Talk:Ex-Mormon/Archive 1

message: Subject:  Attention all interested Wikipedians and those who should be Wikipedians 
Date:  Apr 25 13:49 
Author: vegasbright 
Mail Address: vegasbright@yahoo.com 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those of you familiar with or involved with the free online encyclopedia that is fast becoming the center of encyclopedic innovation on the web, I have created a Wikipedia page for "exmormon/exmormonism". 
As I do not profess to be an expert, nor believe that this should be left entirely up to me, I am inviting interested parties to ADD material to this Wikipedia page or suggest changes on the discussion page if needed. Please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia policies and community procedures.
Please keep in mind that it is not a forum but needs UNBIASED data concerning JUST exmormonism centering around this board and other "exmormon" branded resources. If you are unfamiliar with the NPOV framework all Wikipedia articles must adhere to, then please read it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV . 
Individuals who are no stranger to this board are _especially_ needed for their opinions and points of view. I have been trying to drum up support for pro-truth edits in Wikipedia but have only had small success in drawing attention to this resource that is in need of a former mormon viewpoint. Individuals who can constuct their thoughts well familiar with the history, culture and flim-flam of mormonism are needed to give this Wikipedia entry and many others clout. 
Currently the mormon monopolization of wikipedia needs an opposing voice that is sorely lacking. Think of this as the Amazon BOM edit part 2, more expansive and definitely more reactive. 
Once again, before jumping into the fray of Wikipedia read policies for proper edits. It is imperative that others be treated with respect and civility in Wikipedia. If you have any questions please feel free to email me.
Begin here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exmormonism
:Excellent post and call to edit - look forward to the response. Also appreciated the last (and fourth to last) paragraph for context for potential editors. Keep up the good work. -Visorstuff 19:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Open call for exmormons

message: Edit 4.246.30.203 removed a large chunk of text from this paragraph. My knowledge of Mormons is limited, could you care to elaborate why such a large piece of text can be replaced by two lines? -- Solitude\talk 09:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reviewed the change and agree fully with your decision to revert it.  The original text was accurate and managed to avoid POV even though this is a delicate issue.  The changed text was clearly POV and erased valid information.  It revealed a deep pro-Mormon bias by 4.246.30.203.  I also had to revert some changes made to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page, which attempted to hide possibly embarassing historical and doctrinal facts.  While I was at it, I fixed up the entry on the history of discriminatory policies, adding some relevant, easily verifiable details, so I guess there was a positive side to this.  While I'm not a Mormon and have never been one, I have relatives by marriage who are Mormons, so I've come to learn quite a a bit about the religion and have visited Utah repearedly, so I feel very comfortable making these changes.  User:Alienus
The exit paragrah is weak.  Shunning sounds like someone is stretching.  Tell me how many people don't continue to get home teachers knocking on their door.  Anyone that has spent anytime on Exmormon.org can tell how fed up with them being contacted.  The latter half of hte paragraph seems better because it describes the cultural fragility when one breaks from the group.  Storm Rider 02:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: With all due respect, I think that unwanted visitors from home teachers don't make up for the friends and family who won't speak to you anymore. Alienus 04:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are correct in stating a problem that exists, but it is the vocabulary being used that I think is inappropriate.  Shunning is definitive, formal practice in several religions.  Unfortunately, Mormonism is not one of them and to use the term is POV; you attempt to taint the statement with a fact that does not exist.  There is no formal shunning.  However, there is a discomfort that exists on both sides as to what to do now.  Mormonism suffers from not being just a Sunday affair, but rather a culture.  Those who choose to leave Mormonism for whatever reason abandons a culture where family and friendsd still reside.  If you discuss it in those terms I think you have a balanced approach and you do justice to the real harm that done to individuals on both sides.  Storm Rider 08:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recovery 

message: I get the impression that the writers of this article victimize exMormons.  This partially could be due to the sting of facing ones own cultural shortcomings (I am a Mormon).  I don't think it is all due to this however.  I really feel that some exMormons, not all, do victimize themselves, a natural side effect of the strains of leaving a belief system, and that this attitude shows itself in this article. Epachamo 06:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I completely understand you. the main writers of this article have been exmormons. Are you saying they victimize themselves? Or that those of us who have edited are victimizing? Please clarify? -Visorstuff 17:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean that the writers of the article seem to portray exMormons as victims.  Do you agree? Epachamo 05:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting point. Most of the ex-Mormons I know do not feel this way, and thus the article is slanted. Most I know disagree with various aspects of the church, from authority to doctrine to truth, but only a few feel that they were opressed or victimized. Perhaps an ex-Mormon watching can help balance this? Perhaps User:TacoDeposit can help? User:Sheldon Rampton has strong opinions and may be able to help as well. -Visorstuff 15:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Epachamo, what you are reporting is a classic example of confirmation bias. If you "really feel" strongly about something, then you will tend to see it where you would expect to find it. This is natural, and one typically needs to be trained to avoid it. Visorstuff's response to you was more typical of a cultural bias. He didn't seem to recognize the possibility of victimization at first, but readily agreed to it, and then implied that his own personal experience with exmormons is representative of objective reality, while also assuming that victimization among exmormons is not subjectively valid, without even noting whether or not it is apparent in the article. As such, all Mormons here should generously take note that because voluntarily leaving their church typically signals disatisfaction, Mormons that stay will naturally tend to devalue the leavers as a defense mechanism, especially when faced with their criticisms (which only need to be categorized to be meaningful as a social phenomenon). This would also be true for something as minor as a book club. 166.70.243.229 20:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm an exmormon, and I'll take a look.  I do think, however, that there is room to say that perceived victimization is common among exmormons.  It is not predominant, as the article seems to imply, but it is common.  For instance, look at any exmormon site on the internet and you will notice that this feeling is very common indeed.  However, I doubt that people that are motivated enough to write articles on the net are a representative sample of all exmormons. Becks028 23:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Visorstuff, Epachamo has stated above that he is Mormon: "....facing ones own cultural shortcomings (I am a Mormon)." So my comments were appropriate. And it takes two to argue, FYI, and I am an exmormon, and so my comments belong here according to sentiments expressed by you. Perhaps you should examine your methods of criticism, beginning with your position on Mormonism on an exmormon entry. Also, for the record, out of the 350 edits that you counted for me (apparently in a half-hearted statistical attempt to smear me), only 32 or so have been talk pages, and half of those are here, above. The rest are mostly minor compositional edits consisting of probably a few words average, typically a correction, and this is the professor side of me that pays attention to detail. To my recollection, I have never once deleted anything contributed by anyone, excluding vandalism, but have carefully rewritten or reworded any disagreement, and on very few occasion. I don't recall ever having an argument with anyone, even on the controversial pages with POV warnings, and most of my entries involve theological entries. As such, I consider your disagreement with me to be religious in nature, and this would be related to your choice to monitor the "exmormon" entry as a devout Mormon. I do plan on registering very soon, thankyou for the invitation. 166.70.243.229 00:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victimization 

message: I think that there are some problems with NPOV in this article that are very difficult to remove.  Describing leaving Mormonism as "recovery" assumes that being Mormon was a state from which one must recover.  Also, some lines want to say that there actually are inconsistences between Mormon doctrine and the Bible or that some Mormon doctrines really are unacceptable.  However, this doesn't work well with NPOV.  Might some of this be appropriate given the character of the page?  That is, might it be appropriate since it relates to the view espoused by this controversial submovement of an already controversial religious movement?  Until someone gives a reason that this is appropriate, I'm going to try to get rid of lines that assert that Mormonism is false or bad. Becks028 08:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Becks028 wrote "Describing leaving Mormonism as "recovery" assumes that being Mormon was a state from which one must recover." That is an incorrect way of reasoning. If something is a big part of your social, intellectual, spiritual, and emotional life and you leave all that (suddenly) behind then there is a very big chance that you have to recover from leaving. Andries 15:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone of the Article