered advertisements) ? Perhaps a good, hard look should be taken at which of those links are necessary to that article. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 14:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there are a lot of links that don't belong there per guidelines (such as "only one official link"). But that doesn't affect the rationale for having a reddit link here. tedder (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

" ... that doesn't affect the rationale for having a reddit link here" I didn't say it did, did I ? I was asking a question because of the reason given above ("a ridiclously inflated number of links to ex-mormon groups and societies") that one editor is using for denying the addition of the reddit link here. Perhaps that link doesn't belong here, but I'd like to see it denied for the proper reason. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Who said that wont be under scrutiny later Duke53? External links should be tidied whenever possible? :) Routerone (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"Who said that wont be under scrutiny later Duke53? External links should be tidied whenever possible ?" What are you trying to say? The above edit by you is incomprehensible. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up sources

Hopefully, this section will be used to discuss the usefulness of sources. For example, the picture book story for children in the Liahona is a bit of a stretch as a source for official doctrine. http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=bc396528ef2eb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 The article does address the topic of people who leave the LDS church and how they should be treated by other members; it talks about sinners and how Jesus still loves them. It's comforting, but not relevant. Moreover, equating people who leave for intellectual reasons with sinners (those who sin but might still go to church) is a subjective opinion and, thus, POV. Finally, if the article is going to be more encyclopedic, we should refrain from using picture book sources. Greenw47 (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This source also seems rather weak: http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_beli.htm It is supposed to back up the sentence that those with once unshakable faith will be condemned, but the link goes to Religious Tolerance dot org, but the web site says nothing about official LDS beliefs. Greenw47 (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's enough for now. I want to take a break before continuing. Greenw47 (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The assertion that "The LDS church teaches that people leave for a variety of reasons, but that regardless of the reason the underlying cause is deception by Satan" is unwarranted by the referenced source, which only lists deceptions which can lead to apostasy without asserting that deceptions are the only reasons for apostasy. This needs a better source, or should be removed entirely.Nicolasconnault (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This article

I was about to consider this article for deletion, but on second thoughts I'd rather discuss things over. I feel the article is worded like an attack on the LDS church as a whole, it appears to be well referenced but it contains a lot of opionated synthesis from sources only minorly addressing the topic. Rather it seems to attack the church as a whole, and may not even meet the notability trend overall, considering that there are larger churches in exsistence who do not have a page stating how "Ex Members" feel. It's more like an opinionated summary on why people leave the mormon church and how they feel, voiced a critical tone, than an actual encyclopedia article as a whole. Routerone (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:WAX is always a questionable argument, but .. it seems to handle a topic fairly well- ex-mormons, why they leave, what mormons think of them. Are there specific things you have issues with, or is it the entire article? What are examples of WP:SYNTH you are seeing? tedder (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well for starters I've found two pargraphs making numerous claims about the church that have no citations whatsoever, its just opinion:

"Many ex-Mormons additionally point to contradictions between current and early LDS leaders such as Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith. One ex-Mormon expressed concerns about the morality, historicity, and revelatory truth of LDS teachings, embodied by inconsistent or suppressed teachings of early church leaders such as Brigham Young's Adam-God theory, which the LDS church considers as a speculative theory that is misunderstood, but which becomes clearer when read in the context of the full discourse wherein Young mentions God, Jesus, and Adam as separate beings"

"Ex-Mormon attitudes toward Mormons and Mormonism vary widely. Some ex-Mormons actively proselytize against Mormonism, while some provide only support to others leaving the religion. Other ex-Mormons prefer to avoid the subject entirely, while still others may try to encourage healthy dialogue between adherents of their new faiths and active Mormons. Attitudes of ex-Mormons also differ regarding their church membership. Some formally resign, which the LDS church refers to as "name removal," while others simply become inactive"

What the article seems to do, is synthesize wordy explainations on sources and make a lot of points about the claims of Exmormons and highlights it as a bad thing (despite all religions having dropouts). It seems to be very much a commentary than an article.

Also:

"MormonNoMore.com, is devoted to helping ex-Mormons effectively process their resignation requests with the LDS church". The "MormonNoMore.com" website appears to no longer exist. Routerone (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Try: http://www.mormonnomore.com/ It's there today. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ex-Mormon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110903005426/http://www.irr.org:80/mit/book-of-mormon-page.html to http://www.irr.org/mit/book-of-mormon-page.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070417210418/http://farms.byu.edu:80/display.php?table=review&id=74 to http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=74
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051125163350/http://www.irr.org:80/mit/default.html to http://www.irr.org/mit/default.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)