Jump to content

Talk:Ex-Mormon/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

NPOV and original research

I've gone through the current article and added {{Fact}} tags to a large number, at least a half-dozen, of statements that assert a fact, but make no citation of sources. Most of these say something along the lines of "Mormons believe this" or "This causes them to do this". The ones involving the LDS major belief need to be cited with the appropriate revelations, or scripture, or whatever, that states this. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that those are false, I'm just saying that such a major statement requires a citation, and one could easily be found in mormon scripture (i'm not a mormon so I wouldn't know where to look). (I'm sure they'd be happy to send you a copy for research :) Callcentermonkey 06:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC) )

The others, mainly the ones saying "Exmormons act like this, or do this," or the ones using the word "commonly" "mostly" or "often" need to be cited with a reliable sources to back up the statement, otherwise they're original research, and point of view, and should be removed. It's one thing to say "most exmormons leave because of ...." if there was a study done that shows evidence of that. It's another thing (unacceptably) to say "Mormons commonly leave because of a non-mormon"...without citing the evidence to prove that statement. Without citations this article will inevitably be POV⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There is, in religions and other groups, something known as an "unwritten rule". For example, although nothing might be written down that Mormons should not go into bars or pubs, as a Mormon I was certainly told that I should not go into such places. Several Mormon missionaries told me: "The Holy Spirit cannot enter in to such a place with you." Nowhere have I seen this as somthing that could be cited in Mormon doctrine, but every Mormon certainly knows that to be the case, at least when I was a member of the Mormon church.

Attempting to provide a cite for every belief expressed by members of a church or of any group is not possible due to the fact that many such beliefs are passed on by word of mouth and are not "scripture" for want of a better term. Martinscholes 11:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That may be so, but the standard for wikipedia is Verifiability. You see it every time you make a contribution. The content MUST be verifiable to be included. If it's cited nowhere, it is original research, which is not allowed at wikipedia: that's one of the 3 primary rules on content creation, and trumps all other consensus, such as "unwritten rules". What you think "every mormon knows" isn't necessarily the case: I have a mormon friend who regularly comes to the bar with me. He doesn't drink, but he still enters the establishment with us, and all who know him consider him to be an upstanding Mormon. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 11:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? That would not have been tolerated when I was a Mormon. But the general point I made regarding citable rules in faith groups is still valid. Martinscholes 12:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of verifiability, there seems to be a lot in the Public Speaking section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Public_Speaking. In the interest of using only verifiable resources, a major statement such as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a long and rich tradition of public speaking." should have a verifiable source. Visor, as a member of the LDS church, and not an Exmormon, that might be of concern to you. 5/8/06 4:06 am EST greenw47
I don't think it is. If the statements are of a fundamental nature to the religion, they'll either be expressly stated in scripture, or in clergy commentary. For instance, if I was to be editing the article on Judaism, and I was going to say "Jews cannot eat pork, some branches of Judaism hold the Kosher laws to be of the highest importance", I'd need to either cite the chapter and verse saying that, or perhaps better, I could find rabbinical commentary explaining WHY, and cite that as my reference. Same with Mormonism. You could either cite the appropriate chapters of the Book of Mormon, or you could cite published LDS church discussion talking about it. Without either of those, or something similar, it cannot be considered verifiable. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 14:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see references to what is taught in the LDS church regarding those who leave. 5/8/06 4:07 am ESTgreenw47

Yes, but that is the problem with a faith, isn't it? To understand a faith you must realise that there are many "unwritten rules." For example, you will not see anywhere in the Book of Mormon a scripture that bans the wearing of coloured shirts and cartoon ties. However, I have seen men disciplined by Mormon Bishops for wearing coloured shirts and cartoon ties to a church service. Martinscholes 14:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Simple answer here for official LDS teachings are about those who leave. All this stuff can be verified in your quad or other church published books. This is from "Sunday School Lessons" which answers the question, "Does the LDS church really teach that?" It also has scripture references. http://www.ldsliving.com/dc24.asp (May 7, 2006) Anyway, the reference is not to a web page, but to official LDS teachings on the page about why people leave. May 7, 2006 10:43 am greenw47

I agree with Swatjester (and we have not always seen eye to eye, but he is a trusted member of the wikipedia community). Things can be much more referenced that they are, and that is what wikipedia asks for. It is the standard here.
Martinscholes, please feel free to "refer" to the handbook. If you feel uncomfortable with quoting from it, summarize, give a page number and add in the content. Those of us who have the books, can always verify the claims. You don't have to have online links to research. Some of the best articles on wikipedia refer solely to off-line works. This is a non-issue.
Second, most of the "unwritten rules" you discuss are not Mormon or LDS doctrines, and are purely cultural perpetuations and perceptions and beliefs. If you feel something of that sort needs to be added in, there are plenty of masters theses that discuss the many mormon cultural practices, such as "white shirts" and "avoiding the appearance of evil" by going into bars. In addition, there are works that are not authoritative that discuss this you can reference as examples of cultural belief (see miracle of forgiveness, for example).
Incidentally, greenw47, as Ted Gibbons is not a president of the church, I do not consider the teaching linked to as "official," nor would the tanners, jan shipps or other mormon students of history (and most church members). Rather, I consider it good advice and the results of someone's good study, but not authoritative. -User:Visorstuff 03:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Visor, you realize that I'm not planning on citing Ted L. Gibbons and that I know he is not the President of the LDS church, don't you? I fully plan on citing the passages from the D&C, Book of Mormon, Journal of Discourses, History of the Church, Improvement Era, and Ensign as examples of LDS teachings. I don't think that anything that is printed by the LDS church could be argued as not being a church teaching.

Since I am willing to be that you'll object to using the Journal of Discourses (incidentally, published by the LDS church) as an exmaple of church teachings, I'll allow you to put a note that it is not current LDS teaching. I'm more than willing to compromise, except when it comes to neutrality. : ) greenw47

Help please, the MSU page is a featured article (See here). Maybe we can make our references section look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_State_University#Notes

Yes, I contribute to the MSU page - a bit. 5/8/06 4:43 am greenw47

Added link to NPR story. The reporter mentions that exmormon.org recieves 160,000 hits a day. Reporters have to fact check or get fired. I don't doubt NPR's nuetrality so it looks like a good source.

Now, I'm going to take a break and let the changes speak for themselves. I've tried my best to be as neutral as possible. If I failed, I'm only human. If any bias is there, it's unintentional. Greenw47 17:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You've done well, I made a quick pass for a few additional citations (which we can move to reference section later) and clean up of a couple grammar items. When I found that NPR story a few weeks back (or months? Can't remember), I too thought it was a great source of information. It does have some issues, but then so does everything written. Good work. I'll see if I can add in some details later today. I've put together some good sources and material, just need to clean up and add in. -Visorstuff 17:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I think we're moving in the right direction. Greenw47 16:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Visorstuff, the Handbook of instruction is NOT available to ordinary Mormons. It has very restricted distribution to people in a limited number of leadership positions and old copies have to be handed in. It is therefore impossible for an ordinary member of the Mormon Church to obtain a copy. Lt alone an outsider. And re-writing it would STILL potentially breach copyright laws. As an active Mormon you would already know that the HOI is only limited to those in leadership positions, so I really have to wonder if you are just toying with us, when you suggest quoting from that book... Martinscholes 21:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Any member can go into a distribution center and get Book 2 (the maroon book). The Blue book (book 1) is available at nearly any DI, and I've seen large sections of it accurately reposted in many places. I've never been asked to turn in one of my books, except when I am called to a position, I am generally told that I'd need to "pass along" the book to the next person in the calling. Both are further broken down into smaller booklets, which can be purchased, and the church regularly tries to get at least the "green book" the "gospel teaching and leadership" section to every adult member. I'm sure a google search would pull up quotes. And, as I stated before, we can easily verify (If I was toying I'd suggest checking one out from the Library of Congress, which, incidentally, you can do). :^)

In addition, you wrote: "re-writing it would STILL potentially breach copyright laws." Not under Fair Use, under the education clause. You see the tanners breach was because they were profiting from it, and the handbook has been quoted in Gen Conf., Encyc. of Mormonism, and other church materials, as well as academic articles. As long as sections are brief, are educational, not for profit, and fit under fair use as enforced by intellectual reserve and the FBI, you should be fine. -Visorstuff 21:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? You have evidence to support your POV and potentially libellous remarks regarding Mr and Mrs Tanner? If so, share them with us, do. And how would outside researchers including former Mormons legally be able to purchase a copy of the handbook? (You do recall that it is a restricted distribution publication? Or is your point that the Mormon church has radically changed its previous policy regarding this handbook?) Martinscholes 21:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes I do have evidence. And from the Tanners themselves. You can read about it from their newsletter here: [1]. The issue was that the Tanner's organization is set up as a non-profit organization, so it was difficult to prove they were profiting from teh posting of the manual. So both sides, believing they were right, agreed to settle the lawsuit. You can read more here: [2] and [3] and by doing a simple Google search. By the way, have you met the Tanners? Last time I saw them was before I moved to Arizona at the church historical office. We were both doing research, and they signed in just before I did. Seem to be nice folks. -Visorstuff 21:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Admittedly, I have only gotten the Tanners' side of the story (via email) on that settlement agreement. But it sounded like they were using a very small portion of the Church handbook as factual evidence on which to criticize the LDS church. A court would have had to do a fair use analysis first due to the constitutional avoidance doctrine, but if fair use failed, a separate argument would have been available under the First Amendment. Because their use was needed to make arguments critical of a cultural institution, it was pretty close to the core interests of what the First Amendment protects. I'm sure the church's lawyers knew that, but nevertheless used copyright law as a club to silence criticism. Unfortunately the Tanners' only legal counsel was a free public legal aid lawyer, who was undoubtedly strapped for time and resources (and I think likely a greenhorn without experience in intellectual property or Constitutional law), and went for the quick settlement instead of zealously pursue the Tanners' rights. If they'd had as much money to spend on lawyers as the Church did, I think that dispute would have ended with the court granting a motion to dismiss the church's lawsuit.
And by the way, education and profit are both parts of the fair use analysis, in 17 USC 107. All the factors have to be considered together to evaluate fair use, and making some profit does not foreclose a finding of fair use where it's outweighed by considerations of the other factors. In the case where profit is nominal to negligible or roughly consistent with covering costs, the copying has a substantive educational purpose, the copyrighted work constitutes substantive evidence of the nature of an institution for which there's no functional substitute, only a small portion of the work was copied, and the effect on the value or potential market for the original is negligible, fair use should be a slam dunk - with no need to move on to First Amendment questions. - Reaverdrop 01:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC) The foregoing is general opinion and does not constitute legal advice. If you require legal advice, seek counsel from an attorney admitted to practice law in your jurisdiction.

"Divine" Mormon sources as facts to describe Exmormons

Someone has attempted to include a large amount of POV pushing from official Mormon sources speaking for the institutional POV (and quoting the source as authoritive as fact). Ubelievable but true. I would suggest to the author to keep their own religious beliefs out of objective discourse on any page, but to invade an exmormon page referencing official Mormon commentary as a fact describing a phenomenon is a bias quoting a bias, and demonstrates the critical point that it behaves like a cult. Anon166 23:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that it was a large amount. I do agree it was a POV but the whole article is a POV push. It is really not an appropriate topic for a legitimate encyclopedia. At least not as it is. However, I accept that it is wanted. So, at least while the POV cannot be neutral, it can be balanced. And in the balance there is harmony. Both the LDS and EXLDS sources basically agree! So that lends creedence to the issues. It is also my understanding from something I read somewhere that the LDS Church is concerned about losing folks and so has actually done relatively objective studies on the matter by some research firm they hired. So I suspect they know something. If that is true, then their statements are informed statements. Even if not, they still agree.
Furthermore, the subject was "Reasons for leaving". This cites were giving reasons for leaving and so entirely on topic. As for bias... well the whole article is biased. It is based upon bias. The whole issue of people leaving ANY important structured part of their lives behind is traumatic. It is not unique to Mormons. It happens to Catholics and Baptists and Jews and Moslems and Democrats and Hungarians. This page is making it seem like some small segment of society that takes this step... a step that is common to many people... is somehow more important. Its a biased POV right from the start and really does not deserve an article. (probably a fork) But to argue that at least a balance POV is bad is ... well hypocritical. But most importantly, the balanced view is definitely the intent behind the definition of NPOV. Give the facts... let everyone make up their mind.
I also find it somewhat wierd to have "an informal poll" cited as a legitimate source in something that is called an encyclopedia. That was the original statement that got me thinking about the issue. Its a sort of tripe source yet given creedence. kinda yech.
Thank you for the suggestion that I keep my religious beliefs out of objective discourse. Perhaps you did not notice, but I have done that. I would also suggest to to the author that they keep their atheistic beliefs out. Or are those supposedly unbiased? And did I make an unwarranted assumption? Was I the only one?
Oh... and I do not mind if you think that the Mormon Church is a cult. It is. 64.178.145.150 04:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, we seem to agree that it is POV and against Wikipedia's non-negotiable policy of NPOV and has no part in any article. Thanks for clearing that up. But we don't agree on the rest, especially the part about being an inappropriate article, which would seem to lack good faith on your part. I think the article is appropriate, which is why I find citations that assume divine knowledge as fact to be inappropriate, and especially cites that try to ignore the doctrinal reasons for leaving by instead assigning failure to Exmormons (and blame to Mormons), because leaving is never assumed to be a wrong, but a constitutional right. You also expected 99.9% of the non-Mormon world to assume your source authority in this case. Anon166 02:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
If [i]anybody[/i] has a concern that a part is POV, just bring it up in the talk page. We can discuss why each party thinks it is or is not. That saves us from seeing the article undergo drastic changes. If there is a valid reason for making a change, disucss it and show the merit. Don't remove or insert an entire section. That only makes people dig in their heels stubbornly. I'm not pointing fingers. I did the same thing when I was a newbie. And I'm still a relative newbie.
Overall, the article is much more NPOV than it used to be. Let's not use the tired old trick of making a drastic change, then agreeing to revert it if "I can just keep one of the changes." If the change has merit, and the author is able to defend his/her position, there is no way to stop it. Above all, keep it civil. Greenw47 18:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Back to BYU professors

It was debated some time ago on whether BYU professors have to vow not to criticize the LDS church. Here is the answer: ""All BYU professors, teachers and instructors vow not to publicly criticize the teachings of the LDS church as a term of their employment."" http://www.abc4.com/local_news/local_headlines/story.aspx?content_id=0CD8FA2C-81EE-4494-9BBF-794D07F9A49D Greenw47 12:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This requires us by the rules to remove the recommended readings by those lone authors who are BYU or church employees, implied to be third-party authorities on the subject of Exmormonism, but who cannot contradict the negative stance taken by church authorities. It may be allowed to leave in those authors who are BYU employees who are not lone authors. Anon166 23:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I got rid of the entire section, partly as a compromise; the remaining article was in BYU studies. Anon166 23:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks better. The references were not tied to anything in the article. Greenw47 01:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

Please take no offense, but I don't see why this is even an article. It seems like it would be more appropriate to merge appropriate sections into Mormon, Anti-Mormonism, and Criticism_of_Mormonism. Ex-Catholic and Ex-Jehovah's-Witness aren't articles. Am I missing something that makes ExMormonism particularly notable? DejahThoris 01:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I was surprised by this comment. I had thought that exMormonism was unique, but when I googled for exMormonism there were 350,000 hits. However, when I googled ex Jehovah Witnesses there were over 1.1 million hits. I guess this group of "ex's" is not unique nor as significant as others. I would agree with the merge; it just doesn't seem notable relative to other groups and the critiques are already covered elsewhere. Storm Rider (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I am in agreement. There is nothing particularly special about ex-Mormons or their feelings that are not found in other people who have left other significant relationships. This is almost a "vanity" article. It is also highly POV. I have posted this before. --Anon 64 03:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I am brand new to this topic. I strongly feel the article is relevant for several reasons.

  • Exmormonism is a community all its own, with plenty of culture in common that is rooted in but is completely independent from Mormonism. It is far different, for example, than say Ford haters, who may be a collection of individuals who dislike Ford automobiles, but none of whom get together and have events to "recover" from and laugh about Ford. Exmormons do [4] [5]. If there was a better name other than Exmormonism, it would be "Community of Former Mormons".
  • Whether for better or for worse, the Exmormon is typified by the LDS member and non-member alike, and is at least as deserving of an article as analogous terms like "preppy" or "hippie".
  • There is no such culture as "Anti-mormons". This is a label invented by the LDS community to refer to the hypothetical enemy of Mormonism, a scapegoat if you will. There is no "Anti-Mormon" community, no "Anti-Mormon" gatherings, and very few individuals who refer to themselves as such. Anti-mormons exist only in the mind of Mormons - it is a label for anyone who appears to promote any view that Mormonism is false, whether it's an ex-Mormon, a minister from another religion, an atheist who advocates no religion, or whoever it might be. Korihor is the stereotypical Anti-Mormon from the Book of Mormon, and he advocated atheism, not some "anti-mormonism" baloney. If any articles should be merged out of existence, it should be "Anti-mormonism" and not this.
  • Just because Catholicism and Jehovah's Witnesses are religious groups doesn't mean that a comparison of their Wikipedia pages applies. First, Catholicism doesn't have a culture of people who get together on the basis that they have rejected Catholicism... at least that I know of. If they did, they'd be notable enough to have a page for their community. Second, the current Wikipedia selection of Jehovah's Witnesses article is so biased that it doesn't even merit comparison (for example, all of the following articles are redirects to the main Jehovah's Witnesses article: Anti-Jehovah's Witnesses Websites, Jehovah's Witnesses and controversy, Opposing views on Jehovah's Witnesses, Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses, Critical Information on Jehovah's Witnesses). There is no such article Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses - does that mean the JW religion is uncriticized? Nope, I didn't think so either.
  • From my own experience (as I live in Utah), I am very aware of a particular bias that goes along with the Mormon religion (like any similar group). That is, the Mormons would prefer that anything that appears to oppose or criticize or question them simply didn't exist, similar to how the JW's would prefer that anyone searching for criticism of the JW religion instead finds the JW religion. The Mormons would prefer that the gay marriage debate didn't exist, that alcohol didn't exist, that polygamy didn't exist, and (based on their attempts to influence laws) they attempt to push this bias on people outside their group. When it comes from a Mormon, the idea that exmormonism isn't notable is an extension of that very bias in my opinion. That is a bias that is not compatible with the aims of Wikipedia.
  • About sixty other Wikipedia pages link to it.
  • What does "only" 350,000 hits mean anyway. How many hits does one require then to be notable? A billion? A trillion?

--- Reswobslc 19:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

To address a few of the points you make:
  • Ex-Jehovah's Witnesses also have communities and websites ([6] [7]), but they do not have an article on Wikipedia. There are plenty of online resources for ex-Mormons looking for like-minded people; I don't feel a Wikipedia article is neccesary as well.
  • The Anti-Mormonism article does not exist because people feel anti-Mormonism is a culture, but because there is opposition and/or hostility to the religion. There are also articles for Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Semitism. You say "Anti-mormons exist only in the mind of Mormons..." Would that mean anti-Semitism exists only in the minds of Jews?
  • There is a long (and, of course, disputed) article called Controversies_regarding_Jehovah's_Witnesses.
  • You say "When it comes from a Mormon, the idea that exmormonism isn't notable is an extension of that very bias in my opinion (emphasis added)." Excuse me, what gave you the impression that I was Mormon?
  • I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the point Storm Rider was making wasn't about the specific number of Google hits, but about the comparison between "ex" groups of two religions.
DejahThoris 03:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses talks about their issues like blood transfusions. That's a topic completely separate from that of people who leave the JW religion. I have no impression as to whether or not you're Mormon and no intention to convey one, sorry if it seemed that way. The only point I have to make (see the first paragraph of this subtopic) is that Exmormonism is notable. Reswobslc 06:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
An amazing lack of grasp of the subject, IMHO. First, before speaking about Catholicism you might want to come to know the religion and those who no longer claim to be Catholic before stating things that are not factual. It either shows ignorance or a lack of honesty. Those episodes of child molestation made fodder for many, many people and groups to strike out at the CC. Believe me; exMormons who get together haven’t got a clue about organization or even anger compared to them.
How you can state that religious organizations should not be compared, but that it is acceptable to make a comparison between exMormonism and hippies and preppies??? The two just as deserving as the other? This is stating that two wrongs make a right. I like your logic better when you stick to religion; my advice is to stick to the topic at hand and don't get carried away with your analogies; I won't even address "Ford haters".
Let’s not be disingenuous. ExMormons would not exist without the presence of the LDS church. Attempting to state that it is a totally separate, self-sustaining entity is not true. Do you even read some of the forums you cited? They have nothing to talk about except their disgruntled feelings about Mormons and the church.
Let’s get back to the topic and to WIKI. Redundant articles are just that; redundant. They should be deleted and articles that address more substantial issues should replace them. If this article is going to be great, make it unique. For example, one issue that might add something to the article is the impact of Utah culture and society and its impact on exMormons. Is it a transitory phase for people who leave one religion and then find another or does it evolve into a true social group? How does one know that it has so evolved? It must move beyond the parasite stage to the point that it does not depend on another group to survive. Are you aware of any studies in this vein?
If you are able to address this or a similar issue, the article takes on a purpose that is beyond the regurgitation of other articles. Currently the article may make exMormons feel validated, but this is not happy hour at the counselor’s office. It is an encyclopedia. Let’s make it great. Storm Rider (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's make a deal - I'll stay away from editing the Catholic articles which I clearly know nothing about, if you'll stay away from this one, as I see a similar uninformedness. What on earth is a "parasite stage"? What does Exmormonism have to do with Utah culture? Let's say you are right, that Exmormons don't know their thumbs from a cork and they're so high on Prozac that anger to them is Bugs Bunny getting an anvil dropped on his toes. The fact is, they meet! They're notable! They merit an article. Just like hippies, preppies, and Ford haters too, if they want to band together and write one. That's all. You are bleeding so much bias here, especially when you characterize them as having nothing to talk about other than negativity, and your reference to a "counselor's office", you clearly have nothing to do here other than pick a fight and disparage. Find another group to pick on. Reswobslc 06:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Banding together to write an article is inherently POV and is a good reason to consider this article a species of vanity writing. --Anon 64 08:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Pull your horns back in. I can't tell whether you think there should be an article because a group meets and becasue they meet they need an article telling other people they meet and that their meeting is somehow significant to the world at large or simply you do not have a point, but you are a rebel without a cause and need to make sure we know it. Regardless, focus on the topic and keep the diatribes to your weekly meetings.
In exchange, I will keep my comments limited to the article because obviously they are beyond your understanding. No offense, but we are not communicating and I don't think others want to read two idiots miscommunicating.
What exactly do you think is the purpose of the article? How is it unique and how does it add something to WIKI that already does not exist? If these questions can't be answered, I see no need for a redundant article. Storm Rider (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Beyond my understanding? My "weekly meetings"? I think the only thing we agree upon is that no communication is being made. Reswobslc 07:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Come on, don't stop yet. I thought we were trying to get somewhere?! Can you at least try to answer the questions? My attempts at humor should be overlooked. If I have offended you, I am sorry. I enjoy the banter too much and it does not translate as well in written form. Overlook my shortcomings and please focus on the questions. Storm Rider (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the purpose of the article is for information about a common state shared by millions and referred to in Mormon doctrine and literature, one-sidedly, and referenced directly in other wikipedia articles, and in most media articles dealing with the subject of former belief. The need for the article is self-evident on these grounds. Since you are religiously opposed to Exmormons, I think your POV and bias is noteworthy. Anon166 16:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
"...shared by millions..." - and the exmormons say the church inflates their numbers ☺ --Trödel 17:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Most Mormons don't think Exmormons should exist. It is no surprise they would try to censor the article here for the same reason. To answer your question, the article on anti-Mormonism is not valid, it doesn't exist except as a fallacy of black and white thinking. The criticism of Mormonism article is an idea of an idea, not referring to a person or thing. Merging Exmormonism with Mormon would be absurd, since it is the phenomenon of rejecting it and dealing with the consequences, and no single sentence would be applicable to either article. Furthermore, if the ex-Catholic article doesn't exist, its probably because they are more relaxed with dissent. If the ex-Jehovah Witnesses article doesn't exist, its probably because they don't breed exMormons in the same way and try harder to screen their joiners. I got less than 37,000 hits on "ex-Jehovah witness" when it was in quotations. If you search on two words, it will yield too many hits. Anon166 16:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the censorship - I don't have a view on the merge - but if there is a merge the information in this article will be "merged" (i.e. combined with) the information at Mormonism. --Trödel 17:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Storm Rider has said nothing that would indicate to me that he is Mormon. Comments like "Most Mormons don't think Exmormons should exist." and "Since you are religiously opposed to Exmormons..." are uneccesary and move us farther away from a consensus. You are seeing POV where it doesn't exist. I try not to put personal stuff out there, but I am ex-Mormon. Just because I am does not mean ex-Mormonism is a notable group/state-of-being. Volkswagen Club doesn't have an entry, but I'm willing to but there are more Volkswagen enthusiasts meeting up than ex-Mormons. Please do not confuse censorship with lack of notability. There are plenty of sites out there who provide support to ex-Mormons. "The fact is, they meet!" does not automatically mean "They merit an article." As far as "You are bleeding so much bias here..." Please stop. You're assuming that just because we do not think this is notable enough for it's own article (notice I suggested merging it, not deleting it) we are anti-ex-Mormon. In my case, I can assure you, you're completely off-base. DejahThoris 18:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
You might want to do more research and backreading before you lecture me on what I know and don't know. And I don't agree with your optimistic claims that seem to ignore the track record of bias on those other pages. Anon166 19:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Bias works both ways. What about the bias you have? Why should yours be ok and others's bias is not ok?--Anon 64 08:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
On another note, I'll respectfully disagree with my fellow exmormon's analogy to the Volkswagen club - religious or philosophical belief about the world around you is a core element of the human experience, and as such, the topic of exmormonism is of core personal importance to at least many thousands of people - a reliable figure I've seen is that some tens of thousands of people a year contact the church to ask to have their names removed, and there are surely many more who don't take that step - and, with relatively less regard to numbers, a matter touching on a core area of human experience and values is inherently more notable and encyclopedic than a mere recreational group like VW enthusiasts. (Although a couple close friends are among that latter group, I haven't seen them ever express something like religious devotion to that cause.☺) So, I think the present article clearly should stay as itself rather than being merged. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 20:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
If Volkswagen enthusiasts are just as insignificant, perhaps you may want to suggest to them that Fahrvergnügen be merged into Volkswagen. How about Michael Schiavo be merged into Terri Schiavo. How about Missing white woman syndrome and LaToyia Figueroa be merged into Missing persons. I find the suggestion of merging Exmormonism equally unappealing. Reswobslc 02:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually it might be even more fun to merge Terri Schiavo and Missing white woman syndrome into Fahrvergnügen. Whaddya say? - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 02:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Now that would be an article that I would like to read. I would like to restate what I think is the intent of the motion. Delete redundant information, link to those articles where the information is already handled, and focus on what makes this topic unique. Turf battles are tedious and no one is trying to take away anyone's sacred cow. However, if we can make WIKI better and this article better in particular, let's do so. It is a question of focus and deleting redundancy. Storm Rider (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Your objectives, as you have previously stated, are not to improve Wikipedia, but rather for the sake of your enjoyment of the banter. Your POV and bias are clear even before we look at your edit history. Your aim in suggesting this "motion" are clearly to "score one against the Exmormons" whom you know nothing about. Your behavior is consistent with that of a troll. Do not even begin to talk about improving Wikipedia on the basis of doing anything to this article, especially after your previous derogatory comments about Exmormons. If you want to be helpful, try recent change patrol. Reswobslc 04:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
You hear that, StormRider? You're just a big ol' meanie! Resmobslc, please pay closer attention to the discussion, and to who said what. I have yet to suggest the merge. I was merely trying to see if anyone else felt as I did, that this topic was not notable enough for its own article. But if I (that would be DejahThoris, not StormRider) do suggest a merge, it would not be to "score one against the Exmormons," as you say, but because I believe that it would make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. You may disagree, but that is no excuse for not assuming good faith or for borderline name-calling. You may want to bear in mind, as well, that even though you feel that I made this suggestion just to be mean to ex-Mormons, that I am an ex-Mormon. DejahThoris 05:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Reswobslc, I do not know StormRider, but I have seen that name around Wikipedia quite a bit, and I believe that it is held in some fairly high regard. You, on the other hand, claim to be new. Perhaps you should avoid insulting people before you know the lay of the land. Look at how many assumptions you have made and insults you have laid in just a few short days! An inauspicious beginning! --Anon 64 08:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I have been familiar with StormRider's edits for a long time, and while he is personally sympathetic to the LDS Church while I am an exmormon, he has a long track record of valuable and appropriately NPOV contributions to WP. Personal sympathies are not equivalent to hidden agendas. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 20:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Anon166, I don't understand how I lectured you on what you "know and don't know," nor do I understand where I make "optimistic claims that seem to ignore the track record of bias on those other pages." Please explain?
Fahrvergnügen has its own article?!? Egad! By all means, merge it. Michael into Terri, as well.
Point taken, Reaverdrop. Although, my VW friends have expressed something approaching religious devotion to their cars. That was what brought the connection to mind. I guess your friends just aren't "true believers." ☺ While the ex-Mormon issue may be more important to some former members of the church than, say, a car, I still don't feel that Wikipedia is here to provide information on something based on how strongly a relatively small group of people feel about it. Among other things, while the article has almost 40 references, only two appear to be news stories about ex-Mormons from outside the ex-Mormon community. The others seem to be either specifically Mormon or ex-Mormon (five are from exMormon.org). If this is such a notable topic, why is most of the info gathered straight from ex-Mormon sources, not outside, NPOV sources? DejahThoris 04:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The info is gathered from ex-Mormon sources because the article is POV and is a sort of vanity article. --Anon 64 08:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Dejah, anyone who states that something is not so because they don't personally know it is not to be taken very seriously. Furthermore, anyone who proposes that very long Mormonized articles suddenly become the repository for information about exmormons doesn't seem that interested in preserving the information. Anon166 15:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems the position of man to always make a commotion about the faults of others, when in reality it is the disgust we find in ourselves when we look in the mirror that we see the same faults we so easily see in others. Dejah, I thank you for your comments, but you have the unfortunate position of being an exMormon, but you are not towing the "company" line. I would guess you are then worse than a Mormon and will not be invited over to afternoon tea! Although for the life of me I can not see the purpose of belonging to a group whose only use is to proclaim what they are not, I have no problem recognizing that others gain a degree of comraderie from the experience. I assume and hope that it is only a transitory stage while individuals find another social group that is "for" something. Be an atheist, a member of another religion, devote yourself to a cause greater than yourself, but don't hold onto that thing that you no longer are supposed to have left.

I still see no discussion that answers any questions. It is as if we have lost our ability to converse; accuse we have perfected, but cooperative effort is in short supply. Storm Rider (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have previously posted the following regarding Ex-Mormonism:

As Marlene Winell, PhD has pointed out that leaving any religious faith "is much like the end of a marriage. The symptoms of separation are quite similar -- grief, anger, guilt, depression, lower self esteem, and social isolation. ... The familiar sources of church support are no longer there and family members still in the fold may shun you." ( "Leaving the Fold - A Guide for Form Fundamentalists and Others Leaving their Religion, New Harbinger Publications (December 1993)) Exmormons have similar psychological experiences.

This entirely reasonable and NPOV comment, appropriately put into the psych section was removed, because, I think, it violates the vanity aspects of this article. (I have not had time to come back and discuss this or defend my edits that have been removed -- yet.). And yes, I suppose that Ex-Mormons probably feel "special" in their grief. I accept their feelings on this matter. But I suspect that anyone who leaves a close society such as the Catholic Church, or the Jehovah Witnesses, or the Mormons, or even perhaps a marriage, will have various degrees of psychological difficulty that (even if they differ from person to person) are apparently uniform across religious or social systems. Thus, this article is, as I have said, more like a vanity article than a real encyclopedic article. Similar such articles could be written about "people hurt as children by their parents teachings on Santa Claus", "former wives of football addicts" or "Ex-Liberals", but these would not be encyclopedic either. Even if the article is retained (which I would expect), it should be less POV than it is.--Anon 64 03:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The central claim and reference have been in there since you placed them. It was edited down and properly referenced, the way it was done for all of the claims in the article. Anon166 19:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What, no tea??? Goshdarnit! Anyway, I think I'll wait a bit and see if anyone else shows up to converse. I still don't consider this notable enough for it's very own article, so I'll probably suggest a merge in a week or so. That may generate more interest/discussion from those who are a little less emotionally invested in the article. I'm open to reasons for leaving it standing on its own, as long as that reason isn't "It makes me feel validated." DejahThoris 18:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is one exmormon who would still enjoy having an afternoon tea, or an afternoon beer, with Dejah. ☺
But getting away from the tea and Fahrvergnugen and back to the topic; yes, this is defined by what the affected group used to be part of. But that is not very different than, say, the Irish diaspora or African Americans. Groups of people are often cohesively defined by a major factor in their past or heritage that leaves its persistent influences in the way they think and/or relate to others. I'd be nowhere near as interested in religion in general or the way people think about what they believe in if it hadn't been for the experience of being born and raised LDS, serving an LDS mission, and then becoming an atheist. Changing one's beliefs doesn't cause a reset button to be pressed in one's mind or life; while for some exmormons, such as Dejah apparently, the persistent influence in the way one thinks or relates to others (particularly family members and friends who are still LDS) is minimized, it remains a substantial factor for many exmormons. And not just the fact of past membership in the LDS Church, Stormy, but in the ongoing present and future influence on the way one thinks, and particularly, in how one relates to family members and friends who are still LDS, a common distinguishing theme across the general exmormon community, which are of sociological interest and have been recognized as common factors defining "exmormonism" in journalistic accounts and in the existence of legally incorporated non-profit groups such as the Exmormon Foundation and the Postmormon Foundation. Such cohesive groups of former members of other faiths with common distinguishing sociological or epistemological features would be equally encyclopedic.
As another comparison, although you urge defining one's self by something you're for rather than something you're against, with the example of atheism, that on the surface is similar to exmormonism in defining what one is "for" by way of defining what one is "against", though I think both also implicitly convey beliefs that one positively adheres to rather than only beliefs that one denies. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 20:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There are probably more Exmormons than active Mormons

This link may help enlighten those who claim that Exmormons are numerically insignificant: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_2890645 The article's author is LDS, by the way. Anon166 00:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what is this article supposed to prove. And no one claimed that exmormons are numerically insignificant - just that the claim of "millions of exmomormons" was exagerrated - the are numerically significant, and more vocal than most groups of the same size.
This article highlights a problem that has been of concern to the leadership of the LDS church for some time - I have been listening to these themes repeated in Priesthood leadership meetings since the early 90s. I.e. retention of those that are baptized in active membership (i.e. weekly attendence). Some of those people will consider themselves ex-mormon but not all will. Additionally, the LDS church is still far within the cone of projection that Stark made in 1984. Finally, if you read stark's book on religions and the interaction that a church must have with society as a whole you will see that when he talks about a New World Religion he is talking about much more than just having a large number of converts, etc. He is talking about the type of doctrine that a new world religion must have to seperate itself from the of ideas that exist in the religious marketplace and provide its adherents with fulfillment of fundamental needs that create a situation where a religion can have staying power. Like the prophet, I am not surprised when people do not embrace the LDS church - it takes tremendous faith - and commitment - to promise to take upon you the name of Christ, always remember him, and keep his commandments - the big one - which means that one must give up smoking, alcohol, sex, 10% of all the income one makes for the rest of ones life, etc. I personally see it as a miracle that anyone joins the LDS church. And similarly a miracle when someone stays with it - the temple commitments are similarily difficult as one covenants to help build the church and actively participate as one of the lay clergy in serving their fellow man - and putting the needs of others before one's self. --Trödel 01:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Stark was proven wrong by researchers using both Mormon and Catholic statistics. Religious monopoly tends to increase participation, which was counter to his thesis. He is basically selling an outdated supply-side theory that religion as a commodity tends to sell more if you increase the choices, which then favors the strictness factor. He was wrong about both points. Mormons were hyping their stats because they use it as a social proof, which led Stark to make his theory on the wrong data. Happens all the time. Anon166 15:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you need to read a little more on Stark - as he recognizes that monopoly increases participation - The problem you have is that Stark is quoted by Mormons hyping their stats, thus Stark must be bad. While Stark has very respected and thorough research and analysis - some of which Mormons ignore btw. Additonally, to say that Stark was "selling" a specific theory dismisses the totality, comprehensiveness and professionalism of his work. --Trödel 18:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I've read too much of him already and thus waste my time on it in discussion. Any theory that calls itself "rational choice" when dealing with traditional and non-rational personal beliefs is DOA anyway. Anon166 21:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Waste your time discussing - don't you mean waste your time trying to rationalize why he must be wrong since he said something good about the Mormons. --Trödel 01:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I meant waste my time discussing. Anon166 04:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Isn't this a discussion page regarding the article? Shouldn't there be a discussion? --03:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
What is the article supposed to prove? Graphing activity: When the Graduate Center of the City University of New York conducted an American Religious Identification Survey in 2001, it discovered that about the same number of people said they had joined the LDS Church as said they had left it. The CUNY survey reported the church's net growth was zero percent. By contrast, the study showed both Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists with an increase of 11 percent. Anon166 15:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand perfectly well what the CUNY survey purports to prove - what was the point of the SL trib article --Trödel 18:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
That was the point.Anon166 20:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I have removed the NPOV tag. As a newcomer, I am mostly unaware of all the tits and tats that have gone on in this debate. But reading the article, there is not a POV problem. Here is what I have found.

  • There are a lot of complaints about uncited or unreferenced statements. These are not NPOV issues. They are WP:VER and WP:OR issues, and should be tagged as such.
  • In an article about Exmormonism, the article is already about a group of people that meets together and discusses the community "bias" in the first place. That's not an NPOV issue. It is an article about a group that hold a specific POV, just like Mormons do, for the sake of all that is holy! According to WP:NPOV, opinions may be expressed as long as they are described as opinions and not as fact. That is, a statement that "Ex-Mormons believe that Mormonism is (whatever)" is acceptable per WP:NPOV (when referenced of coursed), and not a statement like "Mormonism is baloney" that attempts to appear as fact. I find that the article sufficiently insulates each opinion claim from appearing as fact, and therefore not a reason to have the whole article flagged as NPOV.
  • Should a specific section of the article violate WP:NPOV, then anyone should feel free to add it. It should only be added to the particular section however. When the whole article is tagged as NPOV, I see that as an attempt for the Mormon side to simply discredit the entire article. Exmormons aren't going and tagging the entire Mormon article with POV tags simply because it doesn't represent Exmormonism as much as Mormonism - you wouldn't expect that. Let's respect that here too.

--- Reswobslc 19:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I am in complete disagreement with regard to the NPOV tag and I will return it.--Anon 64 03:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but your opinion would be much more helpful if you actually gave a reason for it, or were more specific about what was NPOV. Just because you don't agree with the viewpoint that's the subject of the article does not make it NPOV. Reswobslc 05:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that just because I do not agree with the viewpoint, that does not make it NPOV. This is not the issue. The issue is that previous edits (additions) to bring about NPOV were summarily rejected without discussion. Hence, I consider the article to be POV. I made reference to one of the changes above. This was only one of many changes that were summarily rejected because they did not fit the POV. Not because they were invalid or wrong or unsubstantiated (they had footnotes) but because they were not in keeping with the party line. So, the article remains POV. As you said, you are new here and do not know all things. But a good rule of thumb is to not be surprised when you make a unilateral edit -- DELETING something that has been in place for a long time, and then find that there are objections to such edits. Before making those deletions, consider talking about it FIRST and seeing if your view really is a concensus view (which, by the way, is not determined by democratic vote). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon 64 (talk • contribs)


List of POV Elements from Article

As far as actual obvious POV Statements try these out, and notice that they do not exist in any one part of the document but are all through it:

  • An informal internet poll has shown that disbelief in Joseph Smith as a prophet and the Book of Mormon as God's word leads most Exmormons to leave the LDS Church.[2] (That was the rather outlandish, flagging statement that attracted me to this article to begin with and led me to conduct some research into other views)
A poll doesn't have to be formal (which, when described in this context in the link, means conducted officially and sanctioned by the LDS church itself or by one of its parts like BYU) in order to be meaningful or valid. It may have to be that way to be convincing to LDS church members, but this site isn't a soapbox for that purpose. Reswobslc 19:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a poll doesn't have to be formal, but such things are not good sources for encyclopedias. It is an obvious POV push. And, no, "informal" does not mean "unofficial". It means that it did not contain the formalities and designs that make polling statistically valid. In other words, the results cannot be relied upon to be valid and are not validated. As such, the poll is a very bad source. This has NOTHING to do with some sort of imagined LDS vs ExLDS battle. It has to do with what is a good source for wikipedia.
Really. Assume good faith! --Anon 64 17:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
If it's an obvious POV push, then what POV is being pushed? What is the opposing POV being under-represented? I think you are getting the concept of NPOV confused again. The "informal poll" only supports the single statement of the reason why Exmormons say they leave (a topic not in dispute), not the entire truth or falsity of the Mormon religion. Undisputed ideas are not subject to as much scrutiny as controversial ones, and if there's a POV we've missed, you should add it, instead of calling for someone who doesn't hold that POV to write about it. Reswobslc 19:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The POV that is being pushed is the POV of the website that is hosting that "informal poll". Perhaps the person who brought it into the article has that same POV. There is no ONE POV necessarily being under-represented, but rather a host of POV's that do not agree with the one at that website. The "informal poll" is a poor source, for the reasons I have previously mentioned. It has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the Mormon religion. For some reason that is an issue for you, but it is not an issue for me. However, I have added other POV's previously and had them summarily rejected. I added them when I read that an "informal poll" was a source, which I felt was an obvious POV thing. So I found other POV perspectives that were entirely rejected and removed.--22:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Commonly, Exmormons begin to reject LDS teachings because of skepticism regarding a spiritual witness encouraged by Mormonism [6]. Concerns might also exist regarding the morality, historicity, or revelatory truth of LDS teachings, embodied by inconsistent or suppressed teachings of early church leaders such as Brigham Young's Adam-God theory, declared false doctrine by the LDS church. Humanist and feminist positions may view LDS doctrine as racist and/or sexist. In these cases, traditional LDS doctrines regarding the spiritual status of blacks and polygamy or the role of women in society are cited [7]. Some leavers cite their incompatibility with Mormon beliefs or culture due to their sexual orientation or from having liberal views that challenge predominant Mormon conformism[8] and political attitudes.
  • Some Exmormons have left for specific reasons that led them to a conviction that the LDS religion is false. These include perceived scriptural inconsistencies within the Bible, perceived inconsistencies with the anthropology and archaeology of Mesoamerica and Egypt [9], and objections to earth's history as taught by Mormonism on the basis of DNA evidence. Some Exmormons argue that the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are fake historical documents [10] [11], and others object to what the present hierarchy teaches, on the grounds that it dismisses or contradicts the teachings of the early leaders such as Brigham Young or Joseph Fielding Smith.
  • Friends, family members, and ward members who are active church members strongly believe that someone who leaves is in danger of negative eternal consequences.
  • Some Exmormons see their exit as recovery from group expectations and overcoming cognitive dissonance,[15] as well as recovery from fraud or abuse.[16] During this phase these individuals may compare it to leaving a cult,[17] or mind control, [18] or adjusting to life outside of religious fundamentalism.[19] They also must cope with the fact that those who leave are sometimes marginalized by employers, friends, spouses, and family who may be members.
  • Exmormons as anathema There are precepts in LDS scripture and doctrine concerning those who openly disagree with church hierarchy as those to be potentially cursed or condemned. Korihor, a person mentioned in the Book of Mormon [22] who preached disbelief, challenged prophecies and church leaders,[23] and who was miraculously struck deaf and mute by a chief judge as evidence of divine authority, is often compared to or identified with Exmormon authors[24] or any reasoning that leads to disbelief in Mormonism.[25]
  • Some LDS adherents view apostasy in terms of their doctrine of outer darkness for sons of perdition who deny the Holy Ghost, although this doctrine has other interpretations.[29] This may cause an Exmormon to be regarded as a candidate for eternal damnation based on their former devotion to Mormonism, as others will be judged more lightly, having no previous knowledge.

--Anon 64 07:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

How about let's have a little brush-up of what WP:NPOV means. "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.".

  • Kosher: An informal internet poll has shown that disbelief in Joseph Smith as a prophet and the Book of Mormon as God's word leads most Exmormons to leave the LDS Church. (Here, Wikipedia simply states a poll said something)
  • Fishy: The falseness of Joseph Smith as a prophet and the Book of Mormon as God's word leads most Exmormons to leave the LDS Church, and an informal Internet poll proves this. (Here, Wikipedia appears to take the POV that LDS church is false)
  • Kosher: Concerns might also exist regarding the morality, historicity, or revelatory truth of LDS teachings, embodied by inconsistent or suppressed teachings of early church leaders such as Brigham Young's Adam-God theory, declared false doctrine by the LDS church. Humanist and feminist positions may view LDS doctrine as racist and/or sexist. (Here, Wikipedia names groups of people and then names their concerns)
  • Fishy: Exmormons also leave because of flaws regarding the morality, historicity, or revelatory truth of LDS teachings, embodied by inconsistent or suppressed teachings of early church leaders such as Brigham Young's false Adam-God theory. LDS doctrine has been shown to be racist and sexist. (Here, Wikipedia appears to assert the veracity of the flaws and condemnations of LDS doctrine)
  • Kosher: Some Exmormons have left for specific reasons that led them to a conviction that the LDS religion is false. These include perceived scriptural inconsistencies within the Bible, perceived inconsistencies with the anthropology and archaeology of Mesoamerica and Egypt [9], and objections to earth's history as taught by Mormonism on the basis of DNA evidence. (Here, Wikipedia attributes some ideas to Exmormons)
  • Fishy: Exmormons leave because the LDS religion is false. This is due to scriptural inconsistencies within the Bible, inconsistencies with the anthropology and archaeology of Mesoamerica and Egypt [9], and conflicts between earth's history as taught by Mormonism and DNA evidence. (Here, Wikipedia presents Exmormon conclusion as fact)

The NPOV guideline doesn't mean that an article can't talk about POV, or be about a POV, or that an article must represent all POV's. (You ought to know that by now, with your edit history of very POV-heavy articles). What does matter is that the text is written to be factually based, which usually means that it is limited to reporting who has what POV and why, from a neutral stance, rather than for Wikipedia to appear to be pushing the POV opinions as fact. I may note that the Mormonism article talks very little about Exmormons and a lot about priesthood and restoration, and this is OKAY and not getting POV-checked because THIS is the criteria for POV-checking an article, and this one likewise has been combed through pretty carefully to meet this criteria. Reswobslc 14:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the discussion and courteous response! I will reply as soon as I am able - within 24 hours I suspect. Thank you again. --Anon 64 15:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ex-Mormon/Archive_4&oldid=1038073988"