Talk:Ex-Mormon/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Proposed new outline

Though I should be working on finals (nobody to blame but myself) I have promised to come up with a rough draft of an outline. I believe it is as neutral as possible.

What is an Exmormon? - An exmormon is a person who has left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. (Insert statistics of how many people leave - possible use for BYU studies) Exmormons are not to be confused with Jackmormons, who might still agree with church teachings but not participate in church services on a weekly basis.

Why people leave - There are many reasons why people leave the LDS church. Among them are:

• Disagreements with founding church claims - see the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
• Disagreements with early church teachings or practices
• Differences with other members
• Excommunication

The Exmormon community - There is a very lively Exmormon community online, with some people meeting in person to discuss their common past. However, this is thought to be a very small sample of those who leave.

Post-exit social and religious status - There are Exmormons who leave to join other religions, become atheists, or even become members of the Anti-LDS movement.

References - list of books, articles, and academic papers

• By LDS authors
• By non-LDS authors

External Links - just as they are.

Suggestions? 5/4/06 11:46 am EST greenw47

• I would suggest that things ARE left as they are. So why does someone keep changing the links section? It is hard to debate not changing something when someone else keeps altering it without bothering to look at the work that has been going on behind the scenes. It wastes time and causes bad feeling.* Martinscholes 11:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the disputed part is the LDS authors. I would rather have all authors included together with descriptions of their piece, be they LDS or not. I don't know about the part about differences with other members either. That is far too subjective and is mere opinion all over again. Excommunication does not apply as a category of Exmormonism but can be linked to the page if appropriate. By the way, Green, beware of this trap to reinvent the wheel. They recruit people for this all the time to start over, see the past changes. 166.70.243.229 15:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Do see previous edits, not sure you'll see what the anon is saying.

The outline looks fine to me. Two points with the outline need to be addressed for me, however: What about people from other Mormon denominations, like FLDS lost boys, who call themselves exmormons? It seems pigeonholed when describing only former LDS. Second, I know the list of reasons for leaving is not comprehensive, so as we write we can expand and add in reasons such as "indifference," etc.

I have no opinion at this point about seperating references. there is precedence both ways on wikipedia.

Under the "Post-exit social and religious status" heading, What about adding in a section of the small group that claim abuse or control, experience psycological trauma, compare to escaping cult experience, etc.? Although a minority, it is a vocal and growing one...

And what about treatment/attitudes of many mormons to exmormons (in the same section)? For example, FLDS believe that their exmormons will go to Gnolaum. Some LDS Mormons tend to believe some moral or apostate sin was committed. I think we can document some cases of this - especially with the visibility that D. Michael Quinn got in the WSJ a couple weeks ago. Not to make it seem like exmormons are victims, but this would be a good addition, imho.

Gnolaum was good enough for this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_darkness

The article references THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM, CHAPTER 3. However, the official LDS church website has "Gnolaum is a transliteration of a Hebrew word meaning eternal." And the actual scripture says "They are gnolaum, or eternal." Greenw47 16:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm sure you'll agree that we need to make sure that the "reasons for leaving" section is written in a way that mormon apologists cannot simply try to use the page as a place to dispute the points. That section should be very matter-of-fact, this is why they leave, no discussion, IMHO. The goal is to create a referenced stable article. Good outline. Thoughts about my two points and addition to the "Post-exit" section above? -Visorstuff 17:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with visorstuff's suggestion to add the subsections. I also think a section should be added about the effects leaving mormonism has on their families. This section would explain how Mormons view the eternal nature of the family, and how shocking and depressing it is from their point of view when a family member no longer is a part of that eternal unit. Epachamo 19:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree it would be nice, but not sure if I've seen any hard data on that. It would be hard to cite, aside from ancedotal experiences, which may or may not be reflective. Perhaps we can suggest it as future research? I'm not sure... Do you have data on this? Would be great inclusion. -Visorstuff 20:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Epachamo, I would be careful of adding a section as you have stated it above. Given the topic of the article, I recommend that it should be written from the Exmormon's persepctive. The section would be Exmormons' experience and interaction with family members that continue to reside within respective Mormon churches. I would also caution that a personal experience is not appropirate for an example that applies to all Exmos. Thus, in this context of family interactions should be written as possible problems with family, friends, etc. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Green, consider what is contained in the hundreds of hours of editing that has already taken place. No need or impetus to focus on any one thing at all. 166.70.243.229 21:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, 166. Nothing is set in stone, and this is just an outline, not a full article.

My concern about perspectives would anything that is anectodal. I know there are studies about percentages of people who leave, available from the LDS church. Would anybody have a problem with using statistics from BYU or lds.org for that? I think it's also fair to mention that the LDS church does studies so that it can learn how to retain members. Comments?

It would be easy to find what the LDS church teaches about apostates. Good suggestions everybody.

Please comment on whether you think the links are fair. I had a funny feeling that linking to controversies about the LDS church might give the impression I want the focus to be on those things. Really just wanted to point to those things, and let the reader do what they want with it.

• Disagreements with founding church claims
• Disagreements with early church teachings or practices
• Excommunication

- etc. greenw47

I think it fine to link to the controversies page and Criticism of Mormonism in particular, and in-line links to specific doctrines (as it makes sense) that cause issues. For example, I relly don't think there is any support that one leaves because of the Adam-God theory, but they may because of polygamy and blacks and the priesthood and DNA research. So we should link to Blacks and Mormonism, Plural marriage and Archaeology and the Book of Mormon and similar pages. Anti-Mormonism may be a good link, but I think that is POV, as most exmos I know are not Anti-Mormon. No issues with the links at all. Also, we should propose that the LDS Apostates be merged here as it is very POV and inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Even the title presents a POV. But that will be a move after the proposed outline is filled out. Cultural Mormons and Practicing Cultural Mormons should be merged to each other, but stay seperate from this page.

I think we've reached a consensus on everything except for the Latter-day Saint/Latter Day Saint (ex-LDS versus ex-Mormon) issue. That to me is a big point that needs to be decided on. I still believe we should include other groups, such as ex-FLDS, ex-Strangite, ex-Apostolic United Brethren and the likes. All claim to be ex-Mormons. Thoughts, as no comments have been addressed on this topic. -Visorstuff 22:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The LDS apostates article looks more related to Apostacy - possible merge there. The anti-LDS mention is at the tail end of "... join other religions, become atheists, or even become members of the Anti-LDS movement." Like the "disgreements with LDS teachings," it's rather innoccous - not making any judgements either way. It could be changed from calling it a "movement" to just saying that they become anti-LDS.

I'm not opposed to adding ex-FLDS and ex-RLDS, etc. greenw47

I agree with green's suggestions on using links to LDS doctrine on a site like www.lds.org. I think the reasons list, "disagreements with . . .", "excommunication", etc. is fair. I think Visor might be wrong about the Adam-God theory, but we can leave it out. I disagree with Epachamo as well; I think there should just be links to doctrine, President's speeches, etc. regarding apostacy and leave it at that. If people want to read personal ancedotes there are already links to website that have those. I agree with Visor on the former members who cite psychological trauma, etc., if references can be found that everyone agrees on.

I like the idea of separate references. That way, people can ask "what is the LDS Church's take on this?", "what do ex-mormons say about leaving?", etc. I don't have a problem with including ex-FLDS and ex-RLDS, but that might be better to save for when we get the article underway.

Can't think of anything else right now, but maybe I'll come up with something after finals are over. Dianelowe 02:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Good points Dianelowe. Have one more question, should the article title be changed to "exmormon," rather than "exmormonism?" In re-reading the outline, it describes exmormons, but not a -ism (or belief set). Totally up to y'all, I just thought I'd bring it up. Also, on the mormon/nonmormon research sections, what about non-Mormon research? Also, how do we treat Albrect since he was on both sides of the fence/argument while he was away from the church at different times? Should we include in mormon if he has mormon groups assisting in the research and non-mormon if he had non-mormons assisting? -Visorstuff 14:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Coudn't agree more about the title. No need to complicate the references. Too many plates to keep spinning at one time. Greenw47 15:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been brought up, but under Ex-mormon community in your outline, the phrase "However, this is thought to be a very small sample of those who leave. " needs to be cited and attributed to a source, or else it needs to be removed as original research. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Exmormonism is fine as a description. It is as good as -say- vegetenarianism to describe former meat eaters. Martinscholes 11:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Visor, in the past any remark related to the "belief set" "Exmormonism" has been removed by POV editors. If Albrect's works are treated as you suggest, we need to make a comment somewhere why that is. Otherwise I think it would just confuse people. Dianelowe 01:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point, if I omit this when placing it in, please remind me, and do what I can to place in context. -User:Visorstuff 03:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Exmormonism refers to the characteristics and state of being - that just sounds goofy. Isn't there a rule about writing things that sound goofy? :) See the article on Mormonism - a "religion, movement, ideology, and subculture..." Dianelowe has a point; Exmormonism is not a set of beliefs. The article itself says that there are a variety of Exmormons. Those who join other religions, become atheists, become anti-Mormon, or just go away. greenw47

The problem seems to remain that without scholarly research on why people leave, any expalanation will be deleted as personal research. I think Visorstuff mentioned something from his research that can be verified (numbers, reasons for leaving, etc.). Greenw47 15:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I note that reference is made to "Exmormon blogs" and the link takes you to no exmormon blogs. Seems a tad pointless, having that link. Unless, of course, the link were to lead to http://notamormon.blogspot.com/2006/04/ex-mormon-websites.html which contains s large percentage of exmormon blogs and other exmormon websites? Martinscholes 20:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

How Swatjester got involved in the Exmormonism article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Swatjester#Exmormonism This answers the question of how SwatJester suddenly got involved in the Exmormonism article. Swatjester claims to not be a member of the LDS church, and might be able to provide some neutral input. greenw47

And he reported back to Visorstuff on his home page. At any rate he missed the point that there is a blatant call for a Mormon POV on this page, although thankfully reiterating the 3 non-negotiables. He also missed the fact that there is a entire block of fake references from the same authors who are Mormon church employees (something he wouldn't know, but we found out, but which has not been fixed). This needs to be entered as POV alert. Like this perhaps (*asterisk denotes LDS church employee). 166.70.243.229 16:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. And in that invite we read: "Lastly, they equate Mormonism with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and academically, they are very different things" Not, I think you will find in this space time continuum. I see that we do seem to have problems with what looks like a possible spoiler effort. Or a lack of understanding of a rather sensitive subject. Either way, this is a pity. Martinscholes 17:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if a never-mormon such as SwatJester can appreciate that the LDS church issues a private and secret Handbook of Instructions that outline all affirmations and requirements for church participation. Any offshore linking to this handbook may result in an automatic copyright lawsuit of the website that links it, as has been done in the past. If we linked it, Wikipedia would probably be sued into submission. 166.70.243.229 21:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The company that the Mormon church has set up to oversee the copyright of the Handbook of Instructions does guard it in a very fierce and zealous way. As of course, is their right. Martinscholes 22:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter how Swatjester got involved with this article, anyone can edit the articles. As a trusted wikipedian by the entire wikipedian community, he and others have been invited to participate to provide a non-mormon point of view to the article, to help keep the article free from either side's apologetics. Whether or not you like me, I truly believe in NPOV, and regularly ask non-mormon editors to help monitor my editing. Bashing him does no good to help your own, (and new) reputations on Wikipedia. -User:Visorstuff 03:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I was almost certain that the response of the LDS church would not be just that "Wikipedia ... be sued into submission", but that there would be something like the branding of everyone's head with a scarlet letter. Or maybe they would unite in some secret temple rite and eat the firstborn children of all those involved. It must be something grusome; after all we are talking about the Mormon church and you know about those people! People, do you see how absolutely pathetic you sound? Yes, I am sure there are boeggymen underneath your bed, but for now we are going to turn the lights on so all the monsters go away. Yes, little Johnny, adults really can think for themselves even thought they have never been Mormons. Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Visor, nobody is bashing Swatjester. Don't be silly. Swatjester is pointing out parts of the article that are anecdotal that need to be 1) cited; or 2)deleted. The focus on the quality of the article is greatly appreciated.

Stormrider, I don't see anything in your 06:52, 8 May 2006 discussion that pertains to the article. Please stay on topic or take it somewhere else.

Moving on, I've made relevant changes in response to suggestions by Swatjester. 5/8/06 3:23 am EST greenw47

Just seeking balance Great Balanced One. Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There cannot be a religion POV on the article as per guidelines. Furthermore, there is the conflict of interest and recusal issues that honorable Mormons should abide by when supplying interpretations. Your implied balance so far has been to balance the information with Mormonism, while our balance goal is to describe all Exmormons fairly. Balance with Mormonism is not even objective, but subjective. 166.70.243.229 16:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think I was famous enough to earn my own section on the talk page. For the record, I'm jewish, not mormon. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Psychological status?

The first paragraph is all anecdotal. The social status - how Exmormons are viewed by members of the LDS church is not. It's actually scripture. Greenw47 16:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was anecdotal at all, it was the only academic category in the entire article. The psychological part refers to the idea of recovery, which is a sociological and psychological phenomenon. It is also backed by overlapping theories to describe it, specifically cognitive dissonance and cults and mind control. It would suspicious to leave it out and have any psychological case against Mormon culture or need for recovery. 166.70.243.229 16:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I acted too hastily. It actually looks better how it is now. Greenw47 16:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

References to bulletin board postings

I removed this link: http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon108.htm, as it relates to a bulletin board (ie user opinions) rather than a stated mission, opinion of an organizations' web site, etc., as the others are.

If I erred, lets discuss here, but do you guys think that a bulletin board reference seems a bit less credible than the mission statement or the backgrounders that I linked to? Also, if we can branch out from exmormon.org and exmormonfoundation a bit more and find other sources, that would be ideal. I realize that they are the big ones, so they'll have the most info, (and that this gets back to the original issue that started this great discussion of what links to include, as these are the largest of their kind). and that others would be less credible, but what do you all think? Thoughts? -Visorstuff 20:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It is an archived survey from a recovery board, with details that sources the claim well beyond the term "marginalization." A recovery board is the only place to self-report this phenomenon, and it is the largest one. Furthermore, there have been over the years hundreds of cases reported of job loss, alienation, disinheritance, and divorce directly due to leaving Mormonism. Furthermore, implied from the premise of "leaving" Mormonism and experiencing a level of church condemnation or scriptural demonization, it is only a question of the degree of "marginalization," not if it exists. To devalue someone close to you by way of doctrine in any way is a form of marginalization. The link was an example of the level of this degree. I don't see how the claims don't square, but if it is matter of having a statistical sample, then I'm sure one can be arranged, and the place would be the same site that is questioned here. 166.70.243.229 20:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If Visor isn't willing to accept the archived bulletin board reference, What about this link from FAIR? http://www.fairlds.org/Mormonism_201/m20115.html Question #7 for the Temple Recommend: Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? In other words, if you support, affiliate with, or agree with any person or persons who don't agree with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you can't get a temple recommend and by extension, enter the temple.Dianelowe 21:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me just say first that I agree with the concept, and its not that I'm not willing to accept the source, I just think there are better ones out there. I fully understand that there are issues of this kind, we just need to find a better source. Self-reporting polls are not as scientifically accurate as other kinds, but I'm fine with including it, if there is nothing better.

Diane, I like the link - it is illustrative. I think it will work well, but it points to the cultural aspect and interpretation of the statement. For example, I answer "yes" to that question when I go in for a temple reccommend interview. It is followed up by another question, something to the affect of do you agree with or support their beliefs? - or something like that.

I think that the only problem with adding it in, is that FLDS and other groups officially teach members to actively shun their exmormon groups, whereas LDS is only a cultural teaching.

How about we expand the sentence to read:

They also must cope with the fact that those who leave are often marginalized, even by employer, spouse and family by Latter-day Saints who interpret temple recommend interview questions to mean they should not befriend those who have left the movement [1]. Some Mormon sects officially teach members to actively shun those who have left their church

It should be easier to find the second reference with the publicity that the lost boys and former apostolic united brethren have been recieving. -Visorstuff 21:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That reminded me that I was planning to created an article about the Lost Boys of Polygamy. I think there should also be a sister article (no pun intended) about child brides of Polygamy to go along with Lost Boys. Greenw47 18:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Visor, would you explain to me what a "cultural teaching" is then? I'm having difficulty understanding the idea of something that would be "culturally taught" but not practiced one one level or another. Also, what about the Church Handbook of Instructions, page 68:"Members Whose Close Relatives Belong to Apostate Groups: Bishops and their counselors must take exceptional care when issuing recommends to members whose parents or other close relatives belong to or sympathize with apostate groups. Such members must demonstrate clearly that they repudiate these apostate religious teachings before they may be issued a recommend."Dianelowe 21:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A cultural teaching is something that many Mormons or Latter Day Saints believe about something that is not doctrinal, and not offically taught by the church. For example, "one third part" of the spirits in heaven went with satan. Most Mormons believe that means 33.3333 percent, and it is culturally perpetuated. Others see it as three divisions, and one of the parts went with Satan. In any case, it has never been officially clarified by the church, and an answer one way or the other is speculation. Another is the concept of Outer Darkness. Most equate this to the place Joseph Smith called Gnolom. But in the Bible and Book of Mormon, Outer Darkness refers to the state of people in the spirit world who are not believers. Paradice and outer darkness are the two parts of "spirit prison" (the entire world of spirits is called spirit prison as the spirit look on their absense from their bodies as a prison. This is only one reason why D&C 138 was added to the LDS canon. The entire plan of salvation chart as taught by most sunday school teachers is doctrinally incorrect, and not found in church curriculum. And finally, most members believe they can become a god who will create their own world with purple dinosaurs and have strawberry-flavored lakes. becomeing gods and becoming creator-gods are very different concepts. And this teaching is completely not doctrinal (hence it was removed from Gospel principles), but is, again, a perpetuated cultural doctrine (and may very well be true). As I wrote elsewhere, "President Hinckley was criticised when he told Mike Wallace that he understands the philosophy behind us becoming creator-gods, but that he doesn't think that the church teaches it. To me, that was funny, because those who realize that the doctrine is much more complex than how most culturally believe it, accepted his explanation, while others thought that is strange that President Hinckley would deny that. It was simply a clarification of doctrine." You can read more about what the church teaches on the matter here [2]. And there has never been any church president that has said that polygamy will return. Again, another cultural perpetuation that is not correct. Any overstep of the doctrine is pure speculation, even if it may be true.

Now having said all of that, Mormons tend to speculate on doctrines, and some may be right. Some think they know everything. I know we don't know everything. In fact, the more I learn, the more I realize how little we know, and am grateful for what we have. This is why I am usually such a stickler as to what is a church doctrine and what is not. Other Mormon editors have hated me for it, but have agreed to stick closer to the doctrines. Mormons forget the part about "we believe...that God will YET reveal." I'm of the opinion that much of the rhetoric from some church leaders about blacks and mormonism were cultural - trying to justify the doctrine. In fact, if I remember right, Bruce McConkie stated as much when he recanted his teachings on teh matter in his famous "it doesn't matter what I taught, only what the prophet says" speech. Regardless, if its not in the canon, it usually is hard to state as doctrinal. It the membership believes it (such as shunning apostates) it is cultural, but it is not supported by doctrine.

As I stated before (and as you illustrated from the church handbook), as long as you don't believe in the teachings of those who are apostate, then you are fine. Or just by corresponding with you, i'd be unworthy. ;^) You see, Mormons (and others) believe more than is stated. Its not inherently wrong, but it is not correct. -Visorstuff 22:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Other Wiki articles have links to bulletin boards. What is so special about THIS article that these are deleted? Editorial bias bordering on cersorship? I do hope not... Martinscholes 21:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You points on Mormon doctrine are interestng. But this is an article on exmormonism. Not on Mormon doctrine. Martinscholes 23:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, this is not about Mormon doctrine. However, I was answering User:Dianelowe and her question about Mormon "cultural teachings." Had you read the thread, you wouldn't have responded the way you did. To understand exmormonism, you have to understand mormonism to a degree first. Because this article does deal with Mormons and exmormons, we have got to learn to work together. -Visorstuff 23:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You are in error I did read the thread and still responded in the way I did. Why? Because I believe the best way to deal with Mormon doctrine on this article would be to have a link to -say- the official LDS/Mormon church websites. Or a Mormon-edited Wiki article on Mormon doctrine. That would save time and space.Martinscholes 00:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The beauty and benefit of Wikipedia is that we are not bound by space contraints. We should be thourough in explaining ideas. -Visorstuff 21:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Every good writer is bound by space constraints. Why? for the sake of clarity. More waffle = less understanding. :o) Martinscholes 20:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro paragraphs

I don't think any of us are happy with the intro. What do you guys think about the following as a revised intro?

"Exmormon" is a colloquial term used to refer to former members - or a member of record - who no longer believes in the history, doctrine and teachings of any of the Mormonism denominations within the Latter Day Saint movement. Mormons who no longer believe in the doctrines or History of the Latter Day Saint movement of the movment, or otherwise avoid spiritual aspects of Mormonism but who remain members on official church records in order to preserve family relations or to participate in the cultural aspect of Mormonism, may also consider themselves Exmormons.

Mormons typically consider Exmormons "apostates," or Heretics and many tend to shun Exmormons. Although specifically counselled against by the LDS church leaders, this shunning is due in part to cultural teachings of Latter Day Saint leaders that former members have committed some sin or transgression that has caused them to lose faith. In addition Latter Day Saints, culturally believe that Exmormons will eventually become Anti-Mormon who will actively fight against churches within the movement.

Some Exmormons group together in communities (either locally or on the Internet) that function as support groups for those coping with the strains of leaving a belief system that had been a dominant force in their lives. One of the largest Exmormon groups that has generated a great deal of publicity is the Lost Boys, who are former members (both male and female) of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Exmormons are sometimes called "exmos," and should not be confused with Jack Mormons, which refers to less-active Mormons who generally maintain a positive attitude towards Mormons and Mormon sects.

If you have edits or are fine with this, please let me know. I'll add in sources after approval when we take the section live. -Visorstuff 21:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Visorstuff, you should be an editor on wiki. :) It's readable and neutral. It hits all the important points and it doesn't look like it was written by either side. It's shaping up well. Greenw47 16:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm very happy with the intro as it already stands, and I don't think a Mormon such as Visorstuff should be rewriting it to include a Mormon POV. Also, polygamists do not refer to themselves as exmormon; though they might refer to Mormons in terms synonymous with exmormon. This is getting absurdly twisted when we need to refer to what Mormon leaders counsel other Mormons to think about Exmormons. 166.70.243.229 21:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, 166. One would not want a Turkish point of view on the massacre of the Armenians, or a meat eating POV on a vegan article or a Mormon POV on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. "We did not do it" and "meat eating is GOOD" really would not help anyone. And nor, would I suggest, does a Mormon POV in an exmormon article. unsigned by User:Martinscholes

I'm fine with someone else re-writing, but it is pretty clear that others don't like the intro as stated by Greenw47 above. User:166.70.243.229, you apparently do not know any ex-polygamists then, or live in Arizona. Even the local news stations here call them exmormons (as do they themselves). Try to see beyond your myopic world view (this is not meant to be offensive, sorry if it comes across that way, its not), Mormon refers to more than just LDS, at least the rest of the academic world thinks so. Whether you like it or not, Exmormons are considered a part of, and studied as part of the Latter Day Saint movement.

Who then will re-write, as apparently, I'm apparently as unqualified as Remini or Brodie was to write about Joseph Smith, regardless of the amount of study we have in this field, everything we write should be discounted? Even Mormons don't discount all of their work, and most generally enjoy Remini's work.

How about just using the first two paragraphs above as the intro and dropping the rest into the body of the article? Other opinions? -Visorstuff 22:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Brodie would be more qualified to write objectively about Joseph Smith than you because she is not asserting a belief, and only disbelieves to the extent of her objectivity and research, which is valid.

You have done what many do to these simple arguments, which is reverse them to include the anti-bias in the same way as the bias. You are alluding that a disbeliever can't objectively write about disbelief; whereas it is also assumed that a believer cannot in fact write objectively about disbelief, because they are asserting that disbelief is in error and are not being informed by their objectivity, but by their subjectivity. The point is that the anti-bias is good here, not bad. A disbeliever does not necessarily believe Joseph Smith, therefore can write objectively as long as they don't assert a competitive doctrine to imply bias. 166.70.243.229 23:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You apparently haven't studied much of Fawn Brodie's works and writings. She states in the beginning of her work (and in supporting materials) that she doesnt' believe in Smith as a prophet and the work is to set forth her personal belief on the matter. I personally appreciate her background, her research and her bias - it changed the way many looked at Smith. I may not agree with her conclusions, but I also think she had much to offer. On the flip side, I have researched exmormonism, and am fully qualified to write on the matter.

You wrote: "You are alluding that a disbeliever can't objectively write about disbelief." This is crazy statement have you followed my edits much on wikipedia. I've always welcomed a non-belief point of view. It was my suggestion to ask non-LDS and Non Mormon editors to be a part of the Wikiproject:Latter Day Saint movement WP:LDS. I think people on the outside have much to add to the topic, in many cases more so than we who are clouded by strong opinions. This is yet another reason I invited Swatjester and Wesley and other non-mormon editors to edit here.

In any case, writing about anti-bias is moot, as this article involves both Mormons and non-mormons by its very essense. We've got to work together, and I'm willing to hear suggestions. -Visorstuff 23:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume that Brodie researched her position before she decided to even write a book. It was probably an article originally. Whatever she may have written, her "belief" on the matter is a disbelief in Smith's self-claims. It would not be prudent or wise to say she then "believes" that Smith is only human, so therefore she is asserting a biased doctrine of his non-powers. 166.70.243.229 00:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing a key point that if a Mormon prefers it, and we don't, then it would be in error, ethically and informationally. If you read carefully, I said that "polygamists" don't refer to themselves as exmormons, which you changed to be "ex-polygamists" which was my point. 166.70.243.229 23:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Even the local news stations here call them exmormons (as do they themselves)" Do they? Really? A cite on that please. Martinscholes 22:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Visor, this is no time for name-calling. We're getting close to a breakthrough here. 68.41.17.113 23:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where the name-calling comment came from, Don't see any of that from me, just a caution to look to the academic community, and not be myopic becuase the exLDS are the largest exmormon segment out there. No name calling was done. No worries either way.

Incidentally, Martinscholes, KFYI's "Nearly Famous" Barry Young regularly calls the Lost Boys exmormons, as does the channel 3 newscast. I'll pull though my personal interviews if you'd like for more sources on them calling themselves exmormons. Documenting this is a non-issue.

User:166.70.243.229, my apologies about the polygamy statements. Ex-FLDS people do call themsselves exmormons. If I misunderstood your objection, I'm sorry. We have to find someway to describe exmormons that is better than what is here, as it is too specific and not accurate as it stands. There is no "prefers" to a neutral article, which is what I'm striving for. While I recognize my edits are not free from my own POV, that is why I originally put the new intro here - for contructive feedback. If you can improve it, do it. My suggestion was simply one.

Is my suggested change really that far off base? What other specific issues are there with the edit, other than the author? -Visorstuff 23:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Really, Visorstuff? "I have researched exmormonism, and am fully qualified to write on the matter." I have to say I doubt that claim. You say you are "fully qualified" to write on exmormonism. do you have a qualification in exmormon studies? If so, I would be interested to discover which college or university offers such a course of study. And who teaches it and their religious affiliations.

Or did you mean to say that you believe that you know enough about exmormonism to consider yourself to be an expert in exmormonism? I think that is unlikely. (Wearing the other man's shoes, and all that... as your knowledge of exmormonism is filtered through your Mormon faith.)Also I think you intended to say that former members of other "Mormon" sects consider themselves exmormons. JUst to clarify that point. Martinscholes 00:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's get back to the article, guys. Bickering over my credentials is pointless. You know nothing of my history, other than I am currently LDS. Needless to say, if remini and brodie as scholars are qualified to write on Mormonism (and I believe they are, as are the tanners), then so am I. Please notice that I do not add in my own findings here (on the more accepted scholarly topics of "Disengaged" Mormons and "former Mormons"), as I try not to be self-promotional. And yes, I do claim that ex-FLDS and ex-apostolic united brethren and ex-strangites consider themselves exmormons, I do not think that those who become polygamous claim to be exmormons, but, rather purists. Anyway, back to the article at hand. What specifically is wrong with the suggested intro change? Specific please? -Visorstuff 01:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Visorstuff, we are discussing non-credibility and bias. Your position is compromised based on the criterion that non-bias is a credible objectivity that is avoiding prejudicial statements, intentional or otherwise. It is not what someone claims to know, but how they claim to know it. For example:

1. I believe in A, and write objectively about the belief in A: Conditionally unbiased, as long as disbelief is regarded as a valid option in order to remain objective.

2. I don’t believe in A, and write objectively about belief in A: Conditionally unbiased, as long as not asserting a counter-belief that would compromise objectivity.

3. I believe in A, and write objectively about non-belief in A. Biased. To sketch the position of those in disagreement with oneself must be assumed to be a stealth response to a rejection, especially regarding disbelief. It would be anger or jealousy to openly compromise one’s credibility by pseudo-objectively outlining the position that rejects one’s own assertions - essentially a self-made debate with a strawman of one’s choosing.

4. I don’t believe in A, and write objectively about non-belief in A: Never biased if never plausible, such as non-belief in flying pigs. However, if belief is plausible, such as shock therapy curing the common cold, then acceptance of this possibility is conditional to the amount of evidence and the credibility of those asserting it, or else it is a moral duty to expose it as a fraudulent belief if people are being defrauded. 166.70.243.229 01:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No bickering. YOU raised the subject of your credentials. I was merely asking you to support your claim to be qualified to write on exmormonism. You couldn't. Or wouldn't. OK, that's up to you. Seriously, if there IS a course on exmormon studies (as an exmormon) I would be interested in the details. Martinscholes 01:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Visorstuff, "This is crazy statement" and "Try to see beyond your myopic world view" are not name-calling per se. Try not to make things personal.

"Even the local news stations here call them exmormons (as do they themselves)" - that needs a reference. Not saying it's not true, just that it needs a citation if it's to be included. Those of us who were members of the mainstream LDS church (the one based in SLC and led by Gordon B. Hinkley) are more familiar with Exmormonism vis a vis the mainstream LDS church. If Lost Boys call themselves Exmormons, they should be included. However, they should be distinguished from those who left voluntarily. Everything I have read about Lost Boys talks about them being dropped in the desert at night or run out of town by polygamist groups they grew up in.

We all need to remember that when we ask for a reference, we ask for a reference rather than make it sound like an attack. If we all focus on the article, and not on personalities, we can get a lot more work done a lot faster. Greenw47 02:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Asking for wikipedian editors' credentials is silly. None of us should be doing original research, so no credentials should be required for any contributor. Actual contributions should be verifiable and NPOV, and so on. These criteria are applied to edits, not to editors. Naturally, one would expect academics and other "qualified" researches to be more able to supply citations, but the citation requirement applies to all of us. On the other hand, 166.70.243.229's repeated claims that Mormons in general, or Visorstuff in particular, are somehow "unqualified" to write on this topic simply because they are Mormons, constitutes a personal attack that is completely inappropriate and needs to stop. When Visorstuff said he was "qualified" to edit here, I suspect he only meant that his personal religious affiliation does not inherently disqualify him. I agree with Greenw47, that we all need to focus on the article itself, particularly on this Talk page. Wesley 16:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wesley, in the world of acedemia and book editing it works like this: If a person claims to be qualified in the subject being edited, then there's no big shock when someone else in the process says: "tell me what your qualification is in, please, and where you got it." Visorstuff brought up his credentials. Nobody else. Now, maybe you thought that was silly. That's entirely up to you. Martinscholes 16:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In the world of academia and book editing, writers are expected to do original research. That makes their personal credentials relevant, in that sphere. Here it's the opposite: writers are expected to NOT do original research, but provide citations to people that have. Context is everything.

Looking through history, it looks like Visorstuff was responding to the comment made to this edit, "rv biased edits from Visorstuff, who as an active LDS, cannot be considered to represent NPOV on this topic." made by 72.75.1.129. So in context, Visorstuff appears to be saying just that he can make good edits. To see whether he has or not, look at his edits and comment on those edits, not on Visorstuff (or any other editor). As I said before, assuming or asserting that anyone cannot make unbiased edits because of their religion is a NPA violation. Wesley 17:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wesley, you have inverted what is really happening here. Religiously biased views and religiously biased references were expressed or inserted that have a religious POV. The current policy is that religious POV is not allowed, for obvious reasons that it is biased. You seem to agree about this point. Thus, my statement holds true: "I'm very happy with the intro as it already stands, and I don't think a Mormon such as Visorstuff should be rewriting it to include a Mormon POV." Did you find this statement in error? Please point me to the error. Then, to avoid hypocrisy, consider that Visorstuff stated weeks ago that I was essentially unqualified because he thought I was neither a Mormon or current exmormon and threatened me with banishment for not being cooperative with his POV, referring to as the consensus. Do a word search on "troll" on the first talk page to confirm.

Furthermore, Visorstuff raised the issue of our qualifications by asserting that Fawn Brodie, and by implication, non-believers, were unqualified to write on the subject of their former faith's founder. This needed to be addressed immediately, which I did, because he was counter-asserting the qualifications issue back onto us. You seemingly found my delineated response in defense objectionable, then mischaracterized it, but yet did not realize it was in reply to questions of my own qualifications. Furthermore, repeatedly telling us how neutral a person truly is after being asked to the table by the same person is a form of self-promotion. Below is a fresh (for this page) summarized take of the wikipedia NPOV, disagree if you must:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial

Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.

You seem to disagree on this "proponent" standard ("...as if by its proponents...") for the overall balance and NPOV that addresses our concerns (because you object to our "proponent" concerns as exmormons). I would add, in case the point is missed, that there is no "proponent" standard for Mormonism in an "Exmormon" entry, definitionally, just as there is no smoking or meat eating "proponent" standards in an exsmokers or vegan page. "Balance" is balancing all Exmormon viewpoints, not Exmormon versus Mormon. If this point is disputed, then we need resolution immediately on this point. People can claim religious persecution, but few will believe them when they realize they are insincerely claiming it on a page with a perspective they are opposed to. 166.70.243.229 19:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Dianelowe 21:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, anon, I was stating that I felt that Brodie and Remini are quite qualified to write on the subject, even (or especially) as non-believers, not "Visorstuff raised the issue of our qualifications by asserting that Fawn Brodie, and by implication, non-believers, were unqualified to write on the subject of their former faith's founder". Quite the opposite. -Visorstuff 05:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The implication was that if they can write about Joseph Smith, then you can write about Exmormons. The problem with this, outlined above for this reason, is that Brodie can fairly be assumed to be objective to her subject by not believing Smith is a prophet, whereas a pro-Mormon has a conflict of interest with their objectivity if they offer a treatment of non-belief in Mormonism. Subjective belief is the bias, not unbelief. Bias cannot be excused by counter-justification or acts of revenge either. 166.70.243.229 06:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

166.70.243.229, I admit that I haven't read all the history of this discussion. But based on your and Visorstuff's summary, I still stand by what I said, and it sounds like all it really amounts to is that before you said Visorstuff couldn't edit this article, he said that he could. The standards and expectations for an author who is quoted or cited in a wikipedia article are quite different from the standards and expectations of a wikipedia editor. The first is expected to do original research and express their personal conclusions about the subject studied, the second is not, at least not in the actual articles. Wesley \

You wrote, Thus, my statement holds true: "I'm very happy with the intro as it already stands, and I don't think a Mormon such as Visorstuff should be rewriting it to include a Mormon POV." Did you find this statement in error? Please point me to the error. Ok, here's the error. Actually there are two. My primary objection is the way you referenced Visorstuff's personal beliefs in an attempt to discredit him: "... a Mormon such as Visorstuf..." That is a clear violation of the WP:NPA policy, and generally inappropriate. No one should be inserting bias into an article, regardless of what their personal beliefs are; an editor's religion is entirely beside the point. Even if you think it creates a "conflict of interest" or propensity towards bias, Wikipedia policy requires us to restrict our comments to the substance of the edits themselves, not the editor. Wesley \

Now regarding your excerpt from the NPOV tutorial: It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability. "Various views" includes all notable views of the article's subject, both favorable and unfavorable. To use your example, both the Veganism and Vegetarianism articles include "Criticism" sections showing why some people think that veganism is a bad idea. Those particular articles don't happen to include any direct criticism in their intros, but a number of other articles do. Whether this intro should or not is I suppose debatable, but it's by no means an open and shut case.

You said earlier that if we disagree on this, it needs to be resolved immediately. I agree that it does. Would you be willing to work with a mediator from the Mediation Committee to resolve it, 166.70.243.229? Wesley 16:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wesley, to use your example of my example, criticism of veganism is predictably related to the practical reasoning of the doctrine, or the abuse of veganism (as camouflage of eating disorders, for example), by those experts who disagree with the results, but yet who do not outline a doctrine of meat eating or represent meat interests. You did not comment on the smoking example, which would clearly refute your entire point here without being able to point to a non-doctrinal practical criticism, and I offer that as a counter-example, again.

I might also add that you selectively took the word "various" points of view to include the point of view that was specificially and definitionally rejected, ie, Mormon versus Exmormon. To argue for the direct inclusion of a Mormon POV is against the rules, and is anti-objective to the subject, and is opposed to the freedom of religion. Simple as that. There are no unbiased experts suggesting that people can't or shouldn't leave Mormonism, and I think Wesley understands this, but argues for it anyway.

I ask Wesley if he seriously advocates that a separate or alternative religious viewpoint, such as Catholicism, be included on a Mormonism page? Would that include a criticism section arguing that Mormons should never leave Catholicism to join Mormonism? The page would be long indeed if we included the proponents of other perspectives, as Wesley is advocating.

Wesley, let us do get this resolved. I think that when unbiased people realize which viewpoint you are arguing for the inclusion of, then they will realize that it is unfair to all Exmormon viewpoints, who all have a rejection viewpoint of Mormonism in common. The ruling for would then allow anyone who wanted to debate religion on any page, and wikipedia would be forever corrupted.

I would also add that if and when veganism becomes part of the "meat eating movement" (as Visorstuff claims Exmormonism is part of the "Latter Day Saint Movement" regardless of personal rejection) and pro-meat editors who swear private allegiance to meat eating in personal faithfulness interviews and who claim non-bias as they defend the meat packagers and producers on vegan pages, then you still haven't made a point, but merely corrupted wikipedia.

For the record, Wesley is objecting to my rejection of a religious POV because I also identified the religion of the POV included, as was self-reported by the editor involved. Wesley admits not reading the part where a religious POV compromise was offered, and seems to ignore the exchange I pointed him to where I was threatened with removal because of my assumed non-Mormon, non-Exmormon status. Wesley was also invited here for comment by the same subject he is defending, and who violated Wesley's interpretations. I personally think this selective and coordinated attack against me constitutes WP:HA.166.70.243.229 17:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

166.70.243.229, I'm sorry I missed the bit about your being threatened with removal because of your assumed religious status. (Not sure how a potentially shared IP address could have a specific religious status though...) For the record, my intention is to defend everyone's right to contribute to this and every other wikipedia article regardless of their personal religious affiliation or non-affiliation, provided they abide by wikipedia's policies and so forth. I hope we're agreed on this? Wesley \

Not to press the veganism point too far, but I happen to belong to a religion that does encourage its members to abstain from most meat and all dairy products, but only on certain days that add up to roughly half the year. (And I don't mind saying I'm neither Mormon nor Exmormon, unless perhaps if someone baptized me by proxy without telling me... dunno if that would count. :-)) We eat meat because it's part of the good creation that God gave us to eat (Genesis 9 I think), and we fast from meat partly to give the animal kingdom a break, and in anticipation of future universal vegetarianism, as well as other reasons. Some monasteries encourage vegetarianism year round, or are much stricter during Lent by skipping the few fish days. Even here, the abbot may insist that on one day during Lent, all monks eat some meat, so that none can boast that they kept the fast perfectly. (Years ago I think I put something about this on one of the vegetarian related pages, but I can't find it now.) So in that case, with appropriate citations and so forth, there really ought to be room for discussing more than one side of the question of eating meat. Just as in this article, there ought to be more than one POV represented. Wesley 16:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally no-one was "threatened with removal because of ... assumed non-Mormon, non-Exmormon status." But rather, the anon (before it was known he was an exmormon) was warned he would be blocked for personal attacks and disruption by another admin:

As an admin on Wikipedia, again, I invite you to register and actually try to help move articles forward rather than constantly complain about groupthink or that you are being attacked when someone tries to help you correct the documentation of your sources. Again, I'm not attacking, but as an anonymous user you are behaving like a troll and such negativity and disruption can eventually lead to the blocking of your IP address by another admin (I will not as I was involved in the discussion). Talk pages are for building consensus and helping with improving the article in question, and your discussions and 350 edits on 24 pages since December 2005 so far do neither, but rather criticize and "argue the question" on a number of topics. You do not have the best track record and working with other editors. Let's get someone who is exmormon wikipedian to edit appropriately. I do not plan to address you directly as an anonymous user again, as our discussions are not productive or helpful to Wikipedia articles. Good luck in your wikipedia editing. Epachamo, I'll reach out to some known exmormons and have them take a look.

This is true for any Wikipedian. They can be blocked for bad behavior, regardless of religious affiliation. This was not specific to religion as the anon alluded to, as all can see [3]. -Visorstuff 21:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Just IMO, the intro paragraph is trying to do too much. It is not only trying to describe exmormons (or the state of exmormonism which I still think sounds funny) but it also tries to describe Jack Mormons and Cultural Mormons. Is a discussion of Jack or Cultural Mormons really necessary? It seems that adding internal links, and a simple mention that Exmormons should be distinguished from the other two would be enough. If people want to read more about J or C, they can click on the internal links. Greenw47 12:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to the proposed change, or the current version? I think the draft above addresses this, no? -Visorstuff 16:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess I should have specified. The current version looks like a horse drawn by committee. Though I think concensus is a good thing, it seems like the current (as of 5/15/05) intro is a hodge-podge of various little nuggets that people wanted to throw in. (Don't forget to mention that exmos are not the same as Jack Mormons. Oh, that reminds me that there are also Cultural Mormons; don't confuse them with Exmormons. Oh, that reminds me! Don't forget that not all, but some, possibly many, but not every, Jack Mormon has positive feelings toward the Church. Make that the LDS church.) I'm exaggerating for effect here, but it seems like a lot of people have thrown in what they think is necessary for the article, but it has packed the intro paragraph so it looks more like a fruitcake than an explanation of what Exmormons are.

At this point, the proposed intro looks better than what we have. I still have a problem with the article being about Exmormonism. As we've seen in just a small sample of Exmormons, there is no such thing as Exmormonism. Diane, Martin, 166, and I can't even agree on what Exmormonism is. That's doesn't betray a stupor of thought, but a rejection of a "one true way." (Which is at the very center of being an Exmormon.)

For that reason, I hope the article can be renamed "Exmormon." Greenw47 17:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

After looking up Ex-Mormon I have changed my mind about changing the name. Greenw47 00:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Reaverdrop edits

The Yahoo groups references were not useful because they implied the total Yahoo group users said something about the total online exmormon community. We have no idea what percentage of exmormon online activity takes the form of Yahoo groups, but it's probably not that much. The largest one pales in comparison with the activity on the exmormon.org forum. (The Yahoo group data are also always changing, making the cite already outdated; the largest one was practically at 1800 membership now, not 1700.)

Visorstuff invited me to contribute here after confirming my exmormon credentials, which he had a pretty solid idea of from our recent exchanges at Talk:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (especially here). I've been active on Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, trying to eliminate NPOV from both sides of the aisle. I also started the entry on Genetics and the Book of Mormon. I think Exmormonism is an important topic, and there's a lot of solid information out there waiting to be added. - Reaverdrop 03:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Reaverdrop, you probably have a lot more experience at wiki, so thanks for your involvement. Visorstuff and I (among others) have been pulling our hair out trying to get this article whipped into shape. A difficult issue, as far as I see it, is that many Exmormons have a lot of experience that is not documented. We realize individual research is an issue on wiki, and we want to keep the Exmormon article as neutral and well-cited as possible.

Visor, thanks for your kind words. I think now that we've established that we're both tough customers, we can work together and maybe even have fun at this. I think you've got some good resources that can help with the "Why people leave" section. Cheers. Greenw47 16:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think using the word "rituals" in "Reasons for leaving" is POV. Doesn't ceremonies or rites sound better? Greenw47 17:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really sure how a link to skepticism fits here. Greenw47 02:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Still not sure how skepticism fits in, and there has been no answer, so I'm deleting it. Greenw47 14:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm ex-Mormon as well, although I've yet to shoot the breeze with any LDS politicians (well, outside of ward politics). However, while it can be helpful to have an "ex-Mormon POV" to balance things, I find it very troubling that there's been such a strong bias against Mormon editors... something that should be totally irrelevant. Personal beliefs are unimportant as long as the content is being written neutrally, something that I've seen many of the involved editors — Visor, Swatjester, and Storm Rider, to name a few — do well. Assuming good faith is a principal that isn't being followed very well here by some parties on both sides of the issue. At any rate, just wanted to weigh in. _*ding* Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 08:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The question is whether a Mormon POV is allowed or not and whether balance includes either a Mormon POV or opponent perspective. For example, a lengthy fake reference section was recently dropped in, suddenly, without change to content, and the defenders cannot even characterize these readings, nor was it used for content. However, some of the same editors you recommend say we simply don't like them because we would "disagree" with them. So much for good faith. Now they seemed primed to be available for more pasted content from the same secondary Mormon sources it was borrowed from that condemn or blame leavers, as Green discovered. I was threatened with banishment if I deleted them once more, still without any explanation of their usefulness. So we need to flag them for potential POV and retitle the section. I'm only telling you this because I have good faith you are unbiased and was not invited here by Visorstuff to comment in his favor. 166.70.243.229 18:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You are an ex-Mormon, yet seem unable to understand why some ex-Mormons are upset when a practicing Mormon tells them that they are still part of the "Mormon movement", and then proceeds to tell them that the ex-Mormon article must include a Mormon POV. I find your lack of understandng mindblowing. Tell you what. Let's try an experiment. Go to the Vegan pages on Wiki and try to tell them they MUST include the POV of the slaughterhouses and meat packers. Then come back here and tell us how it went. I am being serious. If that rule works for the ex-Mormon page on Wiki, it must also be valid for other pages, such as the Vegan pages. Martinscholes 18:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right that it shouldn't have a Mormon POV. NPOV doesn't mean it has to include a POV of an opposing side; an encyclopedia article shouldn't have POV going either way, it should have facts. Facts are not dependent on personal beliefs. I haven't tried to figure out everything Visorstuff tried to put in, but there has been and is POV content going both ways. I think the way forward is to concentrate on adding factual content from documented sources. - Reaverdrop 18:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Reaverdrop, NPOV refers to the neutrality and balance regarding the subject of Exmormonism, and the perspective becomes biased when either a religious or opponent POV of the entry subject is included, in this case they are combined yet still called for. To make matters more confusing, this holds true on a Mormon page for an opponent POV, and without the unverifiable religious POV too. Consider the page you are discussing, not a hypothetical debate. 166.70.243.229 19:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest in irritating vegans, thanks. Let's stay on topic. Regarding 166's question of whether there should be separate sections for opposing POV's, WP:NPOV explains it as follows:

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... 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. (emphasis added)

Forgive me if this has already been gone over before, but I don't see any need for debate here, or objection to presenting the contrasting opinons. Clearly an ex-Mormon will have a very different understanding of his or her experience of leaving the Mormon church (and what it entails in terms of religious belief, etc.) than a Mormon would. If the LDS perspective is that an ex is still a part of the movement, for example, then okay, add it to that section. And then add the contrasting opinion to the ex section. I agree, I don't consider myself "part of the 'Mormon movement'" either, but that doesn't mean that I should edit out fact, if it's sourced by an authoritive LDS statement. Where's the problem here? Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 05:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, as has been noted, a religious POV is not allowed, and I would suppose that goes double for an opponent viewpoint. If you can find an expert who neutrally suggests that one can't or shouldn't be an Exmormon, they would be quoting Mormon doctrine since Exmormonism doesn't preclude joining any other religion. BTW, any viewpoint which suggests that an Exmormon made a mistake in leaving, or needs a particular religion, cannot presuppose belonging to Mormonism over any other without a purely religious POV, so a Mormon POV on this is logically out of the question.

I would add that your quotations of "all significant" viewpoints is key here, and simply does not apply where it conflicts with NPOV, so your "all" never includes a religious POV. Especally a Mormon POV against the NPOV of Exmormonism--and I would encourage people to think of the double conflict here, it isn't just a religious POV, but an opponent POV too. Furthermore, and I think this is my key objection, wikipedia stongly objects to "systemic" bias. This is approaching our problem, but hasn't dealt with it explicitly, apparently. It is not a contradiction for wikipedia to discourage editors from speaking for Exmormons if they happen to be sworn religious opponents, because there are a myriad of ways they can skew the facts they disagree with to corrupt any entry, or include rumors they agree with that seem like facts to them. You can call it what you like: etiquette, truth, academic integrity, ethics, common sense, or even honesty, while the simple fact remains that unsuspecting readers deserve to read a restaurant review in their local paper from someone who is not an employee or owner of their direct competition. Such a reviewer would to have an obligation to mischaracterize it, and if they insist, then they are just testing the resolve of fairness.

As such, I firmly believe wikipedia will develop an explicit policy that discourages characterizing those parties who are "definitionally" opposed to the beliefs of the editor, as it cannot be justified. Many here seem accustomed to the way it was allowed when there were fewer editors. But this entry has gone beyond a simple definition into a characterization. When the conflict arises and a call must be made, a vegan should not be in charge of organizing an exVegan page. I don't know what self-interests people would have to argue for any other way, because the desire to characterize one's opponent is implied to be in proportion to the desire to oppose them. This addresses neutrality as a fine point and any reversal of the finer points of neutrality simply removes all other possible neutrality, because the finer points would contradict the premise.

Ethically, rules should not regard the religion of any editor UNLESS that editor is challenging the rational ability to disagree with their religion, because that is fairness. This is the case being made here. If people assert that a simple rule of religious etiquette can be absolute, even where it contradicts itself, they would be wise to study the incompleteness of formal systems. 166.70.243.229 18:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have yet to find the section in the policy where it says "present significant points of view, unless it's based upon religious belief." If you can find it, by all means, please show it here. And as strongly as you seem to feel about not allowing people of one belief to make edits about something in opposition, that's your own opinion, and it's not (and never has been) part of how editing is done here. If it were, we'd have to dump most of the content of articles like Fred Phelps, Alex Chiu, etc. If anything, it provides a POV check on the domination of any one viewpoint. In any case, if you feel the need to continue to debate your suggestion, this is not the place to do so. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 04:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You would be ignoring the NPOV policy then, clearly. Also, you have stated that I strongly feel that people in opposition can't make edits, but I never wrote such a thing, because edits are one thing and systemic bias is another. The point being that systemic bias is a developing policy which you can read at your leisure if you care to, although you probably won't agree with its premise. I notice how somewhat interesting that you tell me this is not the place to debate a suggestion but insist a Mormon POV should be inserted in the main article. I don't credit your theory. 166.70.243.229 05:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:BIAS: Wikipedians also tend to self-select more heavily among adherents of political ideologies or religious beliefs, as well as among those opposed to one or more beliefs. Those with no obvious agenda will be less likely to edit Wikipedia than those with an axe to grind. This leads to articles which are not detached and NPOV at all but contain a mix of heavy-handed promotion and heavy-handed criticism of the same topic. 166.70.243.229 15:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:BIAS is a project, not a policy or guideline. Maybe it will develop into a policy someday, as you proposed earlier: As such, I firmly believe wikipedia will develop an explicit policy that discourages characterizing those parties who are "definitionally" opposed to the beliefs of the editor, as it cannot be justified. When that explicit policy is developed, then you can come here and encourage us to follow it. Now, regarding quality and tenor of articles on religious topics, there certainly is a risk of of them becoming "a mix of heavy-handed promotion and heavy-handed criticism of the same topic." Some articles have avoided this fairly well, others haven't, and of course they're all in flux as editors come and go. But discouraging some editors from even participating in them is not the solution. Wesley 16:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wesley, I am free to criticize bias anytime I please according to NPOV, even to provide examples for its understanding. I have never once threatened anyone with blocking or banning, but you have alluded this procedure onto me, as have others editors on this page, explicitly and routinely. If you are making the leap that I am trying to discourage or remove you, or are feeling discriminated against, that would be a psychological projection on your part. 166.70.243.229 16:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate to be picky but the correct philosophical definition of a fact is something that can be proved to be true or false. Therefore "The moon is made of green cheese" is a "factal statement" because it can be proven to be right or wrong by testing lunar soil samples, for example. However, "the Moon is nice because it is made of green cheese" would not be factual, it woud be an evaluative statement, instead. So perhaps we need less rather than more "facts"? (g) Martinscholes 22:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right about the philosophical definition, but on wikipedia, it's no accident that the {{fact}} macro produces a "Citation needed" note and not a "Proof needed" note. Wikipedia aims to include what is verifiable, not what is true. Religious beliefs generally aren't "provable" scientifically, but you can verify whether anyone actually believes something. That's what the References section is for. Wesley 16:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Wesley, I made that point because some people seem unable to come to terms with this:- That a fact, in a faith-based debate may not be a "fact" at all. For example, there are no facts in Mormonism. Not one. Faith-based opinions, certainly, but no facts. (No golden plates to see, etc.) There may be facts relating to how many people are/are not Mormons, and so on, but these are only fringe issues, I would argue.Martinscholes 01:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Aha. So anything fictional must be deleted from Wikipedia as well, right? Because it's not factual. And of course, absolutely nothing is Mormonism is factual. Nothing whatsoever, except for those "fringe issues". Perhaps you should spend some time looking over the other articles on religious groups to get a better idea of what is worked into articles here. It's absurd to suggest that an article on a religion shouldn't contain that religion's beliefs. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 04:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I may be dense, but are we beating a dead horse? Martin and ANON 166 have very definite ideas that generally are outside of WIKI policy; however, they are Exmormons and have something to say. Can we just move along and see how this now progresses.

Martin, I would enjoy debating with you on facts and fringe facts about Mormonism. I think your point is that Mormonism as a religion is based upon faith and as such, those things of most importance to LDS, as with all adherents of any relgion, are based upon faith. We all understand this point. Let's move on. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's dead. Time to get some work done. Martin, 166, if you feel a need to continue to debate the points you've brought up, feel free to WP:RFC this article. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 02:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Point for TB: The existance of Bethlehem is a fact. The existance of -say- Zarahelma is not. That is one difference. Martinscholes 22:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Again irrelevant to the article at hand. This article is about a social or belief demographic, not about the religion of Mormonism itself. If you want a discussion about evidence for or against or the truthiness of Mormonism, an apologetics or exmormon or antimormon or similar bulletin board would be a more appropriate forum. In the same way you cannot prove God or that Jesus lived, you cannot prove any other religion, including Mormonism. Wikipedia reports what the belief sets are, and gives additional context, not judges the verifiability of the belief set. -Visorstuff 22:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Post-Exit Status

Doesn't Post-Exit deserve its own section, with social, religious, and psychological status in their own subsections? If you don't like it, feel free to rv. Greenw47 02:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Great, glad you like it. :) Greenw47 17:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It might need a noun, such as the one you used on the title here. Post-exit Status. This dovetails with the dictonary definition of characteristics and state of being (status). 166.70.243.229 18:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the paragraph on the views of Mormons as to why people leave. Given that the subtitle was Post-exit social status, I did not see how it belonged as it was written. I attmepted to rewrite it multiple times, but never felt like I could encompass all that members might feel. I think the import of what the original drafter was attempting to state was that members may feel that individuals leave because of moral transgression. I think that may play a role, but it is certainly not the dominant theme. I am not even sure there is a dominant theme. In my life I have seen numerous reasons for people wishing to separate themselves from the LDS church, culture, etc. If I saw a person who had once been active and I am aware that they have left the church my feelings are affected more by what I see of the persons actions than anything else. If they join another church I really don't have a concern. These are my personal feelings and I do not speak for Mormons at large or as a group. The main concern is, "are you happy?". If they are happy, the case is closed. The church, its theology and doctrine, or its culture can do nothing for the individual. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Though I can see you spent some time on the paragraph, there were no prior complaints about it; whether it was POV or not. The purpose was to show the social status of exmormons. That is affected directly by what members are taught in church - which can be documented (note how there were scriptural references to Satan deceiving the hearts of men, etc.). Also the scriptures referenced were not talking about a particular person in history. At times, in the D&C, Joseph Smith revealed that certain people were under the influence. But the scriptures cited were talking about people who leave in general. Now, it is all anecdotal, with no references to anything. Like I said, I know you spent a lot of time on it, but it has gone from a well-cited piece to something completely anecdotal.

Lastly, since Exmormons see the LDS church as just one church among many and not the only true church, Exmormons do not refer to the LDS church as "the" church. That is a big red flag to Exmormons that the paragraph was written by an active member. Greenw47 16:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The point here is that we want the article to look like it was neither written by an active LDS church member nor an Exmormon. No axes to grind, just stating facts. Greenw47 17:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

To state a few scritures and allude that is why LDS feel the way they do would be an overstatement. If we are going to start stating scriture it might be better to list the many scriptures of going after the one lost sheep to bring them back to the fold. The scriptures quoted were those of condemnation, of which there are many in the Bible. It goes to "tone" of writing. I will approach from another direction, with references and citings.

In this article many editors have attempted to get to the point where we include all the churches within the Latter Day Saint movement. When we are talking about the LDS church, how their memebers feel, I suspect that everyone is intelligent enough to understand that the church is referring to the LDS church and not a pretense for stating the One and Only Holy Roman Catholic church or the one true church known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a big red flag for LDS when people get very touchy about labels and demonstrates the poeple invovled have an axe to grind rather than a desire to produce excellent articles. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The section was verifiable. I can't say that about the section that replaced it out of the blue.

Just when I thought we were making progress. Please discuss before wiping out entire sections. We've been making a lot of progress here. Visorstuff and I have put aside personal differences and we have come up with some well-cited, well-written sections that do not support any point of view. Please don't take us backward. I really feel you are being counter-productive.

When I explain why Exmormons use "LDS Church" instead of "the Church" I am simply stating a fact. Making accusations is just being counterproductive. Please try to stick to the task, and not make this an emotional argument. Greenw47 17:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This is article is about exmormons, not about what church members want for exmormons. Therefore, the way the post-exit psychological status section that was written about what church members want for exmormons was reverted back to a section that was already well-written and worked well. Greenw47 15:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia- not straw house debate

Who is in charge of edits here? This section should just be taken out because it not only lacks proof or citation , it is rediculous in its logic.

"Most Mormons tend to shun Exmormons after their exit, as leaving Mormonism ranks among the highest sins one can make according to the Mormon religion, and is often perceived as a lack of endurance or a moral failing."

Should any debatable issue be started with an undocumented "most", come on here. We're trying to prove the highly speculative opinion of some joe bloe that most mormon shun those who leave the church because they have commited some hanious (sp?) sin like murder or adultury? Come on! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a teenage opinion blog. First off, dont generalize (ie "most"), second define "leaving mormonism", third define "mormonism", fourth who says it's "among the highest sins".

Did it ever occur to anyone, that the exmormons like the ones contributing to this page are the primary ones doing the shuning? Read this article, go to an exmormon site, they are quite often very insulting and negitive against the church- do you think that makes "mormons" in good standing want to hang out with them.

Anyway, this is not the place to debate. Lets just keep this article based on fact. Which is so muddled in debate on this subject that it makes this article a joke.

//// (unsigned by Lbweaver)

Tell you what, you tidy up your remarks, and perhaps people will be willing to take them seriously. As it is, you are not expressing yourself, very well, are you? Martinscholes 18:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Lbweaver, and welcome to the work in progress known as the Exmormonism article. Many people have put many hours into this article. Please familiarize yourself with this discussion as a lot has been done lately. It is not the purpose of this article to define Mormonism, as that has been done very well on other pages. The purpose of this article is to tell what Exmormons are, give a few reasons why they leave the LDS church, and what they do after they leave. The purpose is not to discuss whether or not the reasons for leaving are valid as that gets into a very POV discussion.

To answer your question on where we got sources for shunning, see shunning. The paragraph on shunning Exmormons was taken directly from LDS scriptures.

Looking forward to your contributions. As you will see, people working on this article are very strict about sources. Greenw47 23:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Outer Darkness paragraph

I deleted the following paragraph:

Commonly held church beliefs concerning outer darkness for a son of perdition from denying the Holy Ghost are controversial topics, but which apply to former believers, and may cause an Exmormon to be regarded as a candidate for eternal damnation. This condemnation is based on the rejection of Mormonism by having once been a member, since others will be allowed to join in the next life with no condemnation. The current LDS temple recommendation interview contains the question: Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?[4].

The reasons for this deletion are as follows:

1. There is no commonly held church belief that exmormons will be sent to Outer Darkness. Our Darkness is reserved for sons of perdition. A son of perdition is one who no longer lives by faith, but lives by a sure knowledge that Jesus lives and is the Son of God. In fact, they know Jesus is the Christ and reject him and choose to follow Satan. A very, very small group would even be possible to be so condemned. Exmormons do not fall into this group; at least I have never heard any exmormon proclaim they know Jesus Christ and have rejected him to follow Satan.
2. An exmormon is not viewed as one who rejects Jesus Christ. However, LDS would feel that they have rejected the fullness of the restored gospel. They may be viewed as willingly choosing to break the eternal family bond, accepting lesser truths, or just wnwilling to be obedient to the teachings of Christ. The perspective will very much depend on what an exmormon does with their life after leaving the church (i.e. are they actively engaged in another church? Have they abondoned moral teachings? Do they fight against other LDS and/or the church?)
3. I have not a clue why the last sentence about the temple recommend interview is invovled. There is no connection between it and the previous sentences.

Maybe this paragraph can be rewritten, but as it currently stands it is misleading and shows a lack of understanding of Mormon doctrine. It is possible that an LDS member without a limited understanding of the doctrine may accuse a person of becoming a son of perdition/denying the Holy Spirit, but that would be inappropriate. Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I admit I had to look up anathema (had a general idea, but wanted a dictionary defition). http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anathema

After doing so, I think the section is a good addition. It actually works well with what used to be in the post-exit social status section. Greenw47 17:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Stormrider, I think the main idea should be included for the simple reason that it is a common criticism among people who only go to church and don't read the combed commentary. The son of perdition article contains a reference to those with former belief in Mormonism by way of the Holy Ghost, who are definitionally exmormon, with an attempt at a moderating explanation further down that alludes to it being misnamed for a visitation from an angel or Jesus, and I won't speculate on anyone who would bother under those conditions. For what it's worth, I can confirm that the SOP/OD condemnation is a common belief among some Mormons for simply leaving after having believed in it to one degree or another, as I have had to counter this criticism personally, though not as harsh as this one publicly posted to the owner of exmormonism.org, with permission (boldness added):

http://www.exmormon.org/lovemor3.htm

Dear Eric Eric you SUCK!!!! I am an Elder in the Church. I am going to go on a mission for the church and I hope that I end up on your doorstep so that I may take the opportunity to kick you in the Butt. You are a backstabbing slimy son of perdition. May you and all your followers rot in HELL (particularly in perdition's FLAME). The trouble with you is that you have to high of an opinion of your own mind. You know absolutely nothing. Do you seriously beleve that even SATAN would waist his precious time trying to capture your worthless soul? You are the epitomy of stupidity. You might try trying to back up some of your claims with fact. Or you might try backing up over your self!!! I seriously hope that you never acctually had a testimony of the church. Because if you ever acctually knew that it was true you will be cast into outer darkness with the other sons of perdition. I sign off wishing you early transmission failure on the express way at abour 4:30 P.M. Also may the flees of a thousand camels infest your armpits!! P.S. YOU SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you have the balls to post this message kindly omit the e-mail address. But please send back saying you posted it. Thank you for your time Good evening.

166.70.243.229 17:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the sadness of this quote (which I'm sorry you were the target of - its totally unacceptable from anyone- but especially someone claiming to be a Christian), I'm not sure that exmormons becoming Sons of perdition is a common mormon cultural belief. I've certainly not heard it as such, or even mentioned in sunday school or priesthood more than once in my life, and then it was quickly corrected. But obviously my LDS experience is very different than yours was. Incidentally, the concept of ODarkness and SOPerdition is doctrinally incorrect as stated above. ODarkness is a spirit world thing. Do we have more on this than a bulliten board post to document that people believe this? Again, this is why ancedotal references, such as bulletin boards and email are ancedotal, not authoritative. In the same vein, I could state that exmormons want Mormons dead, thanks to a death threat I recieved last week because of this article. But I know that is not the case, but a statistical outlier. Perhaps a link to such a teaching at LDS.org? Are there other examples of this as a teaching aside from this horrible email? I agree that it would make a good addition, however, it, as Storm Rider said "shows a lack of understanding of Mormon doctrine" - which we all know happens in and out of the church. Many Mormons hardly understand or study their own doctrine, just like most religions, which is unfortunate. -Visorstuff 19:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In my experience most church members have an accurate understanding of the official church doctrine, that one is only capable of becoming a son of perdition after having received a sure knowledge of Christ and then rejecting him, and that a sure knowledge of Christ is very rare for believers to gain in this life.

And that horrible email is far more offensive than any sentiments I've ever seen expressed by an LDS member toward an ex-Mormon. - Reaverdrop 20:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In my personal experience, the sentiments in the quote are very common, usually among militant young Mormons who haven't learned to square it with mainstream Christian doctrine. Denial of this sentiment by those who argue for their "true" knowledge of Mormon doctrine would be expected, because it is a non-sensical doctrine for someone to deny something they "know" in order to receive such a punishment, implying they know that too, which means they would be mentally handicapped, and that doesn't cover the nonsense of the Holy Ghost bothering to witness to a corrupt person. But these self-proclaimed experts have a disconnect with the common Mormons who don't promote radical theories to explain something as simple as "denying the Holy Ghost."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_beli.htm

Bold added:

Nature of Hell: Hell exists. It is a place where the wicked will pay for their sins, during the millennium. Most will eventually "pass into the telestial kingdom; the balance, cursed as sons of perdition, will be consigned to partake of endless wo [sic] with the devil and his angels." (Doctrines and Covenants", 76:84). Sons of perdition have been defined as some of the individuals who were once devout Mormons, but have who have become apostates. Others define them as those who committed the unforgivable sin, which is to deny the Holy Ghost or shed innocent blood once enlightened. Both of these sins presuppose a knowledge of the truth which one then fully apostasies from. 166.70.243.229 21:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Good source for someone believing it and presenting both sides of the argument - both of leaving the church or denying the HG as qualifying for SOP. Add it in, but please state that this is a cultural belief of some mormons and not doctrinal, (and still in my opinion not at all mainstream - I really don't think it is accurate, but it is at least sourced) Might as well add in the quote verbatim, rather than paraphrase. -Visorstuff 22:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

(this quote was late in sending/others have already added info) I am sorry, but I don't understand what the first paragraph is supposed to mean. Please try not to be so cryptic and use simpler language for the benefit of those who are slow. I do not believe Mormons are considered mainstream Christians and so to demand that "radical, young Mormons" square anything with orthodoxy seems unrealistic. If I can grasp anything is that you attempt to deny anyone would be stupid enough to deny something they know to be true. I would offer the example of Judas; LDS would believe he was an apostle who knew, not thought or believed, but knew that Jesus was the Christ and yet chose to deny Christ and follow Satan. His example is contrasted with Peter's where Peter denying knowing Jusus, but never followed Satan. To know and deny is the same as to deny the Holy Spirit.

You seem to be quoting something in the latter part of the last paragraph, but it is not attributed. D&C 76:84 is not contradicted by my statements above. Anyone can be an apostate or be in various degrees of apostasy. I am aware that it is not universally accepted within the church about having a "perfect knowledge" (However, I believe the majority hold this concept as truth). I am not aware of which theologian/genearl authority that represents the other side that believes any apostate can become a Son of Perdition. Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No need to reinvent the wheel. The article on outer darkness has already been written. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Darkness Greenw47 03:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, just a very simple request. Since the article as is is still marked as having neutrality problems, how about if we iron out what we have now before adding new stuff. Not to say there is nothing that needs to be added, but it seems like we don't need to start any more fires until we put out the ones we have going. (Just IMO.) Greenw47 20:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That was me (208.39.170.90) who added the internal link to Holy Ghost - forgot I wasn't automatically logged in (public computer). Greenw47 13:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Simplifying

The last part of the first section is actually duplicated in the reasons for leaving. Also, it is not cited. Please feel free to put back in with citations. Also, I'm adding internal links (after exploring wiki a bit more) and finding that much of this has already is written and stabilized. Greenw47 03:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The Example of Korihor

I am not interested in getting into a edit war over the pargraph that mentions Korihor. However, ANON 166's edits have continued to make the paragraph less than what it could be. I have done the following, over-lengthy analysis for which I already offer my apology, but I felt it necessary to cite everything in order to not be accused of POV or twisting the story to meed my objectives:

My edit:

There are unique precepts in LDS scripture and doctrine concerning those who openly disagree with church hierarchy as those to be potentially reviled. Korihor, a person briefly mentioned in the Book of Mormon ([5]), had begun to deny the prophecies of Jesus and a belief in God. He is arrested for leading many away from the truth of Christ. He seeks for a sign to prove the existence of God and is miraculously struck deaf and mute by the chief-judge. He receiving this sign he confesses to lying about his disbelief by being deceived by Satan and goes door to door begging for his survival, finally to be trampled to death by those who fought against people of God.

ANON 166's edit:

There are unique precepts in LDS scripture and doctrine concerning those who openly disagree with church hierarchy as those to be potentially cursed or condemned. Korihor, a person briefly mentioned in the Book of Mormon [6], began to question the coming of Christ and question a belief in God. He is arrested for preaching his views. During his hearing he asks for a sign to prove the existence of God, though not denying the possibility. He is miraculously struck deaf and mute by the chief judge. Upon receiving this he confesses to being deceived by an angel. Forced to beg door to door for his survival, he is finally trampled to death by his own people.

After making the initial change to this article, ANON 166 made the above change. This is why these edits are misleading:

1. Exmormons may be reviled because of their actions; particularly those to who seek to destroy the church or seek to destroy the faith of its members. However, if anyone is going to be doing any cursing or condemning it is left in God's hands.
2. Korihor was not in the process of beginning to question the prophesies of Christ. He was dedicated to leading others astray. He had already led astray many of the Nephites of Zarahemla ([7]), then he went to the land of Jershon to preach to the people of Ammon, who were once Lamanites([8]) (he was carried out of this land by direction of Ammon, the high priest), he then entered into the land of Gideon and began again to lead away the people([9]). Suffice it to say that Korihor was committed to preaching against and ridiculing Christ, the atonement, and the spirit of prophecy. Further, he taught that there is no God, no fall of man, and no penalty for sin([10]).
3. Korihor was brought to the chief-judge, Alma, who clearly stated that he was "grieved because of the hardness of your heart, yea, that ye will still resist the spirit of the truth, that thy soul may be destroyed." He went on further to say that it would be better for Korihor's soul be lost than allow him to lead many souls down to destruction([11]). In addition, Alma clearly states that if Korihor continued to deny the Christ, the power God would smite him.
4. The over-riding reason he was brought to the chief judge was not because of his beliefs or views([12]), but rather his commitment to lead people astray. In Korihor's example, the reason it was so bad is that he knew that God lived, knew that Satan had lead him astray([13]), and still continued to lead others astray.
5. He was not lead astray by an angel, but by the devil that appeared unto him in the form of an angel. Korihor still knew that it was the devil, but the Devil's words were "pleasing to the carnal mind" and he agreed to the Devil's teachings against God([14]).
6. Korihor was cast out from the people of Nephi in Zarahemla([15]) and went to the Zoramites who had settled in the land east of Zarahemla([16]) and who were perverting the way of the Lord([17]). These were the people who ran Korihor down and tread upon him until he was dead([18]).

In order that there are no further reverts, I propose the following paragraph:

There are precepts in LDS scripture and doctrine concerning those who openly seek to preach against the doctrines of the church, primarily belief in God and Christ, and the potential to be cursed or condemned by God. One example of such a cursing is found in the Book of Mormon, Korihor([19]. Korihor had been preaching against the prophesies that foretold of Christ and his mission. Eventually he was brought before the chief-judge of the land for leading many astray. Korihor continued to blaspheme against Christ and God while asking for a sign to prove the existence of God. By the power of God he is miraculously struck deaf and mute by the chief judge. Upon receiving this sign he confesses to being deceived by the Devil who appeared in the form of an angel. He is expelled from the land where and ends up begging door to door for his survival. He is finally trampled to death by a people who have begun to pervert the ways of the Lord. This chapter ends with the counsel that those who pervert the ways of God will not be supported by the Devil at the last day and the Devil will drag them down to Hell.

This belief is not unique to LDS scriptures or doctrine. Other examples that come immediately to mind would be Lot's wife, Judas, several of the prophets of the Old Testament that condemned those who did not follow God's command, and the children of Israel. As can be noted I have thus deleted the term "unique".

I have well documented the story of Korihor above, but did not think it necessary to cite everything in the paragraph being proposed. However, I would be more than happy to do so if the group thinks it helpful. Thoughts? Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Korihor is internally linked, and from there internally linked to the full story. I would rather have only one sentence if possible, as it relates to anathema, to tell the story without undue weight to POV doctrine. Your edits, by the way, are extremely weighted with POV, since objectivity does not pass judgement either way. This is an example of what I was talking about. One mention of Mormon doctrine in these pages mentally cues some people to offer a sermon.166.70.243.229 17:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Korihor is unique to Mormonism, and it was assumed by me that you shared the Christian doctrine of Judas. Therefore Korihor would be unique. 166.70.243.229 17:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph states a belief unique to Mormonism, not an example unique to Mormonism. Your quote is, "There are unique precepts in LDS scripture and doctrine concerning those who openly disagree with church hierarchy...". Note the term precepts who disagree with church hierarchy. The example of Korihor has nothing to do with church hierarchy and everything to do with an individuals willingness to follow the Devil. In that unique means without a like or equal, the edit is highly POV. There are numerous other examples in Christianity as you have stated; therefore the example is not unique to Mormonism, rather it is common in Christianity.

I agree and I have clearly stated that using one reference in the article is sufficient unless other editors feel that the story needs to be documented all along the way. The point of my edit is that an editor attempted to "force" a story to meet their objectives. The reality is that the example of Korihor is not ideal for their intent or for exmormons unless an exmormons is striving to lead believers in Christ away from that belief.

To be internally linked is sufficient to misquote and misrepresent the story of Korihor is not acceptable. There is not "doctrine" being stated in the story of Korihor. The full story is perfectly summed up in the last verse of the chapter, "with the counsel that those who pervert the ways of God will not be supported by the Devil at the last day and the Devil will drag them down to Hell." That is not doctrine, but that is a warning; two very different things.

I find it interesting that quoting the story of Korihor is POV, but your edits which misrepresent the story of Korihor, you view as "objective". Please explain how quoting and referencing the example is POV while giving a misrepresentation, as I have clearly shown that you did, is objective?

I would also like other editor opinions given that we are at opposite ends of the spectrum. I would also ask that you cease from editing the paragraph while we work out proper wording. Your recent edits still ignore the paragraph's mirepresentations and it does not meet NPOV standards. BTW, I have no problem with deleting the entire paragraph becuase it does not meet your objectives; that is not a sermon, but a committment to not misrepresenting what is actually being said in scripture rather than twisting the words to fit your own POV. Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In the world of exmormons Korihor does not exist, as he never existed. We once believed that he existed, and now we don't. Thefore in my opinion, any mention of Korihor is moot. I must say that 166's edit is the one I feel is the better of the two. Martinscholes 20:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Understood. To state the obvious is a sign of...I will just shut my mouth. Martin, it is not surprising that you support ANON 166; one might almost think it an example of groupthink. The issue is misrepresenting a book's story or to state what it is about. In this instance, you have an exmormon who insists on misrepresenting the story to "fit" their allegations of Mormons condemning and cursing exmos. Unfortunately, the chosen example does not fulfill that POV. As I stated above, I have no problem just deleting the story of Korihor completely because its focus is on those who deny Christ and God, which may apply to some exmos, but I doubt it applies to the majority. You would be a better judge of that choice. Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The questions to ask about this passage are: (a) does the Book of Mormon directly say that this story is normative, that everyone who "leads others astray" should or will suffer the same fate as Korihor? (b) Has the LDS used this story in a normative way, suggesting that a similar fate awaits any who either leave the Mormon faith or lead others astray from the Mormon faith? If the answer to both these questions is "no," then it probably doesn't have much to do with this article at all. If either is yes, then what it says and, more importantly, how it has been or is still being used to apply to exmormons, should be in the article with appropriate citations. Incidentally, I ask those questions because the Bible itself contains many examples of horrible fates befalling various people, without necessarily being normative in every case.

And, Storm Rider is right when he says that the general teaching about heretics is hardly unique to the Mormon church. This example certainly is, but the teaching or precept or what have you certainly isn't. Wesley 23:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Wesley, that may well be true. But Exmormonism isn't about all being ex any other religions or cults, but one specific one. Martinscholes 00:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"one might almost think it an example of groupthink" One might. Or one might not. This 'one' doesn't, as it happens. I have supported what 166 has posted so far in that he has not posted anything that I disagree with. Just search for Danite on Google or any other search engine for an interesting take on what Mormons used to do to ex-Mormons. Personally, I think shunning is a much better option. At least from the point of view of the ex-Mormon. ;o) Martinscholes 23:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wesley, the answer to both questions is no; the Book of Mormon does not teach that everyone who leads others astray will be struck dumb or any other curse/condemnation. This story is a very unusual situation because Korihor knew he was teaching falsehoods and knew that he had been decieved by Satan and still acted as Satan's representative in leading others astray. More importantly, Korihor tempted God by asking for a sign to prove that God existed. I have never heard the example of Korihor used to describe the fate of those who have left the church. More importantly, I have never heard it used to describe the fate of those who fight against the church. The Korihor example/story just does not support the claim that Mormons curse, condemn, or hold exmormons as anathema. It is an unfortunate example of overreaching and attempting to force the scriptures to fit an accusation. More appropriately, family and friends feel overwhelming sadness for a child, sibling, or friend that leaves the church. For some LDS this can be moderated should the exmormon join another church. Of course those moderated feelings are significantly hampered if the exmormon joins another church and then devotes the majority of their time "preaching" against the LDS church.

Martin, when researching what Danites purportedly did to exmormons you will find exactly what Danites did to exmormons. You will not find what Mormons did not exmormons. Again, an example of overreaching and striving to support an accusation with examples that do not apply. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wesley wrote: Has the LDS used this story in a normative way, suggesting that a similar fate awaits any who either leave the Mormon faith or lead others astray from the Mormon faith? You use a proper term, but then stray from that term. You seek a literal interpretation of the passage, not strictly a normative one. In fact, the story is studied and taught in Mormonism as a demonization of intellectual inquiry in general, note the anti-libertarian leanings of the parable. Exmormons are openly associated with Korihor when they dare question the entire plan. (This is a clear case where it takes an experienced exmormon who knows to offer insight). I find Korihor a fascinating attempt at demonization unseen in religious literature I am familiar with. It is a new level and shows off clear neo-classical influences ("rights and privileges"). Jezebel was interesting however. Many exmo's have actually commented on this story (do a simple search) which should indicate to the doubters how often it is countered.166.70.243.229 06:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A wonderful diatribe on POV. Now, please revert to WIKI standards. Do you have any reputable references that demonstrate the LDS church ever uses this exact scriptural reference to attack exmos? Do you have any reputable reference to demonstrate that the story of Korihor is used to the "entire plan" (whatever that means). The story of Korihor is specific and narrow in its address. Just to clarify so that words are not twisted, which we see ample evidence in the use of the scripture, we are not talking about examples a la exmo blog sites, we are talking Mormon church teaching others to apply this example to exmos and those who question.

I would suggest you do a far deeper study of religion in general. To date I have seen only a limited understanding of religion and an especially narrow understanding of the teachings of the LDS church. You have a POV view born of your own experience. Unfortunately, that does not equate to broad knowledge or understanding.

You have yet to explain or refute any of the direct quotes that I have given above to what the story actually says. You simply continue to insist that "your" POV is the correct position. How does defying the prophecies of old regarding the coming of Christ equate to new claims of demonization of intellectual inquiry? This is not the subject of the paragraph in question, but an entirely new claim. Given your continued copious edits to the paragraph, one would think you would have included it if it were a real claim. When did any general authority use this example to demonize education, personal inquiry, or liberal thinking; none of which is implied by Korihor.

The fact the exmos get together talk about it may acutally be a sign of group think; you know, the kind that LDS are accused of by exmos. Instead of answering any questions, you simply have added new allegations and claims. This is a very old strategy indeed; however, what we are trying to do is write an article of merit. Either provide references or it is deleted because the story simply does not do what you want. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Stormrider, do a search on Korihor and exmormon. Then do a search on Korihor and Mormon. I think the latter obsesses over it whenever they offer a religious opinion on skeptics within their own ranks. I knew the story before I ever read the BoM. I'm slightly shocked you would deny they own it or teach it, the direct link to the BoM was placed by you? I could find hundreds of links to cite. Some Mormon commentators have actually made Korihor their signature diatribe. Gerald Lund comes to mind. I'm beginning to question your competence at speaking for either side. My POV offered here was in no way included in the piece. You seem to be denying Mormonism to make your point (and defend your mistake). 166.70.243.229 07:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Your ability to be shocked is beside the point however much it might be of interest to you. You must read and understand everything I have said and do not do soley from your own perspective. To achieve communication one must listen as well as speak.

No where have I denied the story of Korihor or the manner in which his example is used. I have gone out of my way to disprove your misuse of the story of Korihor. I have clearly stated that I have never heard it taught/used/or even misinterpreted in the manner in which you insist on using it. I have no idea what you mean by "own it". I was not aware that Mormons "own" anything of a spiritual nature, rather Mormons believe in their faith. Owning it is irrevelent. Gerald N. Lund's fiction books are not part of my personal library; fiction has not played a part of my reading for many years. Further, I would not encourage anyone to use fiction to guide them in their understanding of any religion.

I do not speak for any "side", our objective as editors of WIKI is to write nonbiased articles. I would encourage you to try it. Focus on this article. If you can find any reputable references for anything you are saying, please bring it forward. No more personal attacks, dodging the question, introducing new claims; just answer to questions. Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What I'm hearing is contradictory statements about how the story is used and interpreted, basd on what two different individuals have encountered. Either of you have any references? If they're "easily found by a Google search," a couple of the better examples would be helpful. This is the first time I've encountered the story, but I can think of some other roughly analogous stories in the Bible: the children who ridiculed Elisha (or Elijah?) that were eaten by a she-bear; Jezebel was I think thrown from a tower and her body eaten by dogs; and I think it was the sons of Korah during the exodus from Egypt whom the earth opened up and swallowed. I suppose all of these are used to some extent to show that the rest of us shouldn't do what these people did, although the Bible also describes prophets who were ridiculed and didn't have their opponents eaten by wild animals or swallowed by the earth, so the stories probably aren't literally normative. But since I know nothing about how Korihor is talked about, does anyone have a citation to support what they say, beyond a blog entry or forum post? Wesley 12:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I struggle with the example. Again it is ancilliary/not reflective of policy/doctrine, although it may or may not reflect some personal views on the topic. The Book of Mormon has references to the Law of Moses, etc. but it is not practiced today. What happened in 1840 is very different than practices today. Can't we get something more current/stated by church leaders in the past 50 years at least? Doesn't this make much more sense and reflect current church teaching? Reciting scripture here seems out of place, even Wesley seems to struggle with this. There are quotes out there, let's use them. Folks they aren't that hard to find something less simile-ish. -Visorstuff 16:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wesley, these two came up on the first page I searched. One is supposedly a scholarly journal, check out the first sentence. The other was published in the official flagship church magazine. Besides the routine lessons and speech references that Mormons hear, Exmormons hear this all the time from critics. Either of these two references can be cited.

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=74

http://www.schoolofabraham.com/counteringkorihor.htm

I'm still a little puzzled at the new denial game being played here. 166.70.243.229 16:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Mormonism's most famous apologist used Korihor: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0875791387/104-2354435-3405528?v=glance&n=283155 Quote:Dr. Nibley also furnishes examples of how the Book of Mormon sheds light on the tactics of humanists, skeptics, anti-religionists, and outspoken unbelievers in general. Reference is made, for instance, to the example of Korihor in Alma chapter 30; Korihor being a prime example of dogmatic humanism.

And of course it shows up in Mormon blogs on a regular basis: http://mw-me.blogspot.com/2005_10_22_mw-me_archive.html 166.70.243.229 16:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A reference given to Exmormon Foundation founder, Richard Packham in correspondence: http://home.teleport.com/~packham/bishop3.htm

Dear Richard,

For all your worship of "thinking" it is interesting how blind you are to how twisted your thoughts and conclusions have become. To see the LDS church in action every day, year after year doing good in the lives of millions and yet to have the perverse view you have is remarkable - but not surprising. This is exactly how Satan works. Textbook. Thanks for reinforcing my testimony. For your next scripture reading, try reading about yourself in the story of Korihor.

166.70.243.229 16:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Mormon agitators site: "How to Spot an Apostate" directly referencing Korihor:

http://ironrod.wordpress.com/tag/revelation/ 166.70.243.229 16:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I might also add that Korihor was not refuted with argument or social example, but with curse and condemnation, which makes it an object lesson in fear to those challenging Mormon claims to authority.166.70.243.229 17:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for those examples, 166.70.243.229. I would suggest that the paragraph about Korihor be modified only be removing the claim that it is a unique precept or teaching, and adding one or two sentences about how the story is used today to refer to people who question Mormonism or who try to apply naturalistic rationalism to Mormonism to "bring it up to date." Wesley 16:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It might also be helpful to read the two cited articles. Both of them address not Exmos but the philosphies of the world. Yes, some exmos are involved, but they are not the focus of the article. The way they are cited and used attempts to demonstrate that exmos are the focus; that is misleading.

Further, concensus seems to have gained a new meaning on this article. Interesting process that all can follow. It will be interesting to see when the shoe is on the other foot. Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Stormrider, thanks for asking me to take a look at this section. Unfortunately, I don't have time to read through the discussion and the cited articles. So I have to gracefully bow out of this section. Greenw47 13:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It was an attempt at working together. I understand that you are too busy. I hope it does not affect your other edits; they are always worth reading. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I do appreciate the opportunity. If my schedule gets better, I'll try to delve into this article again. Greenw47 12:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Exmormon, Jack Mormon, or Cultural Mormon

The scope is getting too broad and we have let Exmormons and Jack Mormons overlap. If anybody has a better way, please let me know. But this is how I understand it:

• Exmormons - active or inactive - current or former member of record - main characteristic is that they have differences with LDS beliefs.
• Jack Mormons - inactive - current member of record - no disagreements with church teachings.
• Cultural Mormons - active - stay for social ties - no disagreements with church teachings.

In an effort to cover all bases, we now added that a Jack Mormon is somebody who "often, but not in all cases, have no disagreement with LDS beliefs." By definition, a person who is inactive and has a problem with church beliefs would be an Exmormon, since Exmormons can either be members who are current or or former members of record who have differences with LDS beliefs.

Hopefully, I haven't been too wordy, and my explanation has been clear enough. But it seems very apparent to me that we have an overlap. Actually, if we want to differentiate Exmormons, Jack Mormons, and Cultural Mormons, we could make a table.

In the alternative, we could take out the definitions of Jack Mormon and Cultural Mormons altogether. No need to reinvent the wheel; just and add internal links. This article is only about Exmormons. Anybody else vote for simplifying?

For now, I've commented out the extra text, which can easily be put back in if there is a compelling reason to put it back in. Cheers! Greenw47 20:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the links and descriptions must be in there (cultural Mormons have disagreements if they so describe themselves that way, because they are presumed to be attending and not fully Mormon). this is because they serve to delineate the position of the Exmormon much more clearly compared to the options and it is important information. These help understand the compelling social risk involved that the others do not always take (explained in the last sentence, but not explicitly--which I will fix.) A table would be in error, because tables are theoretically absolute and we're just describing tendencies at best. I have no problem with the way it flows now. Anon166 20:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point about the table. We can include the fact about social risk, but definitions of Jack Mormon and Cultural Mormon have already been written. In fact, they have their own articles.

Also, since the article is about 'Exmormonism,' doesn't it make sense that we should include the fact that Exmormonism, unlike Mormonism, is not a religion with any central beliefs?

By the way, just saw the fix and it looks great! Greenw47 20:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, whoever fixed the footnotes, my hat is off to ya. I have to learn how to do that. Greenw47 17:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Are we NPOV yet?

This article is getting stablized and debate has either cooled down or moved to other articles. Can we remove the NPOV warning yet? Greenw47 17:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I propose that tag be moved to the "further reading" section, which will denote the section as having a POV offered by church employees, with undue weight and allusions to Exmormons, who are job required to never agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church as grounds for termination. This limits their scope of balance and determines a slant. Anon166 18:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/Disputes

Not sure exactly what you mean. Greenw47 03:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It would look like this tag: Anon166 03:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC) {{POV-section}

I would do that or pare down the section to a few articles, the problem is that nobody here seems to have read them from their secondary source, and it just looks like one person's resume.Anon166 03:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I would leave it in. After we are gone, people will always vandalize this article and it pays to have a standing warning because the article will not stay this way. Everyone normal instinctively knows what it means. Anon166 05:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Placed less severe POV warning as first step to delisting. Anon166 15:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yah, the article is still pretty POV from both sides. We need more work - getting closer, but not there yet. I've been travelling and hopefully will be able to spend some time on specifics soon. -Visorstuff 17:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

To suggest there are both sides to Exmormonism is evidence of an extreme bias and opponent mindset (POV pushing). Anon166 17:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm merely demonstrating that the article still reads like there are "sides" with both Mormon and exMormon apologetics in play. No need to justify anything in the article, just state the facts. the article as you stated, should not have "sides." -Visorstuff 21:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Visorstuff, we found the anti-Mormon article that you are involved with, and it appears your self-imposed standards here are insincere as evidenced by the uncited and contradictory disarray you implicitly sanction, or perhaps wrote, over there. I was already suspicious after you maundered on about "paradice" here. Anon166 17:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, personal attacks on my intent are not needed, I'm well aware of the history of the article, having tried to salvage a very POV page prior to its current version. You obviously haven't read much of the history of the article and why itis in the shape it is. If you ever do read the history of Anti-Mormonism article and critisicm of Mormonism, you'll realize the current form of the article was never supposed to become the article. It was merely an outline of topics that were being research and should have been included that was pushed live by other editors. You have no reason to judge an incomplete thought. Similar articles include the "misperceptions" article discussed above, Blacks, Mormonism and Mormonism and Judaism and criticism of Mormonism. They are a mess (as are others), and all involved are more than understanding that they need help. However, as with Exmormons, we haven't found many Anti-mormons who are willing to cooperate to discuss anti-Mormon activism. There are few who keep level-headedness in editing. I don't understand why you continue to attack my intent. You know nothing of me, other than I'm LDS. Your hate for me is ridiculous and unnessessary as you have never met me. -Visorstuff 18:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the simple fact that you are LDS may be all the reason Anon166 needs to become enraged? It is not logical, but it appears very real for him. You know me well enough that I enjoy some personal jousting, but at some point it gets tiresome and I would rather focus on editing the article. Regardless, at some point it will have to stop. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Stormrider, apparently you are projecting rage onto me here and it made you tired. Anon166 20:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

At this point I see no reason to remove the label. There continue to be misreprestations a strong POV slants. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case, let's bring those up point by point, and iron them out. I don't want a person who has no contact with the LDS church to read this and think either 1) This was written by somebody who left and now hates the LDS church; or 2) This was written by a member who wants to make those who leave look stupid. My dream for this article would be to make it look like this: If a space alien dropped to earth today and observed exmormons, what would he/she write about them? Silly, I know, but it works. Greenw47 13:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The article has recently been shifted very far away from NPOV. I've reverted twice, but they just keep going. Al 17:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I made a few changes and added a line that incorporated Winell's book in the list, as matching the rest of the paragraph, but I wasn't signed in, just so you know it was me and not the other guy. 166.70.243.229 18:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

aka Anon166 18:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA

I've removed the section accusing an editor of sockpuppetry from this talk page. It did nothing to contribute to the article and served only as an attempt to defame the reputation of an editor who has contributed positively for months. Please keep discussions on topic and civil. Tijuana Brass^E@ 20:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)