Talk:Exmormonism/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Links 2 Wick Griffon - a comment 3 User:166.70.243.229 4 Blog links 5 Visorstuff's POV Suppressions 6 Explanation of reversions for GreenW47 7 Resignation Discussion 8 References 8.1 When you add content 8.2 When you verify content 8.3 Text that is, or is likely to be, disputed 8.4 Say where you got it 9 Visorstuff's personal list of authors/articles 10 Reasons List Making 11 Original Research 12 Faith-without-reason 13 A MESS 14 Suggestions for compromise 15 NPOV Policy on Religion 16 Common sense, boundaries and "Recommended Reading"

Links

The exmormonforums.com is certainly relevant here...I will concede that the same link is not relevant at the criticism of mormonism article, but clearly it is a valid link here.

However, it's clearly not notable. What educational purpose does it serve that cannot be acheived through one of the other links already there? And, again, how is it notable? The Jade Knight 23:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard." (Emphasis added)

So we see that the Wiki rules do not say "do not" they merely point out that they should not "generally" be linked to, but can be, under some circumstances. I hope that clears THAT up. Martinscholes 23:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Notable is in the eye of the beholder, someone of your standing should not even be allowed in this article, as you have obvious bias.....just as I wouldn't write any actual articles pertaining to mormonism itself. However, if you push me enough, I may end up editing the temple ceremony page to reflect the actual ceremony, and I will do it repeatedly....such a cult activity definately needs to be seen by the public.

Please see Wikipedia:External links#Links to normally avoid. That link may potentially fall under #s 1, 2, 3, and possibly (though I couldn't say) 9. That's at least three reasons it doesn't belong in the article. The Jade Knight 23:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The Jade Knight is correct. This type of article is not appropriate for the external link section. However, If you have a section within the article that discusses the tight-knit group of exmos on the internet, as evidenced by bulletin boards, then an in-line link is appropriate. But not in its current place without context.

"someone of your standing should not even be allowed in this article" is not an issue to bring up on this page. This has already been brought up against mormons in the past month, and is considered Hate speech.

That said, a threat to vandalize other pages could be considered grounds for having your IP address banned from editing wikipedia. Threats are not welcome at Wikipedia. In any case, having read the Mormon temple page, it already contains links to the full ceremony and discusses it at great length. The community two years ago decided not to include text from the ceremony, but links to it, for a number of reasons, which you can read in the talk page archives. Adding it back in will only result in it being removed and "reapeated" adding it back in will result in violations of WP:3RR and you being banned. If you have an issue with the links, find a more appropriate way to deal with it. Welcome to wikipedia. We'd like to invite you to become a registered user. -Visorstuff 13:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Being that your bias is as always glaring I see no reason for you to make the claim of hate speech. There is no threat to vandalise other pages and someone is well within their right to post every sigle bit of the temple ceremony, in detail, on the masonic/mormon temple page. It is amazing to see someones dedication to such a matter as exmormons, VS. Your bias is glaring. Tread lightly here, you are not welcome to waltz in and delete relevant links, statements or other ideas you find uncomfortable to have on a public website edited by a community. If this continues VS, as it seems it will I will be contacting those responsible for your censure. What is this? Does it have a name? Will you give it to me? I'm back you brainwashed Nazi. And I'm Pissed -vegasbright

The one thing Vegasbright was was intelligent. True, Vegas did have a rather focused anti-Mormon perspective, but he really was "bright". I wonder if someone is using his name...it just does not read like an intelligent person, but rather someone on the demented side of things. I suppose Vegas could have become whacked out, but I doubt it. Let's not react to this editor, which is easy because this edit does not say anything but spout venom. It would be nice to have Vegas back, he was difficult, but bright. This individual sounds ready for the farm, one with padded walls. Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Cut the patronizing. This is not Usenet. -vegasbright

In a more serious note, I really do want to confirm the edit was the real Vegasbright. Even the edit above is signed Vegasbright, but the edit was done by an ANON. Recently there has been an imposter editor using the name Rodsteadman, a past editor, over on the Christianity article (or Jesus article, I can't remember). ANON or real Vegas, please just sign in so that we get some type of knowledge that Vegas' account has not been highjacked.

If you are the real Vegas, Welcome back. I do hope you got my drift that you were coming back a little on the high horse. Nazi is just a little over the top. Additionally, I really was serious about my perception of you/Vegas; an exceptionally sharp mind; difficult as I said, but very bright. I look forward to your edits. I suspect that we will both be more focused on the article and drop these personal notes. Wesley has already chastized me for yammering too much on the discussion page; unfortunately I agree with him. Back to the article. Le Bienvenue! Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Its me. :) -vegasbright

Wick Griffon - a comment

Wick, a quick comment. You are adding in detail, while valuable, is strictly ancedotal. For example one of your edit summaries stated this is a main reason, however, it ranks releatively low according to research such as here [1]. Please be careful about generalizing your experiences as the norm without proof of what the norm is. A way to get around this is to source material as a cultural example. However, some of what you've added in is not correct according to research. I'll try to cite some additional research stats and sources, but some are listed above, and I'll try to find where I've source some others. Bottom line is that statistically speaking, many who leave return in their mid-to-late 40s. Most leave by the time they are 28, etc. Almost always, according to research, deals with a testimony of or against Smith, not with history, etc. Those may factor in, but are not the primary reason. Just be careful to source materials as possible. -Visorstuff 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

User:166.70.243.229

Welcome to wikipedia! I reverted a number of your edits. You wrote in your edit summary that you "removed biased commentary on "reason" for leaving, which conntained Mormon folklore and didn't cite physical/sexual abuse (commonly cited by "offended" leavers).)" and "Removed two uncited non sequiturs posing as original research. Made new title section to reflect content Other minor edits and typos"

Please note that the edits removed relevant sourced material, had you read the references and in-text links. Just because it doesn't deal with your specific experience, doesn't mean that studies haven't been done on the topic. The studies cited and examples shown are appropriate, sourced, and have been discussed on this talk page and in other communications. In addition, they are reflective of off-line ressearch that I have read and conducted. I have not seen a pattern of physical or sexual abuse that is common among those who leave the church. Rather, that tends to be a minority in the studies that I've read and participated in. It may be a vocal minority on some exmo websites, but it is not typical across the board.

As for biased information about cultural attitudes by LDS toward people who leave, that was added in by an exmormon, and is referenceable. However, if you have specific research, I'm interestedin it, as I've been compiling for some time. Do you have any? -Visorstuff 01:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Visorstuff, I have written much of the article in question and follow it, and have read the talk page where it applies. There is no source material cited in the places that cite "academicians" or "scholars" and they even used quote marks for some of their alleged terms of use. In fact, the reasoning used was a common fallacy and any scholar making them would be incompetent or have a tactical agenda. Even with Mormon apologetic citations the problem persists that it is an opinion, not a fact, and it lacks reason and resorts to a fallacy. Examine these claims one by one.

Quote:Some academicians refer to Exmormonism as a "religious community," as it entails a common belief among adherents (against the LDS Church) regardless of individual religious affilation. No cite, luckily for the author of the sentiment. In fact, there is no common belief "against" the LDS church among exmormons. It is not a fact and as an opinion it still doesn't wash because most exmormons belong to other religious communities or personal belief systems and don't associate with exmormons in regard to their personal beliefs. Exmormons commonly divide along these lines. There is no agreement on anything and the internet forums to not reflect more than a small percentage of exmormons who still don't agree against Mormonism. Furthermore, a "religious community" is based on common beliefs, not common disbeliefs. Counter-example: We all disbelieve in Santa Claus, therefore "scholars" refer to this group as a religious community? Absurd. It is the common fallacy of citing a disbelief as a belief. This is probably a carryover from uneducated anti-atheism lore.

Quote:'Most do not completely remove themselves from the Latter Day Saint movement, but rather continue to be involved with Mormonism in some facet, even if it is in Exmormon online communities or other cultural aspect, and they are therefore often considered by scholars as part of the Mormonism community.' This is not true. It has no basis in fact and it would be assuming original research if so. Then it gets weird, because it pretends it is a fact that provides a non sequitur as a claim. Most people who leave Mormonism do so quietly and carry on. Objective "scholars" cannot validly claim, even as an opinion, that this "therefore" makes them part of the Mormonism community. It's absurd because it doesn't follow even if it was believable. A person who quits eating meat is not therefore part of the meat eating community. A person who quits smoking is not therefore part of the smoking community. If people don't know what a fallacy is, they are more apt to make stuff up about what scholars believe, without cites, based on their own faulty reasoning.

By the way, you mentioned sources, but didn't take care to provide any when reverting. This is denying the problem outright while claiming a solution is visible.

Quote: 'Another reason for leaving Mormonism is based on the perceived inconsistency of members trying to live according to the Latter Day Saint standards. For example, a member may leave because of something a friend, a family member, or church member did or said that could be construed as inconsistent with Latter Day Saint or Christian values. They may see such inconsistencies as moral failures, which may lead them to question the Church system as a whole. In most cases, this leads to the member researching early Mormon history as noted above.' Again, this paragraph is anecdotal, opinionated, and biased. It credits any Mormon who may or may not have molested or defrauded someone as living their religion. It also suggests that if someone leaves Mormonism because they were put off, then it was probably irrational, without any statistics to even bolster this folklore. This is what Mormons tell themselves to avoid facing the idea that people leave because it makes no sense to them. Your original research that few people leave when they are blatantly violated backs up the uselessness of this claim. It is folklore. Your claim that Griffin is using anectodal material confirms my assessment as well. 166.70.243.229 18:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The editorial excuse Griffon gave for the last paragraph is this: "This is probably the number one reason why people leave the church." I have never once heard this from an exmormon and it is not true according to the links given. This is a direct contradiction of the facts and is offensively biased and must be removed unless we offer balance, or a note that exmormons believe Mormons aggressively demonize leavers and publishes anecdotes against leavers in order to marginalize them and keep the fold in fear of leaving. If Mormons don't want to see their opinions balanced with counter-opinions, then they shouldn't offer a one-sided perspective that requires it. Unsigned by 166.70.243.229

By the way, you can sign your posts by typing four tildes like this Visorstuff 00:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC) so we can keep track of your comments. I'll pull actual research to back up my claims this weekend. However, the research is not online, but is very solid. I don't know your experience, nor do I want to, but your edits reflect only one point of view and is not inclusive of exmormon people in general. Incidentally exmormon is a noun, not a decription of behavior, so your opening sentence does not work. Even Anti-Mormon activism is considered activism, not anti-mormonism. there is a big difference. Until next week - good luck and happy editing. -Visorstuff 00:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't defining exmormon, but exmormon-ism, where "-ism" is cited in dictionaries as being a "characteristic or trait" of a noun. Activism is your point of view only, and a label. Please do share your own research here, I am as interested as anyone else. My point of view is neutral to the facts whatever they may be, while yours seems to be apologetically Mormon, which isn't all bad if defending a mistatement, but not while asserting one for Exmormons. Exmormons don't assert any one belief as a group to apologize for, but must only defend against labels. 166.70.243.229 01:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. 99.9% of the world disbelieves in Mormonism, so "disbelief" can't be used to label exmormons without asserting a weird authority over them. 166.70.243.229 02:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

the suffix "-ism" http://www.answers.com/topic/ism-suffix?method=6 166.70.243.229 01:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Blog links

• Former and ex Mormon website resource- List of various ex and former Mormon websites
• Mormon Discussions - Open and uncensored Mormon issues discussion board

These were removed, according to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The first is a Exmo blog, (notice there are no Mormon blogs on the Mormon or LDS Church articles either), and the second is a bulletin board forum (and there is already an example of one in the links). Neither provide any educational value from links that are not already in the article. See Talk:Exmormonism#Links.

In addition, please cite the "controlling" statement in the article you've added. Once again, it would not hold up as NPOV on Wikipedia. See "victimization" section above. There is no evidence that the church controls anyone against their will. That is what the addition alludes to. Dominant force, yes, but research does not conclude taht people leave becuase they are controlled, but that they sometimes have a hard time leaving because it is a way of life.

If you've researched this topic and have sources, please share. I'm always looking for more, but this doesn't equate to the research I've found on the majority of former members of the church, but a vocal minority.

Next, in your edit summary, you wrote, "rv biased edits from Visorstuff, who as an active LDS, cannot be considered to represent NPOV on this topic." Aside from assuming I'm active LDS, whether or not someone is active LDS or Anti-Mormon, a non-believer in Mormonism or an exmormon, they can be qualified to edit an article - especially if they have done significant research and participated in studies on the topic. My length of editing at wikipedia and my research outside of the wiki qualify me enough. -Visorstuff 16:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding "Your length of editing and research outside" (you fail to specify in what fields)Your citation of the Wikepedia "What Wikepedia is not" is in error. You have not applied those rules in accord to the Wikipedia guidelines. Therefore, I suggest(please) refrain from any more "edits" in that section. unsigned by User:Martinscholes 17:04, 1 May 2006

There is no question of assuming that you are an active LDS, Visorstuff. Referral to your userpage reveals tags "This user is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." "This user lives in the state of Arizona." "This user is from Utah." and "This user graduated from Brigham Young University." not to mention quotes from Boyd K. Packer ("The doctrines of the gospel are revealed through the Spirit to prophets, not through the intellect to scholars.") and Joseph Smith, Jr. ("[I]t is not always wise to relate all the truth. Even Jesus, the Son of God, had to refrain from doing so, and had to restrain His feelings many times for the safety of Himself and His followers, and had to conceal the righteous purposes of His heart in relation to many things pertaining to His Father's kingdom." - Joseph Smith, Jr.") which strongly suggest that like many active LDS, you would be more than happy to suppress the truth. 72.75.1.129 18:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can sign your posts by typing four Tildes like this: ~~~~, which will datestamp and automatically sign your posts. I've left a similar message on your user page.

Areas of research relevant to this topic include Mormonism inclding lifelong religiousity of members and former members and Anti-Mormonism activism. My research is very interlinked.

How my citation to [2] in error?

From the policy: "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links...Wikipedia articles are not... collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding a useful content-relevant link to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. See Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally for some guidelines." You can also get more details at Wikipedia:External_links

As for link one - it was a link to a blog and an internet directory of exmormon sites. As for link two there was already "a link to one major" site.

How have I not "applied those rules in accord to the Wikipedia guidelines?" Please be specific. And finally "Therefore, I suggest(please) refrain from any more "edits" in that section" makes no sense to me. Are you suggesting I shouldn't edit a wikipedia article? Please clarify?

That you failed to apply the rules in accord to the Wikipedia guidelines shows you either did not understand them or decided to apply them in a way that gave the result you wanted. (I.E., the removal of a link that you did not like.) "Wiki is not a blog". Obviously. Perhaps it might be best if ex-Mormons refrained from editing Mormon written articles and that practicing Mormons refrained from editing ex-Mormon written articles? That would remove any possibility of bias, real or perceived. Martinscholes 13:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

And please read the discussion above about why those two sites in particular are not appropriate. They provide no educational value "about exmormons" -Visorstuff 17:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC) "They provide no educational value "about exmormons" Only in your opinion. I dispute your claim. I believe that they provide a rich educational value about exmormons. Martinscholes 14:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Exmo-social keeps being deleted. I have read and understand the wiki policy on external links. However, since part of this article is about where Exmormons go after leaving, and the forum is called "Where former mormons and their friends hang out" it seems just as appropriate as exmormon.org, The Ex-Mormon Forums, and The View from the Foyer. I understand that exmo-social has a section called NSFW, but it is only similar to "Grab-ass and Free Play" on The View from the Foyer. If we are going to tell about where Exmormons go, exmo-social is as valid as other forums.

The rule I'm referring to: Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_normally_avoid

The link to the blog is not, strictly speaking, a link to the blog, as such. It is a link to a particular item on the blog. Which is a very comprehensive list of sites of interest to former and current Mormons. Therefore I would argue that that link (to a list that was collaborated on by dozens of different people) is acceptable, due to the wide variety of sites listed and the quaslity of not only that list, but also the quality of the sites on that list. Could that link, therefore, please be placed back on the list of links? Martinscholes 14:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Visorstuff's POV Suppressions

Visorstuff continues to suppress links in a demonstration of de facto bias. On the one hand, he and other LDS contributors contest that there is no such thing as an ex-Mormon community. Then, he attempts to obliterate existence of that community by removing recognized links to ex-Mormon resources.

In the article history, Visorstuff has protested that the addition of these links constitutes a version of "link farming", which is rubbish, as he well knows that link farms are "any group of web pages that all hyperlink to every other page in the group." The ex-Mormon blog repository that he keeps deleting is a blog of ex-Mormon sites. Said sites do not interlink to any appreciable degree, indeed hardly at all, and therefore by definition and by intent do not represent a link farm. Moreover, the second ex-Mormon forum is clearly a prominent forum within the ex-Mormon community and thus has no relation to Visorstuff's erroneous assertion of link farming.

Visorstuff leans on his authority as a long-standing editor on Wikipedia to justify his biases, under the guise of NPOV. But it is clear that he is merely using a bully pulpit to push POV edits from an LDS viewpoint. No other article has such draconian suppression of related links.

Visorstuff might be justified if someone had attempted to dump links to all ex-Mormon sites within the article. They did not. Instead, they posted appropriate links to rather comprehensive sets of external resources. His repeated moves to remove those resources is de facto demonstration of POV bias. 72.75.1.129 18:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. You are not a victim of my editing, and you shouldn't try to become one - your use of power-loaded words is not needed. Wikipedia is not a battleground. I have not suppressed the links nor your edits. I've removed links twice, you've added in three times (see WP:3RR) - they are currenty in the document. Second, I requested a citation, which you then removed the text. Nor have I engaged in censorship. I am waiting for other editors of any faith, who have been at Wikipedia for more than a few hours to weigh in, and I believe they will support this opinion.

Second of all, as to your "No other article has such draconian suppression" comment, it is simply not true. Not only on non-LDS pages does this happen, but I have been just as strict about this rule on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page. I am consistent in its application and have been criticized by Mormons for removing those type as well [3]. At first it was an over issue of linking to too many mormon and irrelvant anti-mormon sites on the main LDS Church article. The first discussion started here [4]here, and continued here [5] and then here [6]

and then other editors decided on a convention [7]. It even appeared here: [8] and at Mormonism.

Many Mormon and non-LDS editors contributed to these discussions in muliple other articles, so the rule is standard across all similar pages. Please see Wikipedia:External links#Links to normally avoid. These potentially fall under #s 1, 2, 3, and 9.

Thirdly, I have suggested wikipedia norms as alternatives so that this sort of link inclusion is relevant and important [9]. Just linking these two provides absolutely no educational value to the article.

Fourth, having studied the issue, mormondiscussions.com is not a "prominent forum within the ex-Mormon community" It has 102 registered users. Prominence within the Exmo community would be a site with more than "average" registered users (average consisting of 150 users). [10] The Exmormon Yahoo group and Exmormon foundation are much more prominent, as is the Xanga group and others. Your site doesn't even come up in the first 5 pages of Google search for "Exmormon" or exmormon discussion, but does come up as the last entry on page five of a search on "Exmormon forum" [11]. To most readers, this site would therefore not be considered "prominent."

Finally, I am one that has added such sites to the article [12] and [13] in a relevant way. Please don't accuse me of POV when I get the same accusations from Mormon editors.

Yes I am bias. I am bias to ensure that my Exmormon friends are well-represented, because many Mormons and others just assume they have become Anti-Mormon, which they are not by large majority. And I'm bias against the minority of Exmormons who make a public display to get their axe's ground on items that have no real relevance to exmormons at large and who cannot leave it alone. I have a good working relationship with multiple exmormon forum adminstrators.

Finally, you assert that my quotes: "strongly suggest that like many active LDS, you would be more than happy to suppress the truth." Not only are personal attacks not appropriate for wikipedia Wikipedia:No personal attacks, but you should Wikipedia:Assume good faith and take a look into my editing history to know I do know what I'm talking about. Yes, I'm the guy who keeps controversial, but true details about all mormon-related topics, and most importantly, I seek for balance. I cut out the fluff, both pro and con, and I'm probably just as controversial in editing to Mormons as I am to non-Mormons. I'm not a fan of "New Mormon History" (if you know what it is, and you probably incorrectly think it has to do with "censorship"). I realize the church isn't perfect, and as a seeker of truth, I try to get more than a surface level of understanding of issues. Your assessment of me, aside from assuming I'm active LDS, is silly. -Visorstuff 20:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not the same user as Martinscholes, nor Greenw47, the latter of whose edits I largely disagree with, and I have not "added in [links] three times". I am willing to agree with you that I overstated the case regarding the mormondiscussions.com and am willing to concede that other groups have broader reach including exmo-social.com and of course, YahooGroups. The exmormon site list blog I will part company on with you in stating that it is of significant value.

As for presence on WP longer than a few hours, I actually do have longer standing than that; however, I have personal reasons for editing under my IP address, which given the context of the Mormon church should not be surprising.

I will point out that conversely, your "good working relationship with multiple exmormon forum adminstrators" is unknown to RfM, and given its extent as the largest of the exmormon fora seems an egregious omission. 72.75.1.129 23:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

First, my apologies that I assumed the multiple IP addresses and users were the same person. Second, I'm glad that the page received so much attention at [14] and [15] (not to troll or watch, someone flagged it for me, but do find it amusing). We need more good editors at Wikipedia, and I do hope some of you stay. It seems that your particular IP address has been editing for a few weeks. And to clarify, my working relationship have not yet expanded to Exmormon.org forums, but to other exmo sites. If you read through my editing history, you can probably find which ones they are without too much trouble - especially if you are savvy enough to track down my name through my yahoo profile. Unfortunately, my requests for information to those who contribute to your forums have gone largely unanswered, whether intentionally or via a spam filter, who knows and its fine - I've pursued other research avenues. And I'm not the kind who posts to message boards uninvited. I would love to start a relationship, however, especially for research as it provides a good sample, but is not reflective of all of those who have left the church, merely, the research would be very tailored to online communities of exmormons. Studies such as "Lifelong Religiosity" of Mormons and "Consequential Dimension of Mormon Religiosity" and "Religious Leave-Taking: Disengagement and Disaffiliation Among Mormons" share much about exmormons from a historical point of view, but don't treat the Internet and are thus somewhat out of date, although the newer studies are beginning to. My invitation is open. But I'm hardly worthy of being behind some conspiracy on Wikipedia - I'm far too busy with my family, work and church calling to have the time or energy for that. :^)

That said, be careful that your edits are citable. Most of the claims here have been made by Exmormons, not by me or other LDS editors - I've tried to clean up where needed, but some hothead always wants to make a statement or point, as is going on now. Please watch the 3RR, or you will be banned for a time by other admins (as I'm involved in this discussion, I will not). Added in links without context or educational value will end up being deleted by other editors or by myself. Relevancy and education are the key - yet another reasons LDSSingles has been deleted numerous times from LDS articles. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 00:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Other Wiki articles link to blogs and podcasts, if they are germain to the issue/s being covered in the article. What is so different about this Wiki article? Martinscholes 21:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of reversions for GreenW47

The studies that you questioned existing were referenced at the end of the sentence. The reference to BYU was to show conformism as a problem at the school and is therefore relevant. The reference to the Latter-day Saint Movement is relevant because the ex-Mormon experience is across the Restorationist Movement. Finally, "nevermo" is a slang term only in the confines of the RfM board and it doesn't require a stub article for definition. Your links for Tal Bachman and Steve Benson were relevant. Your edits of adverbs were not. 72.75.1.129 23:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

From Greenw47 - who is not the visor person, but an Exmormon. Thanks for the explanation. Just got my wiki card a few days ago and didn't know about this part of wiki (editing talk). Glad I could make at least a contribution (Tal and Steve). Now that I know a bit more about wiki, let's keep future discussion confined to this forumn.

Since several paragraphs stand independently of each other, "studies" leads the reader to believe, as it did in my case, that there is a new thought being expressed. If I read it that way (yes, I read the page a few times before making edits) it is possible that others might as well. The "end of the sentence" you refer to must be the end of the sentence before the new paragraph that starts with "Studies show." I would have suggested clarifying which studies, but it seems to have been removed.

If the reference to BYU is to show conformism, maybe expanding on that thought a bit to show why the link is added would help others understand why a link to a church school (the LDS church's crown jewel) is on a page about Exmormonism. Possibly adding it to "Reasons for leaving" would be less confusing.

OK, now I'm going back to fix the sentence "Commonly one or more high-profile Exmormon's history(Singer Tal Bachman and Cartoonist Steve Benson are examples of high-profile Exmormons) on how he or she left the LDS Church and/or regular participation from the high-profile Exmormon will be a feature on these sites." because it is not understandable. greenw47

Resignation Discussion

It seems to me that some coverage of resignation is a vital topic to include on this page. I know this is a potential "tricky" subject, as many people who try to resign have difficulty from the LDS Church in doing so and it seems that the LDS church leadership is uncomfortable in speaking on-the-record about the subject. There are a couple legal references (notably Guinn vs. Church of Christ in Collinsville and the Normon Hancock Lawsuit - Mesa, AZ 1985) that should be included, as well as the possibility local LDS leaders may try to hold a "Court of Love" on an inactive member or a member who may have done something the LDS church would consider a sin. Dianelowe 06:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Dianelowe has made useful contributions to this page. However, since there are many resources on the web on how to resign, my vote would be for just mentioning resignation, and not adding external links or a howto. greenw47

I actually think the link would be a good illustration of the exmo communities education of "how-to" -Just my personal opinion. -Visorstuff 18:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I added the topic to the article, with citations. I'm having trouble locating an online version of the Norman Hancock Lawsuit, but when I find it I'll cite the case.Dianelowe 04:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

References

Most of these references are from LDS writers, and therefore not a good representation of the Exmormon movement. Also, the writings imply that leaving the LDS church is somewhat of a temporary phenonemon. For Exmormons, not to be confused with Jack Mormons, the process is as permanent as removing the tonsils. greenw47

The reference section was added all at once without corresponding entries. It seems to be from one person. The articles were even referring to page numbers, however ridiculous that should seem to most people. Some authors are also Mormon church employees, and they are not allowed to present any fact that contradicts Mormon policy without endangering their jobs, therefore not allowed here. If anyone doubts this, go see the interview above with a Mormon religion teacher (Millet). 166.70.243.229 16:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked Wikipedia had a reference policy and it didn't include citing remote source material, but actually discouraged it. Maybe someone could enlighten us. 166.70.243.229 16:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Green, do you have anything other than anecdotal evidence or your sincere wish that every person that is an exMormon is permanently separated from the LDS church? I don't know anyone that is permanently anything! It sounds like you are overreaching. Let's pull the emotions back a bit and keep the conversation in fact. Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider, we obviously agree that the references should be removed. I guess I did not make that clear enough. See below. greenw47

Also please use my correct name, greenw47, as I don't want to be confused with green (if/when somebody decides to register with that nicknamename). Greenw47 15:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yawn. Completely disagree. Albrect was working for multiple non-LDS affilated during much of this research, and, for personal reasons had much as of a reason to be upset with the church as anyone else out there (However, I don't want to go into his personal life in a public forum). Aside from that, this is a big chunk of research that the methodology can be checked to ensure. Much of it was published in peer-review journals and is therefore found credible from the industry. If you don't like the outcome, that's your problem, and you should go get someone to do just as credible research. If you don't have any research, and there is some on a topic, it should be included, regardless of the religion (or at times in the cases above - the non-religion) of the source. If you have something to replace, please do, but citations are always needed - and offline ones are encouraged: (Wikipedia:Cite_sources). Credibility of the research is not an issue. Accessibility to research about the topic as opposed to ancetodal info is.

166... - what are talking about by saying "Last time I checked Wikipedia had a reference policy and it didn't include citing remote source material, but actually discouraged it"? Most of the Wikipedia:Featured articles use real research, not just online links. Do you have a source for this "discourage"-ment? Wierd statement. Again see Wikipedia:Cite_sources.

Be careful with ancedotal evidence. You are generalizing the small vocal exmormon community with all exmormons, which are not always vocal or socially-knit as you.

Bottom line is folks, there is research that is peer reviewed that has been added in - regardless of who wrote it. (That's like discounting all of Remini's or Brodie's work on Josesph Smith because they were not mormon or exmormon. Now having issues with certain aspects of the work, if fine, but we still reference both on Wikipedia, in addition to Bushman's and the church's. Lame arguement.) It stays, it is relevant and other wikipedians of other faiths that weigh in will support it, if we have to come to that. Incidentally, I added in my sources so you could see and check where I'm getting some of my research that I'll be adding into this article. This is not a battle ground, its an encylopedia - we are stiving for referencable facts, whether pro or con on topics.

Dianelowe and greenw47, you've both made very good edits. Keep up the good work and remember to include sources, not just just ancedotal info. Let's get the research in there guys. -Visorstuff 18:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yawn? Welcome to the exmormon page, Visorstuff, as an outsider you seem to have dropped your references en masse, and with page cites from nowhere. Anyone can see this is padding, and your credibility is widely questioned on this page and this is suspicious non-purposeful. 166.70.243.229 19:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Quoted from Wikipedia, from link above: === When to cite sources === (quoted from wikipedia)

When you add content

If you add any information to an article, particularly if it's contentious or likely to be challenged, you should supply a source. If you don't know how to format the citation, others will fix it for you. Simply provide any information you can.

In general, even if you are writing from memory, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite. If you are writing from your own knowledge, then you should know enough to identify good references that the reader can consult on the subject — you will not be around forever to answer questions. The main point is to help the reader and other editors.

The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words such as, "Some people say…" Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion, mention them by name, and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research.

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources of equal calibre. However, do give foreign-language references where appropriate. If quoting from a foreign-language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it.

When you verify content

You can add sources even for material you didn't write if you use a source to verify that material. Adding citations to an article is an excellent way to contribute to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards and Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check for organized efforts to do this. Direct quotes, used as a method of easing factual verification, can be provided (in whatever format is agreed on by the main editors of the article) for any statement.

Text that is, or is likely to be, disputed

Disputed text can immediately be removed entirely or moved from the article to the talk page for discussion. If the disputed text is harmless, and you simply feel a citation is appropriate, place {{fact}} (or {{citation needed}}) after the text. The template {{citecheck}} can be useful for flagging quotations taken out of context and other misuse of citations. Unsourced criticism or negative material in the biographies of living persons should be removed immediately, and not moved to talk. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel.

Think ahead. Try to imagine whether people might doubt what you wrote, or need more information about it. Supporting what is written in Wikipedia by referring to a clear and reliable source will add stability to your contribution.

Say where you got it

A common error is to copy citation information from an intermediate source without acknowledging it. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your citation must mention the web page. Your citation might only mention the web page, or you can provide further information like this:

• <Web page>, which cites <book>, or
• <Book>, cited at <web page>.

However, you shouldn't cite only the book unless you looked at it yourself. If you checked the book, it is no longer necessary to mention the web page but you can still mention it if that would be useful information for readers. You can do so using a form like this:

• <Book> (also see <web page>).

The purpose of this rule is to enable readers to judge the reliability of the evidence and to enable them to verify it to at least the same extent as you did.

As an Admin, I'm fully aware of Wikipedia policy. You'll notice that most editors begin to put in references and then edit the references into the article. I began, but my edit was removed [16] before I could even add in another one.

I find this funny as one who has tried to recruit exmormons to edit this page that you are slamming me. Not only do you not follow academic norms (IE removal of Latter Day Saint, Mormonism, Anti-Mormon activism), but you've not made citations for your edits, and stated issues with edits from other exmormons. Broaden your horizon and try to see that there is actually an academic side to all of this. You may actually want to get ahold of the research and see what it says, for example. I've no hard feelings, but find it quite funny at your attitude towards actual research. I'll love to add in that data, but again, all of my edits have basically been deleted here for the past 24 hours. I have other studies as well, but they will have to wait for a more appropriate time. I'm glad your here, its been much needed, but try to use academic/wikipedia norms.

I've asked a Greek Orthodox Admin to help guide this discussion (who is trusted by all wikipedians on topics of religion), as you seem to be hostile toward me simply because I'm LDS, regardless of my previous efforts on this topic. Perhaps another religions' point of view will help. -Visorstuff 19:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I have never recruited anyone to this page. You are mistaking me, it seems, for others. And if you, Visorstuff, are so aware of the policies, then you wouldn't leave so many edit comments blank, for example. I appreciate the academic side to all things, but only when it has verifiability and function, not as padding or insinuation of authority or fact. 166.70.243.229 20:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Let it be known that Visorstuff recruits his own editors and reviewers to this page on a regular basis, and has already threatened me with expulsion and tried to smear me too. See above. 166.70.243.229 20:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I have asked for exmormon assistance on this page. I said nothing about you recruiting. How have I threatened you with expulsion or tried to smear you? -Visorstuff 20:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Visorstuff wrote to me (on this page): 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. By the way, a troll would be a Mormon trying to undo this page, not an exmormon. And we are both anonymous. 166.70.243.229 20:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, an Internet troll is "is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion (see Anonymous Internet posting)." Coming to Wikipedia and being rude and disruptive, would qualify anyone as a troll, regardless of religious affiliation on a page about a certain topic. A mormon editor could just as easily be a troll at the LDS article. All of this is beside the point. Bad behavior does result in editors being banned, according to the long established guidelines and policies of wikipedia. -Visorstuff 21:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Visorstuff's personal list of authors/articles

Though they have advanced degrees in some cases, these are hardly neutral authors. Also, since they do not write specifically about leaving Mormonism, but sociology in general, their work does not need to be cited here.

Albrecht, Stan L. Marie Cornwall, Perry Cunningham and Brian Pitcher. "The Dimensions of Religiosity: A Conceptual Model with Empirical Test." Stan Albrecht – claims that as people become more educated, they become more active in the LDS church – inplying that those who leave are less educated http://www.adherents.com/largecom/lds_dem.html Dr. Marie Cornwall – BYU Faculty http://fhss.byu.edu/soc/faculty/cornwall.html Perry Cunningham – contributor to Sunstone magazine, a pro-LDS magazine. http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazine/searchable/Issue74.asp Brian Pitcher – BYU Master’s Thesis in the same department as Dr. Marie Cornwall - Sociology http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/MormonThesesP-Q&CISOPTR=6239

Albrecht, Stan L. Marie Cornwall. Life Events and Religious Change. See above

Albrecht, Stan L. "The Consequential Dimension of Mormon Religiosity." BYU Studies 29 (Spring 1989):57-108. See above

Albrecht, Stan L., Marie Cornwall, and Perry H. Cunningham. "Religious Leave-Taking: Disengagement and Disaffiliation Among Mormons." In Falling from the Faith, ed. David G. Bromley, pp. 62-80. Newbury Park, Calif., 1988. See above

Chadwick, Bruce A. and Brent L. Top. Religiosity and Delinquency among LDS Adolescents. Bruce Chadwick - BYU Sociology Professor – lectures on how to transition into adulthood and stay a member of the LDS church http://fhss.byu.edu/FHSSnewsletter/winter06newsletter/chadwick.htm Brent L. Top – BYU professor http://www.tre.byu.edu/FacWebs/top.htm

Cornwall, Marie. "The Social Bases of Religion: A Study of Factors Influencing Religious Belief and Commitment." Review of Religious Research 29 (Sept. 1987):44-56. From the abstract: “This study examines the multifaceted relationships between religious involvement and subjective well-being.” Implies that only through religious affiliation can well-being be found. Cited on pro-LDS web sites: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/activity/activity_eom.htm

Cornwall, Marie. "The Influence of Three Agents of Religious Socialization: Family, Church, Peers." In The Religion and Family Connection: Social Science Perspectives, ed. Darwin L. Thomas, pp. 207-231. Provo, Utah, 1988. See above

Cornwall, Marie. "The Determinants of Religious Behavior: A Theoretical Model and Empirical Test." Social Forces 68 (1989):283-99. See above

Duke, James T. and Barry L. Johnson. The Religiosity of Mormon Men and Women through the Life Cycle. James T. Duke – BYU professor http://fhss.byu.edu/soc/faculty/duke.html Barry L. Johnson – BYU professor http://fhss.byu.edu/soc/faculty/johnsonb.html

BYU professors are not to be considered neutral authors when considering the Exmormon movement. The BYU honor code clearly states that those who represent BYU must live by the honor code, which means that any dissent from LDS church positions are strictly forbidden. The BYU honor code page carries a quote from Karl G. Maeser, “Stand me on the floor and draw a chalk line around me and have me give my word of honor never to cross it. Can I get out of the circle? No. Never! I'd die first!” See the following links for more information: http://honorcode.byu.edu/ http://honorcode.byu.edu/CES_Honorcode.htm http://honorcode.byu.edu/Conduct.htm http://honorcode.byu.edu/Honor_Code.htm - insisting on participation in continuing religious instruction while at the college level.

Thus, BYU professors cannot be considered neutral authors when discussing Exmormons. Their writings assume that the LDS church (through their adherence to the BYU honor code) is the one and only true church. The LDS church teaches that apostates are the only ones that are at fault. Further, the overall tone of the writings of these authors is aimed at persuading members to stay, which is in direct conflict with keeping this page neutral. greenw47

So, it only matters what their affiliation is, not where their research is published, or who peer-reviews their methodology? Great. What Exmormon sources do you have?

Sigh. If you want to play that game:

• An Insider's View of Mormon Origins by Grant H. Palmer
• By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri by Charles M. Larson
• No Man Knows My History : The Life of Joseph Smith by Fawn M. Brodie
• Farewell to Eden: Coming to Terms With Mormonism and Science by Duwayne R. Anderson
• In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith by Todd Compton

greenw47

Incidentally, you've not kept current with albrects work, or read the study in detail. The educated study you cited, is true for men, not women, who are more likely (but still high attrition rates) to leave the more educated they get. And then there is the marriage factor. They've even identified which ages are most likely to leave permantently (17-30), at what ages less actives and some exmormons come back 44-50, etc. Of course, you want to not include this detail. Amazing.

Also, each of these studies deal with those who leave the church and come back and go inactive. What are you saying? -Visorstuff 21:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. We could always include a list of BYU professors or faithful members that faced excommunication for questioning founding church claims. Would you rather start with Thomas W. Murphy, D. Michael Quinn (author of The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Mormon Hierarchy), written well before he was excommunicated), or Dr. Simon G. Southerton? All are published authors that faced peer review.

Anticipating the question of relevancy; they are relevant because they deal with the very claims that cause members to leave. greenw47

You read my mind on the relevancy question (by the way, in-line comments are difficult to follow - try at the end of a post within the relevant section. Having read each of those books, aside from "Farewell to Eden," they don't really have information about Exmormons that will help to improve this article. We need documentation about the demographics, who they are, why they leave (not just a couple of topics that some have issues with) and because the term exmormon denotes a certain social demographic, that's what this article should discuss. We can include reasons, etc. But none of the books above deal with this central issue of who or what an exmormon is. You are correct - and see my note below regarding DNA research on wikipedia and thomas murphy. I've not disputed his research or claims here.

Incidentally, Murphy's research was peer reviewed and published in multiple journals - Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Ethnohistory, the Journal of Mormon History, Review of Religious Research, Dialogue, and Sunstone - but Southertons "Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans DNA, and the Mormon Church" was professionally published by signature books, not peer reviewed. Brodie's research was not peer reviewed, and in fact, was criticised for not doing so by her mentor, Dale L. Morgan; and also by Quinn (New Mormon History, xiv). Compton's work is good where documented - I've had discussions about the paper with him - good guy. But all of this is another topic. Those books would make an excellent addition as examples of discussions of complex topics that people question and then leave the church. Add it in.

However, you still have not addressed the core problem. We are discussing sources about exmormons, which I have provided, and you still have not. There has to be some exmormon that studies why people leave. The church does, as do sociologists to know how to help prevent them from doing so - which seems like they'd be honest about that in research so they could prevent it, but that goes against your entire argument about the sources - and you think they are bias. How can they be bias if the church uses the details to prevent them from leaving. They aren't going to fudge research like that if SP are using it to help members. It is counter-intuitive.

I ask again, what sources do you have about exmormons that is not ancedotal, but referenceable. -Visorstuff 00:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, do you have copies of and have you studied/read all of the books you reference above? Just curious, as I know of some other articles you may be able to help with if so. -Visorstuff 00:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Visor, any source I would use would only be in the interest of keeping the article neutral. The books I mention, though possibly offensive to your religious views, all deal with research that leads people to doubt founding church claims. (Added 5/4/06 10:14 am EST - see also Confirmation Bias for more reasons why BYU professors are not good sources for Exmormon material.)

As an example of my fairness, please note that when the reference section was edited by me, I corrected the spelling of Dr. Cornwall's name. Rather than delete the references, I then suggested on the discussion section that the works have built-in bias, due to conflicts of interest. This was done in the interest of gaining a concensus rather than start an editing war.

I'm glad you agree that the books I mentioned would make an excellent addition as examples of discussions of complex topics that people question and then leave the LDS church. Now we are getting somewhere. As time permits, I will add them.

(5/3/06, 12:48 pm EST) Visor, when are the sources you included going to be linked to content in the article? Please explain their relevance? greenw47

Reasons List Making

What exactly was wrong with the list? The paragraph is long and difficult to read; making a list condensed the information, made it easier to read and understand, and was concise. If you go back and check I didn't delete any of the reasons; I only put them in a form that was easier to understand. No, the list isn't exhaustive. I didn't realize it had to be. The paragraph definitely isn't exhaustive. Why don't we include every single tiny reason why someone would leave a religion (which could be infinite). I was under the impression that Wikipedia is a good source for people to find information on any subject and then if they were more interested to continue their research, either on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Many of the other articles here don't include exhaustive references or lists. But they are readable. Take your pick.

Also, isn't this getting a little long? Maybe we should delete the outdated discussions if they are uncontroversial. This is getting to be a bickering war.Dianelowe 21:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is "spiritual" preferable to faith-without-reason? "Spiritual" seems to have a biased tone. Faith-without-reason is unbiased and means the same thing in the context of the previous paragraph. unsigned by User:Dianelowe

Faith without reason ignored the statement that followed it, which included personal religious experiences in leaving Mormonism. I like your statement, but it is highly attackable. I like using their terms whenever possible. Change it back if you think it helps. I see it as debate fodder however. 166.70.243.229 21:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's readable either way, but I changed it because "spiritual" seems biased to me, especially because it could have either a negative ("spritual" as sarcasm) or positive connotation. Maybe I walked into a mine field here, but I just wanted to remove bias of either side from the article. (BTW, I feel the language of the article is heavily biased and will only improve after many small changes over time)Dianelowe 21:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything inherently wrong with listmaking as long as it is methodical and complete. However, there is a danger is pretending to know specific personal reasons as facts and the Mormon apologists will be all over it. As it stood, your list was a summary of the examples only, which illustrated categories--and categories are basic. I see your point, however, but remember there will be cite warnings after each entry and then we are arguing over specifics like never before. I also think that any list is not necessarily encyclopedic regarding human decisions, but if it exists, it should be constructed carefully, because it will be corrupted point by point as it proceeds. Paragraph form is readable as brief, to me anyway. Also, I would point out that lists are by implication exhaustive. There is a list on one of the links, but it leaves out many reasons, and even that list, as long as it is, is insufficient to document the myriad of disagreements that add up to leaving. This was intended as a defense of the status quo, by the way, not a criticism. We don't have unlimited options here and must choose a descriptive middle ground. 166.70.243.229 21:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. So, maybe if we were going to have a list of reasons, we should have a paragraph that states: "A few reasons why...", state the list and the references. What do you think?Dianelowe 21:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll follow your lead, but remember there are always categories, and suddenly we have a chart, and an eternal debate. I've made lists of things before and it is a big job, nevermind defending it. Also, the lists I'm thinking of contain hundreds of reasons. Then someone will say it isn't a big enough reason and miss the point. I wish we had good citation from a comprehensive study rather than be required to construct one. We could start working on the list here though. Beware that the page will be moved soon. 166.70.243.229 21:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe then it would be easier to say, "There are many reasons why someone would chose to leave their religion" and cite a website/list that contains one of the more comprehensive lists? (I've seen several out there that do have references; unfortunately I can't remember where they are off the top of my head) My major concern here is readability and bias; although having accurate citations is important those citations aren't worth anything unless one can read the article and not feel like they're being fed a party line from anyone's "side".Dianelowe 21:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with you Diane on the list and spriritual. I thought it was a great addition and made the article more readable. You are a good writer, IMHO. Keep up the good work, Wikipedia needs you to help with articles such as this. I'm still concerned about the ancedotal versus refereanceable details though. This article has great potential but we all need to ensure we have referenced material where possible.

We'll archive this page, rather than delete probably when it gets closer to 150-200k. -Visorstuff 21:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the peer review issue of Fawn M Brodie's biography. Are biographies peer reviewed? Not in general. So that point seems to be moot. Martinscholes 172.212.31.105

Actually, many biographies written by academicians (which Brodie was at the time of publishing) are typically reviewed for accuracy by peers prior to publication. Brodie offered hers to Morgan, who said she discounted some sources that didn't support her claims, and suggested she have others review it. She declined, but to be fair to her she did make some edits. But you are right the point is moot. The point was about peer review in reference to it improving accuracy - in the case of Mormon-related research, it was peer reviewed for methodology flaws and findings, etc. No rebuttals or negative peer reviews have resulted to my knowledge. -Visorstuff 00:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

We haven't even mentioned excommunication. That's how some people leave. Once again, no need to get into whether the excommunication was fair or not, just that it can happen. In the interest of fairness, not all people leave voluntarily. greenw47

Original Research

WIKI does not allow original research and does require reputable references. For an encyclopedia, original research can not be determined credible and is deleted as soon as it is identified. Further, original research is not viewed as reputable. I believe WIKI assumes if the research were reputable, it would published. The objective is not to rain on your parade, but to ensure that WIKI standards are met. Writing excellent articles is not easy and demands we research specialists/scholars of the respective subjects. WIKI is not a place for polemics or apologists. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You haven't shown that the references are valid or support any points. How is this so hard if you believe in them so much? 166.70.243.229 21:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider (Disregard if you weren't responding to my question), why is it then that a paragraph is more preferable to you then a list that contains the same information? The point I was making was that I found the list more readable than the paragraph, not a point of reputable references. But while you're on the subject, here it seems (one of) the problems is not only of reputable research, but unbiased reputable research. I agree with the above discussion regarding research on leaving the LDS Church at BYU; they're inherantly biased.Dianelowe 22:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, wasn't responding to your question, but here is my two cents worth. I appreciate your feelings that all Mormons scholars can not possibly be reputable because they are incapable of being unbiased. This is similar to saying all Ex-Mormons can not be trusted because they left the Mormon church. (It doesn't even begin to sound right when the shoe is on the other foot.) Unfortunately, both would be a POV and neither is a proven reality. Not all scholars are without bias, but true scholars strive to be objective in their research. Sometimes they fail, but this premise is generally the way the world operates. The "reputable" standard must also apply. In this instance it is not, "Is the scholar LDS, if so we toss her research", but rather does her research hold up to scrutiny.

Articles related to religion can often generate emotional responses from editors. Based on your comment above, I suspect that this topic may be generating just such a response. Step back for a few hours and approach it again, leave personal perceptions/POVs at the "door" and be more objective. We create our own worst hell; it is never the other "guy". Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I never said that "all Mormon scholars cannot possibly be reputable because they are incapable of being unbiased." I said that I agreed with the statement that scholars at BYU who have done research on people leaving the LDS Church were not reputable for this article because of their Honor Code. Your statement would only be true if "all Mormon scholars" were affiliated with BYU. I've tried very hard to remain unbiased, to correct bias already in the article and to make the article more readable. The next time you reproach me, I would appreciate being accused of something I've actually done.Dianelowe 22:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a alternative would be to include research from these authors and then for exmormon editors to state why or why not the findings (as opposed to a blanket statement that the research can't be good) would be incorrect. This is a Wikipedia norm - and similar to what mormon apologists do with research out there. For example, the Book of Mormon and related articles discuss DNA research, and then disucsses pros and cons of the research/issues with methodology. Incidentally, the pages are currently in support of the accuracy of Murphy's DNA research not in support of Mormon apologists. Again, its all about accuracy and references. -Visorstuff 22:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the main issue with the blanket copying/deleting/recopying of the references is that they (generally) aren't referred to in the article. I like Visorstuff's idea for discussing references; at least then some consensus can be reached. I personally am not familiar with most of the references (which is why I've left them alone), but if the article does refer to one or more of the documents to make the citation first and then include the reference. Baby steps. Dianelowe 22:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to summarize what they say, but so far my attempts to do so have been reverted. I'd also like to adopt the harvard-style linking which is why I put them in first. See, for example, the references at Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.. -Visorstuff 22:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree with Storm Rider on this point: WIKI is not a place for polemics or apologists. greenw47

Faith-without-reason

Diane, could you please explain your recent edit where you deleted "spiritual" method (which I would take umbridge with because it is POV) and replaced it with faith-without-reason (without quotes). Would you explain how faith and reason is at times equivalent? You imply that in this situation faith and reason are at odds. I would term this a highly POV edit. I will edit the clause and then we can determine what is best on this page. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If you had been keeping up with the discussion on the page, you would know why. Faith and reason are not at odds; the previous sentence implied that faith is encouraged to generate without reasoning the facts. "Spiritual" is not NPOV because it could be taken either as sarcasm. Spiritual without quotes isn't the right term to use given the paragraph above it. I'm reverting the clause because this had already been discussed why it should be like that. Faith without reason describes the exact method used.Dianelowe 19:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I can't change it back because the entire article is completely altered.Dianelowe 19:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A MESS

This article is a mess! Everyone should be reading this article in its entirety before editing. Much of it reads like a Ex-Mo diatribe with most data as to "why" people leave the church just goes unreferenced. It is like someone throwing noodles against the wall just seeing which ones will stick. It is pathetic! I deleted the Resignation section this evening. It turns out this was a redundant, virtual quote of what was mentioned just above it; except for citing that citizens in the US are legally able to resign from any church. The problem: one just gets finished reading that one can withdraw their name from the LDS church. If that is so, who cares what the US governement thinks. Withdrawing one's name is a worldwide right of any LDS member, not just in the US. Lastly, write in such a way that it the article is not personalized. It is not "them and us". We are an encyclopedia. We use references that are used in context. I deleted a reference for Mormon conformism. The reference was about BYU in a one paragraph view stated as follows:

From the student body to the "stringent" honor code (which regulates not only academic behavior but also dress, hair length, diet, and sexual activity) to the heavy religious-studies requirement, BYU serves the needs of America's Mormon community first and foremost. Students describe each other as "upstanding" and "extremely friendly"; some, however, warn that "the nonconformist will find a dull social life with difficulty finding someone that will be their friend, regardless of who they are or what they believe."

This is used to prove Mormon conformism?!? Can we say S-T-R-E-T-C-H the context all together. This is just plain embarrassing. This type of edit does a disservice to Exmormons and Mormons alike; it makes everyone look like an idiot. If you haven't got that I am just a little ticked, now is a good time to get the message. I do not know who entered this edit, but I ask you to please refrain from any edits in any article until you have cleared every edit on a discussion page. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider, that's something we can definitely agree on. As a veteran of the professional collaborative process well before wiki (technical writer), and as a student whose academic writing is reviewed merciliessly by legal scholars with Ivy League degrees, it's just my opinion that we need to have more dialogue in the discussion before making sweeping changes on the article. I also agree with visor that we need to avoid anecdotal references at all costs, though disagree and will likely continue to disagree on the weight of sources. Having said that, the wiki policy states, "You are a Wikipedia editor. Since Wikipedia has no editor-in-chief or top-down article approval mechanism, active participants make copyedits and corrections to the format and content problems they see. So the participants are both writers and editors."

We might all benefit from reading the rule on not biting newcomers.

Also, isn't the "Post-exit social and psychological status" purely anecdotal? greenw47

I have a tendency to be overly sarcastic regardless if one is new or one is a "seasoned" editor. I am an equal opportunity offender. I have a particular animosity for Reconstructionists in a strictly historical context and this can bleed over to other areas. In reality, I am simply a cranky fellow and it shows.

The bottom line is I don't like this article because it is so poorly written. It has its place, but not in its current condition. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. When I have more time, I will try a rewrite, in the spirit of Diane's warm reminder to work in baby steps. greenw47

The article is poorly written; just try to read the whole thing without seeing that it's a battleground. Storm Rider has made some sweeping changes without discussing them. The reason why the resignation section was added was because there was discussion on it, and the reason why the law was mentioned is because the LDS church HAS made it very difficult and painful for people to leave. The mention of the law is relevant. If Storm Rider had looked at the discussion before he/she got emotional and changed it maybe the reason for it would have been clear. Also, I request that this article get tagged for cleanup and NPOV. Dianelowe 19:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we can agree on the quality of the article. As I stated earlier, when I have more time, I will try to rewrite mainly the section on why people leave. I think we're getting closer to a concensus on the need to state the reasons, rather than argue them. The section on the Church wiki article about criticisms accomplishes that well. No need to reinvent the wheel. warm thoughts to all. greenw47

Not sure if its online, but Albrect's research does mention reasons that folks leave - social, faith and otherwise that I think would be helpful for you to research. Good luck - we are excited to see the edits. -Visorstuff 22:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, do you think we'll ever get to the point that we'll be able to discuss other exmormon groups (Mormon meaning the broader subset of the Latter Day Saint movement, rather than just ex-LDS) such as the FLDS "lost boys," etc.? Just curious in your thoughts on that.... -Visorstuff 22:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Another incidental, greenw47. You have not put us in any sort of a "checkmate" nor are we amatuer apologists - (if I was, Wikipedia would not be my forum). Try to find something out about people before claiming to know their intents. You claim the high road to their faces [17], but then something else behind the scenes [[18]. You know I've been trying to get someone to help make this article neutral, so don't think you are "encouraging them to get on board and help write a neutral article," but rather its been the exact opposite. Both Storm Rider and myself are trusted in the Wikipedia community, and both of us have a good record at neutrality. We have no need to defend our NPOV records. You are not a victim here, nor is this a battleground. We are trying to write somewhat of an academic article here.

I'm moving on from those comments. I am what I am at face value. I am a nice guy generally, even if my writing style is condescending. I'm not "woo"ing anyone. I'm not sure what I've done to deserve the antagonism and attention that I've recieved over the past few days, and really don't care. I've always stated that I think that Exmormons are needed to help the LDS corner of Wikipedia work, but so far, few have proven level-headed enough to stay NPOV. Yes, I try to be encouraging, becuase most editors drop out after the first few weeks, and I think both you and Dianelowe have good potential and will be helpful to the community. Now, the article needs a lot of help. Lets focus on that. You said you'd work on an outline, how soon do you think we can expect it? -Visorstuff 00:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

(By the way, I am not in the habit of lurking in the exmo boards, however, when someone sends me the link, I have to check it out - especially when it references me. I do have exmormon friends, you know, as I've stated before)

I just went back and checked the board above. Such an interesting read! There is a great difference in knowing what a person truly thinks like the troika on the board and making generalizations about others. I guess I will have to be more guarded with these editors. When one looks at facts, there is not need to assume good faith; there is no good faith. Wearing masks is so...distasteful! Don't you ever just want to be honest? Anyway, thank you Visor for pointing it out. To think, I had almost come to the conclusion that it was just us lousy, stinking Mormons that were lying scum not fit to live on this world. How refreshing to see those same qualities in our fellow Exmo editors. Cheers to everyone! You have made my day. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can say without reservation that I am a craggy old person that has been in a bad mood for 50 years. Levity to me lightens the day and keeps me from going insane. Visor, is an infinitely better indivdiual than me. Now for the serious, Green, don't write anything. What was asked was for you to make an outline. Everyone would then use this outline, once fully agreed upon, to write each section of the article. Condescension works with me about as well as a poke in the eye. Sarcasm though can be appreciated when you think I am going overboard. "Sweeping changes", please let's not S-T-R-E-T-C-H anything else. These kinds of generalizations are meaningless and beneath WIKI. Stop it!

Difficulty removing one's name from church records may be a local phenomena. However, it is not universal. Even the references used to have your name removed demonstrates how easy it is. Write the silly letter and get it over with. Done. If an individual has encounted a problem that is the exception and not the rule.

As I have clearly stated before, the resignation section was redundant. Everything was already stated in the section just before it. It is even worse to state that within the LDS church one can have their name removed and then stating it is law within the US. I am repeating myself. Just read the above comment.

All changes I made I explained on this discussion page, to which there was no response. We then agreed to rewrite the article; making the article and its previous contents moot. Out of the blue we get a complaint from Diane about a section that will be rewritten. Diane, was your purpose to simply to attempt to offend, to cause contention, to satiate a personal need or just an invitation for a bit of a row? Cheers! Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Visor, I am not claiming to be anybody. I am very open about who I am on www.exmormon.org, my favorite BB. All you have to do is ask, "Are you T-Bone at www.exmormon.org?" If I denied it, then you might have grounds for accusing me of being two-faced or hiding my online identity. I also go by T-Bone at FAIR and Malicea4thought at exmo-social in case you want to spend more time lurking (Methinks thee doth protest too much. I really don't care how you got the link to RfM.)

NOTE: This is the post that Visor cited (May 03 18:47) "By the way, for those who haven't figured it out yet, I'm greenw47 over there (referring to wiki). I tried to get the nickname T-Bone, but it was already taken. (Gosh, all you had to do was ask.)"

"Anyway, nothing like throwing an amateur apologist way off by being diplomatic. That's one thing they never expect. By encouraging them to get on board and help write a neutral article, I've put them in checkmate. Either they stop bickering and agree to be neutral, or they look like complete fools." This was taken verbatim from the post.

NOTE: This is what Visor is referring to from this discussion when he accuses me of being two-faced. (added at 12:20 EST on 5/3/06) “In the interest of making the article as objective as possible, I am more than willing to make a compromise. Anybody else onboard?”

For more examples of how I have been willing to be fair, see: Suggestions for compromise. Can anybody find anything in there that suggests I’m being biased at wiki, or being two-faced? (I openly admit to being biased on www.exmormon.org. Can anybody find evidence of a conspiracy to be anything other than neutral? Anything other than suggesting neutrality? Anything? Any more straws to grasp at?

Visor, this is what happens when you try to embarrass somebody who has nothing to hide. It backfires. Now that this has backfired, can you agree to work on a neutral article? Are you onboard?

I think Storm Rider is willing to put religious differences aside and work together. “We are really getting off base. Let's wait for Green to provide an outline and then let's focus on the article.” Storm Rider 06:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC) The question is, Visor, are you willing to be neutral? If this is sent to a higher authority, they will see example after example of how I am willing to be neutral. See how I edited the spelling of Professor Cornwall’s name, rather than deleting it, even though I disagree with the relevance of her work in this article.

So, Visor, the question is: Are you willing to be neutral? Or are you going to continue the personal attacks in an effort to thwart neutrality and force your bias into the article? Or can you be professional?

Thanks for taking the olive branch, Storm Rider. I will have an outline as soon as time permits. greenw47

Like I said I'm moving on. I just think it was think its funny that you seemed to be claiming success to encourage us to be netural, when that's what we've been trying to get from exmormons for months. You said that there werent any examples of things "done out of animosity?" or in the spirit of us verus them in the interest of neutrality but then you post things elsewhere that say "I've put them in checkmate" and other negative items. Seems a bit disingenuous imho, but again, I'm moving on. Back to the article outline. Instead of taking the time to keep asking me to be neutral as you did four times in the above post, why don't you spend the time on the promised outline? I don't think I or Storm Rider have been very POV in our editing of the article itself (especially since you and dianelowe came on board), and you've helped correct when we have -thanks- which makes the neutrality discussion pointless. This is not a battleground. Let's move on, lets see this outline. Lets see sources. Let's get the article going. Let's see that outline. -Visorstuff 13:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Visor - if you're moving on, move on. I think we're getting closer to being on the same page. I am finishing up finals right now, and will get that outline to everybody as time permits. I think wiki will be here for a long time, so I'm not in a rush. I'd like to put a bit of time into it, and get input before posting it - avoiding a confusing round of changes. And I promise to do my best, even if it brings criticism from my exmo friends, to produce a neutral outline. (Hope it doesn't put everybody to sleep - no joke.) greenw47

Suggestions for compromise

(added at 12:20 EST on 5/3/06) - The whole article might be even better if it were written from scratch, with the sole aim of objectively saying what exmormonism is. Reasons for leaving do not need to be argued in the article, only mentioned, just as reasons for religious conversion do not need to be discussed at great length in an objective article about a particular religion.

For example, "Reasons for leaving include: disbelief in the claims of Joseph Smith about his experiences, disbelief in the Book of Mormon as scripture, disagreement over historical claims and scientific research, or simply disagreement with church teachings."

See, no need to argue over blacks and the priesthood, DNA, or Book of Mormon geography. (I can see by the direction this article is going that it's never going to end if we go that direction.) Since there are no claims on either side of the arguments, no need to argue over sources and their ojbectivity. Phrasing such as that does not invite pro-LDS or anti-LDS bias. It could be said about any religion without ruffling feathers.

In the reference section, since the books, articles, or papers mentioned to not provide cites for information in the article, I suggest that we put a section of Books, articles, and academic papers. It can have 2 sections. 1) About Exmormons - from LDS sources; and 2) About Exmormons - from non-LDS sources.

That way, there is no temptation (not saying anybody is doing this) to covertly try to sneak biased info under the guise of being 'helpful.' Anybody who wants to look further can then do research, knowing whether or not the material they are about to research is going to have an LDS or non-LDS flavor.

In the interest of making the article as objective as possible, I am more than willing to make a compromise. Anybody else onboard? greenw47

Green, might you offer an outline of the artcile as you propose it to be? We could then all lend a hand a flesh it out after a mutual consent of a majority of the parties is obtained. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Don't have much time today, but suggest structuring similar to Mormon for consistency, or something like Chemist, etc. No need to offer specifics about each issue, but like you said, and solid NPOV these are documented issues, etc. Let's decide on an outline before re-writing, however.

I think we are moving in the right direction. Let me share some historical context - in the past, the exmormon editors who have written/edited have been primarily trying to be exmormon apologists (yes, apologetics for exmormonism occurs), rather than taking a scholarly look at the article. From my view, Exmormons hop on here and have accused mormon editors as adding in POV statements, when in fact, exmormons have used the terms, which you have not done (aside from the initial knee-jerks that were expected). And they have structured in the current condition/format, using ancedotal, unconfirmed and undocumented examples that doesn't match up with research I've seen and done, which is why I've been trying to get someone who can set aside emotions long enough to be academic about the process as you and Dianelowe are doing (thank-you). I think both of you are level-headed and thank you for the dialogue. It is one that has needed to take place for a long time. Keep up this good work.

Green, I understand Confirmation bias as you mentioned above - it exists in all research, without exception. But, I'm still having a hard time understanding how (in some cases) Mormon sponsored research discussing why people leave the church could be biased against exmormons. If they are finding and listing reasons why they left, it would be beneficial to Mormons to identify the reasons, outline solutions and retain members better. However, claims as to adherent rates/dropout rates, etc, that I alluded to above, I can see more issues with (though they match up with outside research in many cases, which we can cite). But I'm still trying to figure out the benefit for LDS sociologists to have that big of errors or to fudge research.

The answer is obvious. You will rarely, if ever, find (say) a drug company funding research that proves the drugs the company makes are dangerous and should be avoided in favour of alternative cures; or research by a company making artificial sugar substitutes that shows the product is harmful and that consumers would be better using sugar, instead.

"But I'm still trying to figure out the benefit for LDS sociologists to have that big of errors or to fudge research." The answer is easy. To continue being funded. To continue in their employment. And to continue their membership of the Mormon church and to continue being in good standing in their (Mormon) community. Is it still the case that to be able to continue in employment at BYU that Mormons must hold a valid Temple Recommend? Martinscholes 22:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Finally, to your earlier question, I'd love to add in relevant material about dropout rates from Mormon and non-Mormon souces (which in general are pretty close, from a statistical POV), reasons why leaving, and religiosity and recurrence of membership (ie, which churches they join when they do, if they come back to mormonism later in life, etc.). Let's get an outline in place, I'll keep my research handy and we can move from there. -Visorstuff 18:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Visor, after all is said and done, I think we can come up with a fine article, hammered out on the anvil of experience. It is becoming more and more evident to me that each contributor wants the article to be as neutral as possible. I will reserve further comments on the reference section until I see how the materials they are actually used. In the meantime, inserting a list of BYU research papers before using them for references is confusing at best. They look like footnotes at the bottom of a page that don't refer to anything in the text. greenw47

There should be a complete rewrite. What I don't understand is that (for example) Catholic article is open to include anti-Catholic or criticisms of Catholicism, and most Mormons don't seems to allow the same difference of view. Is the Mormon religion without criticism? I highly doubt it. The article is now in a form that can be worked on when consensus is reached here first. Sources and References from earlier revisions can be added in when consensus is reached. Also, my last edit to the page was accidentally marked as minor when I hit the "Save Page" button. I apologize for that.Dianelowe 20:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully this helps with context: "Mormon" is a term, not a church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article does allow for criticism. But "Mormon" is merely a term describing someone who adheres to certain branches of the Latter Day Saint movement. No controversy or criticism needed to that. Same with "Exmormonism."

That said, before we completely delete the page and start over, we need to agree on an outline. I'll likely revert to preserve material, rather than having to pull from version histories - or we can save the text in a sub-page like the talk page archive above. Let's figure out the outline first, as is the norm on Wikipedia. -Visorstuff 20:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the paragraphs you kept in were the most neutrally-written part of the article. You have good instincts - I would have done similar in my early days. Good choice, but lets follow norms. -Visorstuff 20:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Diane, we must be reading different articles. Please check out Roman Catholic Church and then review The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and with a straight face tell me you actually feel the Catholic church article is more balanced. The LDS article has even has a Criticism and Controversy section, which is not found in the other. This has long been a concern of mine; Mormons are so used to persecution they forthrightly allow totally open book to their history and their beliefs. It is as if they expect to be persecuted and so anytime any wants to write something negative, unless it is completely untrue, it is generally allowed. On the other hand, other churches have articles that answer the question "what is it" and "what do they believe". The concept of controversy is sidestepped. The closest thing you see on the Catholic article is under the "See also" section where it refers to Anti-Catholicism; not your typical controversy article. It would be a great day if Mormon related articles were held to the same standards as the Catholic article.

I am probably going too far, but it is for the Gipper...If you are going to be successful as an editor on Mormon related articles, you will be greatly aided if you forfeit your animosity towards the church (just while editing these topics) and make sure you know what you are talking about before making statements that can easily be verified as false. Forgive me if I have broached a subject that is obviously one that has caused you deep pain in the past. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider, who and what are you referring to? Can you point to something specific that was done out of animosity? Please point to specific examples - that's pretty serious claim. More than causing deep pain for somebody in the past, is this causing deep pain for you in the present? Do you have animosity toward people who leave the LDS Church? I think the rest of us here are working toward a neutral article. I encourage you to get on board, no matter what others do. greenw47

Storm Rider, did you read the Roman Catholic Church article? The RCC article does have a section entitled "Perspectives on the Catholic Church" which discusses criticism and refer readers to articles (also listed under "See Also") that cover Anti-Catholicism (that includes links to both Catholic and anti-Catholic websites), Criticism of the Catholic Church (which apparently has its own NPOV problems), and Sex-Abuse cases. Considering the RCC had 1800 more years to accumulate criticism, it seems fair that those articles would be included under their own headings (they're complicated enough). If history was so important to the LDS article editors, the MMM, among other incidents, would have more than a "see also" under History of the Latter Day Saint Movement. Polygamy's history in the LDS church is only mentioned briefly in the main LDS article, and does not explain why it was practiced. If you're going to edit ExMormon related articles, you will be greatly aided if you put your testimony of the LDS Church aside in favor for facts and neutrality.Dianelowe 23:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Quick side note, History of the Latter Day Saint movement only includes details up until the split of the Latter Day Saints following the Succession crisis (Mormonism), and a brief overview of what is happening today in the movement. Mountain Meadows massacre is included in History_of_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints where it refers readers to its own article as to not be duplicative. Polygamy is mentioned in the summary article The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and links to its own article at Plural marriage, which is quite detailed, both pro and con. As polygamy is not a teaching of the church today (regardless of what cultural beliefs there are about it) and teaching of it is against church policy, it is not included other than as a historical item, and in what Mormons may be known for. You may want to go back and look at List of articles about Mormonism to familiarize yourself with many of the articles about Mormonism and how they inter-relate and link together. Nothing is being hidden, from Second Anointing to Prayer circle to Council of Fifty to Blood atonement to Adam-God theory, the Kimono is open and thorough. -Visorstuff 23:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I will repeat myself, any day of the week I wish Mormon articles only had to meet the same standards held by Catholic articles. (Look, my face is straight)Do not misinterpret my statement, I prefer their articles and their standards. I also have a deep admiration for the Roman Catholic church; however the more I study the more I am drawn to the Eastern Orthodox church. It is an amazing belief/church. Nothing I have said should be interpreted as being critical of the Roman Catholic church. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Storm Rider (talk • contribs) .

I didn't interpret your remarks as critical of the Roman Catholic Church. You did, however, say that "The closest thing you see on the Catholic article is under the "See also" section where it refers to Anti-Catholicism; not your typical controversy article."; I was pointing out that there was more critical information on the RCC article, as well as easier-to-find references and links to "the other side"'s information.Dianelowe 02:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Policy on Religion

WP:NPOV NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources.

Many adherents of a religion will object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They would prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which is often from a non-historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) Their point of view must be mentioned, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that we say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z.

An important note on using the term "fundamentalism". Please see the article on fundamentalism for the technical definition of this term. This word is often used in articles on religion, but should only be used in one of its technical senses. We should take care to explain what we mean by this term in order to avoid: (a) causing unnecessary offense, and (b) misleading the reader (most people being unaware of how this word should be used.) We should not use this term as a pejorative phrase, and should remember that it is neither a synonym for "opposition to science" nor "deeply held beliefs" and it should not be used to refer to religion or political conservatism when those do not meet the word's technical senses. As religion is a controversial topic, be prepared to see some of these articles edited due to what may seem minor quibbles.

I think this is something we all need to read. Dianelowe 23:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Very familiar with that section, but always good for a reminder. -Visorstuff 00:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

But exmormonism is, of course, not a religion. Merely the state of not being affiliated to one particular religion, that founded by Joseph Smith jnr. Martinscholes 14:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Common sense, boundaries and "Recommended Reading"

If people want to include specific references that direct the reader to a point of view (POV) then they should offer a SINGLE SENTENCE review/description of a book IN THE REFERENCE SECTION that includes the author's bias/position. The main problem is that they can't cite one author seven times and expect to be neutral or fair or even rational, as is currently the case. (I don't see how a reader would be fooled anyway by the imbalance). By the way, this POV type of citation is done on other Wikipedia entries quite frequently and is done in traditional encyclopedias as well.

I also don't see a point in debating "Exmormonism" as a pro/con viewpoint to be compromised. It is sociological, not doctrinal. Are Mormons going to suggest that Exmormons really don't exist? Pro/con for the decision to leave too? What kind of poser would suggest on a worldwide wiki that Exmormons are "wrong" for leaving Mormonism? And if they can’t say it, then they shouldn't bother writing paragraphs around the point to say it another way.

I also think that Mormons absurdly telling Exmormons how much of a mess something called "Exmormon" seems to be is just another form of hating the idea of Exmormonism. As if they are hiding their motives here. It is evidence of a deep insecurity to offer their “police action" without a law to police. It certainly can be said to be a cult mentality that thinks it has the ultimate truth, because of the deep psychological need to attack those who reject it. My concern is the creepiness of boundary violation that they are completely unaware of (let’s admit here that most Mormons are not this way).

My point is that being on a page that does not include one’s experience or self-knowledge, or on a page that cannot entertain one’s viewpoint without bias, is not much different than violating any boundary anywhere. It would be as if a racist was invading a page on a particular race. Some people will always violate the boundaries of others, and when they let them out of prison, they keep doing it in most cases it seems. They are never really cured, because it is a defect that lacks self-awareness of one’s own limitations. 166.70.243.229 06:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, but you obviously have a point to make. As the article is rewritten, please make all editors aware should your concerns be violated.

On a separate note, when I review something like the above I seek for a balanced point of view. Does the editor realize there is not simply their position? In reading the above the only people noted with a problem...a criminal, incurable disease, are Mormons, specifically I think you mean LDS. The analogy actually did not say Mormon, but that was the only group mentioned inteh first paragraphs, so I assume it still applied. I would invite you to review your own writing and take your own advice: you may not know and you may lack self-awareness. The world is not "you vs. them" or even "us vs. them", but rather it is a more diverse complex place.

WIKI is not a place to describe one's personal experience. That would be best for a blog. In addition, let's not interpret one's personal experience for the experience of everyone else. This is not meant to demean your personal experience, but to state that this is the wrong medium for self-expresssion. We have to write articles with broad, researched brush strokes; otherwise all we are doing is writing opinion pieces.

We are really getting off base. Let's wait for Green to provide an outline and then let's focus on the article. Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That was the common sense part, ie, it isn't your problem. Any entry on any phenomenon includes the personal experience of the author to provide the facts. If you think personal experience is only subjective then you've said more about your limited position on matters than I did. 166.70.243.229 06:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I could care less about including personal experiences as long as they are found to be reflective of the movement as a whole (and are cited, shown to be the case) - so far they have not. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not:

Wikpedia is not: Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See Wikipedia:No original research. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.

Wikipedia is not: Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves, their direct family or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." [1] Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles, or to articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Notability.

Wikipedia is not: User pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.

If you want to follow Wikipedia the guidelines, great. We'd love to include personal experiences that do. Reference them, but Wikipedia doesn't allow for autobiographies, personal essays or blog-type postings. -Visorstuff 13:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Visorstuff, that's a nice way of saying that everyone can be incompetent and unqualified. When someone gets hired for a job, they are hired for their experience, for example. Their competency is measured in self-knowledge, ie, they know that they know, for example. Stormrider conflated the two to become "personal experience" as you did, because subjectivity is how you both relate to the world. Furthermore, since we're on the subject of Wikipedia, you may as well know that people shouldn't pretend to be in charge of things of which they can't understand from their enforcement of the opposite position. This is common sense, although you may feel Wikipedia gives the repressed controller a way to express themselves. I would agree. What you and Stormrider are failing to grasp here is that there is no "Mormon" POV in Exmormonism to debate or share. There is no "smokers" POV in ex-smoking. There is no meat-eating POV in vegetarianism. Your minds cannot accept it it seems.

There is something troubling you here and it isn't anything here but your Mormonism. You are trying to put something that escaped back into a cage you can understand. Ultimately, the desire to violate boundaries spills from feelings of deep personal inadequacy within Mormonism, not the feelings of the inadequacy of Mormonism. But the latter will attract the former. Those feelings of being inadequate within Mormonism are cultivated by Mormonism by guilt and shaming techniques. All of your condescending remarks that conceive of you as gate-keeper are sourced from there. Wikipedia should not be the place for posers, but it will be until they get it right. 166.70.243.229 14:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Visorstuff and Stormrider, we are dealing with matters of honor and ethics here when you insist on directing a page for leavers of your own belief system. The confusion seems to be a problem with people who are self-righteous and take their cue from an absolute morality that says they can do no wrong in spreading their beliefs. They don't see the simple ethical violations such as these because such conflicts of interest are delisted in their code of conduct. [clearing throat] And this ultimately this gets into issues of class, how one is raised, manners, decorum, dignity, and generally avoiding becoming a pawn. 166.70.243.229 15:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. My poor friend. There is no you in this matter. There is no one in this matter. This is about a subject. One may wish to accept a label, but that person does not become the subject by doing so. We have repeated ad nauseaum there is no "us vs. them" to this subject, but you insist on pointing your finger at "them". Then you project all manner of characteristics on them.

Enter the world of WIKI; put down your rebellious feelings. There is no one to fight against here. The only focus you/we should have is the article. Given that nothing is happening now until we agree on an outline, all of this conversation serves little purpose.

Another hint, the philosophic tripe you have written above should only serve as a mirror for yourself. At the point when you are running around trumpting your own enlightenment; know for a surety that you are not enlightened. The path of enlightenment is not found by the self-promoter. Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Stormrider, I hope it helps, because Exmormons aren't fooled by that detachment nonsense. We know what you doing here. It is no accident of interest and your behavior is never neutral to the subject. It was a good show however. Take your own advice and see your own mirror. In the final analysis you are a devout Mormon trying to direct an Exmormon page. I'd like to see your justification for that one, without pretending you are worldly and open-minded. 166.70.243.229 15:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Since you know almost nothing about who I am, let me give you a few ideas. I am a life-long student of religion. Although I have studied philosophy, I have really only focused on the ancient philosophes; not exclusively, but focused. Some of the books I have read in the past two months are: The Laughing Jesus by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, The Great Transformation, by Karen Armstrong, Misquoting Jesus, by Bart D. Ehrman, From Jesus to Christianity, by L. Michael White, and The Worlds of Joseph Smith, the Bicentennial Conference at the Library of Congress. I hope that I am not worldly, but I would hope to say that I am educated about religion. I know that I am more liberal than many Mormons. That is enough given the context of this article.

There is no reason for a justification for accusations that are founded on your own projections to others. You are still operating from perception completely focused on you and what you think you know of others; pretty paranoid world isn't it? Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Stormrider, I was describing your actions from my persective, of course you see yourself much differently, I would assume so. Take it for what it is worth to you. I can't fathom you would disagree with that. We should all take a break for now. 166.70.243.229 16:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

166.70.243.229, I'd like to ask you to review the no personal attacks policy, and remember that article Talk pages are intended to facilitate discussing changes to the associated articles. They are not for discussing our fellow editors. If you honestly believe that someone is making edits in bad faith or is otherwise violating wikipedia policy, it would be far better to discuss it on their Talk page, or failing that, to pursue the appropriate steps in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. (That process will probably work better for everyone if you register and start logging in using a username, so we know it's still the same person we're talking to. Heck, that would help just with normal Talk page dialog like this, for that matter.) Wesley \

Thankyou Wesley, the resolution dispute is always an option, perhaps avoidable, but I might only add that pointing out a religious bias is not an attack, but a legitimate defense, because it is a "non-negotiable policy" of Wikipedia to avoid it (see NPOV. We have a clear case of religious bias when a Mormon POV is called for under the guise of balance. 166.70.243.229 18:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Now that that's out of the way, maybe folks can go back to discussing a new outline or whatever else it will take to polish up this article. Wesley 17:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The title "Recommended reading" really works. greenw47

Could we please stop the fake "sighing" and other little "I am better than you" tricks? In real academia, they would get you booted out of a lecture hall or a professor's study so fast that you would not know what had happened. If you want to be considered as an academic, it might be best to act like one. IMO. Martinscholes 17:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not: Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves, their direct family or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." [1] Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles, or to articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Notability.

The above quote is interesting. It would, if enforced, preclude Mormons from editing here, too. And would ban links to BYU studies and publictions, also... Martinscholes 15:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)