Talk:Ex-Mormon/Archive 5

message: The article starts right off with POV and self reference:
:::: Exmormonism refers to the culture of individuals who refer to themselves as Exmormons
That is almost a nonsense statement. It is not a culture.  And self referential.  Exmormonism is a group of ExMormons.  That is a really bad opening statement.  And the article continues in that bad POV perspective all the way through. --Anon 64 13:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to make this more NPOV per writing for the enemy ;) - let me know what you think? --Trödel 18:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought you gave it a good start.  I added some words as well to reflect the sense that not ALL (perhaps not even most) ExMormons do this and also not ALL activities that ExMormons do are "ExMormonism". --Anon 64 12:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is no different from how the Jew article starts off: Jews are followers of Judaism or, more generally, members of the Jewish people.  Give us a freaking break, or at least be fair and go over there and NPOV their page too. Reswobslc 19:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we are working on this article not the one about Judaism.  You cannot find flaws elsewhere in wikipedia and say that because it is bad in one place it should be bad here too. The first sentence was really truly awful here.  "It refers to what it refers to". --Anon 64 12:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV right at the start

message: Is it really true that ExMormons are not to be confused with Jack Mormons?  Isn't the word really associated with ANYONE who leaves the Mormon Church?  Aren't they ALL "ExMormons" if they no longer identify with that group, even if they are not particularly emotional or antagonistic?  Should this article only focus on the intensely disaffected? Why aren't Jack Mormons also "ExMormons"? Along that same line ... How is Ex-Mormonism functionally different from Anti-Mormonism? Is it actually just a version of anti-Mormonism (and hence a sort of religion in itself?) --Anon 64 13:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "Jack Mormon" has had two different meanings. In the 19th century it was a term used by those who opposed the church to describe a person who had not joined the Mormon church but was sympathetic to their cause and helped them. Currently, the term is usually used to describe someone who is a member of the church but is not living some aspect of the gospel that is outwardly visable (as opposed to all other mormons who don't live the gospel perfectly but seem to have word of wisdom/chastity under control) - like smoking or drinking. Neither group is the same as an exmormon since neither definition includes people who have been a member and now are not. --Trödel 14:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with Trödel: a Jack Mormon is someone you'll find at church on Sunday to a varying degree, and is someone who when asked will claim to be Mormon, and who will probably snicker and say "but a pretty bad one at that" with a beer in his left hand and his right arm around a hot girl.  An exmormon is someone you will almost NEVER see at church, either because he is enjoying sleeping in on Sunday, or he's out camping with a beer and a hot girl (and/or his kids), or he's at a different church altogether, and in contrast to the Jack mormon, the Exmormon will claim to not be a Mormon.  An Antimormon is someone you'll hear about in church, someone sent by Satan out to destroy the church as prima facie evidence that the church is true, but who doesn't really exist - except perhaps in the form of a flagrantly vocal Exmormon who's picketing the Mormon semi-annual conference in Salt Lake City.  Mormons don't currently have any significant numbers of people interested in killing them for who they are, like for example, Jews do (anti-semitism) but if they did, then Antimormonism would likely be an appropriate term. Reswobslc 14:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about ExMormon 

message: I have been researching on the web to determine what an exmormon is.  The only definitions I can find are mirrors of wikipedia.  In other words, I do not find any objective third party definitions.  I went to www.exmormon.com.  I found that this was a ministry site called "Saints alive in Jesus" who claim "We are a Christian nonprofit corporation founded upon the call of God to witness Jesus to those lost in Mormonism and other cults".  Thus, they are not a good source of information if the article is simply about people who left Mormonism.   I have asked a person I know who is a former Mormon whether he participates in web page creation, group meetings, helping others leave, or so on.  He said that he had no interest in the Mormon Church any more but he did not have any interest in those activities either.  He had a busy life in his occupation and he had 2 girlfriends and that kept him busy enough.  He did not care about either Mormons or ExMormons and did not care if people wanted to be Mormon or not.  (it was Saturday afternoon, he was drinking beers, so maybe he was a bit more flamboyant than he normally would have been).   I asked him why he left the Mormon Church and he said that he is excommunicated but he thinks about going back but he is having fun and the Mormons are too restrictive.  He said he cannot be a good Mormon.   He is just a sample of one so his opinions do not count for an encyclopedia (or should not).  But I was trying to test my idea that the idea of "exmormonism" described here, is really just a subset.  So far, I have not found any good evidence other than his statement either way, yes or no.  I am unable to verify that "ExMormonism" as it is described in this article really exists in general.  I am also unable to determine to what degree it is a minority position and to what degree it is a majority position.  However, it is troubling to me that the main site -- exmormon.com -- is basically some sort of Church or something with an antimormon agenda.  It seems to me that the article tends to be a commercial for this website.  --Anon 64 14:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "We are former Mormons, sympathetic non-Mormons, or non-believing Mormons of record who left or rejected Mormonis  after having discovered that its claims are false...We want the world to know of the harm it causes, the families it devastates, the methods it uses to control minds, and the half-truths and deceptions by which it deludes the public...We want to warn those who are not well-acquainted with it that Mormonism is not what it claims to be. We have been there, and we want the world to have the facts."
If this is what Exmormonism is, then it is a subset of antimormonism and, if it includes both former members and sympathetic non-Momrons then it something that is unrelated to prior membership.   --Anon 64 15:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Investigation into "What is an ExMormon"

message: I've never posted to Wikipedia and I don't know all of the etiquette...
I was wondering if somebody who knows how this works would be willing to consider the following additions to the exmo page:
1. It would be really nice if "Outer Blogness" could be mentioned as the flip side of the LDS blog network "the Bloggernacle" (which has its own Wikipedia entry)
2. I think that the definition of "cultural Mormon" should be extended to include people who identify with their Mormon heritage and do not live a Mormon lifestyle.
I have written a post gathering opinions on the definitions of different types of Mormons  which may or may not be useful to Wikipedians ;-)
Thanks,
86.201.36.80 17:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I request a few additions? 

message: This article is listed for a neutrality check... But I have to say, it sounds quite neutral. I've read the past discussions, but the article in its current form is well-referenced and seems to present an accurate and neutral picture. Anyone oppose removing the neutrality check tag?
Porlob 20:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the POV check in compliance with Wikipedia:POV check. Porlob 13:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality Check

message: The LDS Apostates article should become a section of the Ex-Mormon article about the LDS church's view of former memebers. The subject of that article and this one are the same. That is, we're talking about the same people here, with diffrent names depending on who is talking about them. Since former members are more likely to refer to them selves as Ex-Mormons, that should be the article title (likewise for Former Latter-day Saints, see above). LDS Apostates should be condensed into a section in this article as the "official LDS church view" or something of the sort. Porlob 14:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - "apostates" should never have become an article. -Visorstuff 18:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see anything that should be merged; that article should just be deleted.  Visor & Porlob, should we just request or speedy delete or is there another process that is recommended?  Storm Rider (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, merging and then removing the offensive and POV portions would take the least administrative time. Otherwise, we would have to work through other bueracracy (ie waiting time on deletes, etc.), whereas there is consensus for this move. -Visorstuff 18:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: There was no standard of how the word "ex-Mormon" was presented throughout the article. There were multiple instances of "ex-Mormon", "Ex-Mormon", and even "exmormon". I've standardized those. I think "ex-Mormon" makes the most sense, but if anyone would like to changes those to "Ex-Mormon", go for it. :)
Also, the "Saints Alive" external link goes to Ed Decker's ministry, and appears to have been posted by Decker himself... Should it remain? It does seem to be in line with the other links, providing resources by and for people who have left the church, but on the other hand, it's got a pretty extremist "anti-Mormon" bent (perhaps it belongs there instead?), and was posted by its own proprietor. Any thoughts? -Porlob 13:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Standardizing to "ex-Mormon" indeed makes the most sense and I have kept this in my recent major cleanup of the article. Regarding the Decker link posting, it is relevant and one may now consider me to have placed in the link. CyberAnth 08:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. Thanks for all your hard work, by the way. :)  -Porlob 03:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General changes

message: :"...in terms of their doctrine of "outer darkness" for "sons of perdition" who "deny the Holy Ghost", although this doctrine has other interpretations."
The above is heavily jargon-laden and therefore inadequately accesible. Can someone re-word and/or explain this for everyday non-specialists? CyberAnth 05:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Outer darkness" for "sons of perdition" who "deny the Holy Ghost"

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

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

message: There seem to be quite a bit of original research and assertions made using mostly primary sources in some of the sections. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in fact Gratitude Press is a self publisher and has no releation to the "Gratitude Press" in Canada in the mid-90s. --Trödel 17:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR? 

message: I think it's important to understand the differences in "Ex-Mormon", "Excommunicated Former Mormon", "Inactive" and "Apostate". These are not mutually-exclusive definitions.
An excommunication implies a former member's church membership being revoked for a time as a result of some deviation within LDS theology. Not necessarily a moral deviation (such as adultery) but the vast majority of cases are such. This person may still identify with the church for support and follow the basic tenets of the religion but must wait a specified period and go through a "repentance process" before being rebaptized. However "apostate" implies somebody who not only leaves the church but actually turns against it. These people have differing motivations but are now fundamentally against the church. They may also have asked for their name to be removed from Church records for one reason or another.
Finally "inactive" is not the same thing as "Ex-Mormon". In LDS circles being "inactive" generally means not attending church for some time. Are we willing to call Roman Catholic Church members who go to church on Christmas and Easter "Ex-Catholics"? I'm going to try to fix the wording of this article to be fair to so-called "Ex-Mormons". I would like to see a source that says that most former Mormons went against the practices of the church before becoming "Ex-Mormons". It's kind of a broad claim, especially because the Church does not release information on why people were excommunicated resulting in only hearing one side of the story.Primalscreamtherapy 00:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important Fix