Talk:List of former or dissident Mormons

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of former or dissident Mormons article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 December 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 February 2012. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 November 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latter Day Saint movement Low‑importance

	Latter Day Saint movement portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Atheism Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page.

Quick help

Recent activity

To do

Join WikiProject atheism and be bold.

Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members.
Help with articles.
See this month's adopt-an-article.
Help out with this to-do list.

Be consistent

Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles).
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.

Maintenance, etc.

Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references).
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly.
Always write for an encyclopedia.

Articles to improve

Agnosticism

Create

Articles on notable atheists

Expand

an atheism stub

Immediate attention

State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes.
Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.

Who should be included?

Edited some and added some names I found on the Internet related to several high-profile excommunications in 2002. Unfortunately, most (all) of these people don't have further information for them on Wikipedia. Also added a section for "Early members" to include those who left the church or were excommunicated in its early years. DavidBailey 01:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure what the point of adding a list of criminals who are exmormons is. Isn't anybody who is convicted of a crime excommunicated? Shouldn't the list only include those who were excommunicated or who resigned, then turned to a life of crime? Greenw47 03:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People are listed by their claim to fame. If they are famous because of their crimes, it is not remotely POV to list them under that heading. Furthermore, they should not be moved from Latter-day Saint to Former Latter-day Saint category due to excommunication. This has been debated before. If the person indicates that they continue to identify with the LDS movement after their excommunication from one sect or another, then they are still considered LDS movement. Brian David Mitchell is a classic example. Though the Salt Lake church excommunicated him, he clearly still thinks of himself as part of the LDS movement. I am moving him back to the other page where he belongs. Dr U 03:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate on your rationale. If people are consistently listed in articles like this by claim to fame in alphabetical order, fine. But please show some examples. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ex-Roman_Catholics where ex-Catholics are listed by name, for example, not profession or claim to fame. Since I have no feelings about Catholocism either way, this is a useful and helpful resource. Also, since that article is more extensive, it might be useful to copy its style. Listing people by alphabetical order will eliminate claims of POV. In fact, there doesn't appear to be a less POV alternative. If there is, I'd be more than happy to incorporate it here.

Here is where the POV problem might come in. For example, an Exmormon would like to list several artists, but be suspicious if excommunicated Mormons are listed as criminals and porno actors. Similarly, an active member of the LDS church might find it POV to see the same people listed as a person who still thinks of himself as a Mormon. It doesn't even matter if the article was written like that to eliminate POV questions. It is effective because it sidestepped the issue.

They've completely eliminated the POV issue, like in the following:

Joe DiMaggio, ex-communicated
Phil Donahue, American talk show host

Works wonderfully, doesn't it? I wanted to discuss it here before making such a big change. Greenw47 16:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I completely agree with you that having certain folks listed amongst Donnie and Marie type mormons puts many people out of their comfort zone. However, not listing them is POV puff piece production. Your proposed solution mainatains all the same labels, it just lacks the groupings, which are useful in helping people make connections they might not have otherwise made. You are still labeling Donahue a talk show host, etc. Maintaining two list, one alphabetical, one by claim to fame is not a bad idea, and I could support that. I also support listing excommunications, if applicable. Dr U 19:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "POV puff piece production". Do you mean that the ExCatholic page is POV? You do see the issue with putting the profession first, right? I have no problem saying that one person is a porn actor. But a faithful member of the LDS church might see it as an attack on his/her religion. "Look, being a member made so-and-so into a porn actress/criminal/etc." An Exmormon would see it the same way. "Look, somebody's trying to make it look like Exmormons become porn actors and criminals."

The difficulty also arises in the fact that any serious criminal will be excommunicated from the LDS church. So convicted criminals are, by definition, Exmormons. The magic of the ExCatholic page is that it differentiates those who are excommunicated, like Joe DiMaggio, and Phil Donahue, who to my knowledge was not excommunicated.

The problem that Members of the LDS church might see is that by listing Rock Stars as rock stars, this page might be seen as promoting Exmormonism. There are far more people who are successful professionals as Exmormons than there are criminals. Please see the Ex-Catholic page cited above for an example that works without being POV.

Please explain why it is better, in your view, to list what the person is famous for first? You haven't explained why listing people by job title contributes to making the article less POV than the way it can be improved. After all, the page is about Exmormons, not porn actors or talk show hosts. The people listed are listed because they are no longer Mormons, not becuase they are rock stars or lawyers. By removing the job titles from before the names, we are putting the fact that they are Exmormons first, and whatever job they took next. And we solve the problem of making either Mormons or Exmormons think this page is POV. Greenw47 18:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to consider listing why someone is considered to be an ex or former Mormon. For example if someone resigns because of doctrinal differences that is one thing. But if someone -for example- murders people and is then excommnicated, that is another. Or (as in the case of William Law) excommunicated for whistleblowing, something else, again. Martinscholes 22:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a lot more sense. The way the page is set up now, it looks like people became ex-mormons because they became adult film actors or criminals, attorneys or authors.

Also, how about mentioning that convicted felons are excommunicated? Greenw47 17:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The format of this page does mirror the List_of_Latter_Day_Saints article, for what that's worth. I minorly favor leaving them within categories, but I'm not really opposed to getting rid of categories either. However, people who continued to express adherence to LDS doctrine or belief after excommunication should not be on this list. I suppose there could be a seperate list of people who have been excommunicated, which would include both excommed people who are professed "ex-mormons" and believers who were involuntarily excommed. Thoughts on that? -Porlob 17:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's try it out: I've converted to a no category/short description model. There is probably more info to add in the descriptions, but I tried to make it meaningful and short. If no one likes it, feel free to revert to the old format. -Porlob 14:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is very well-done. It makes the main isse the fact that they are a former member, rather than an actor, criminal, or politician. I'm willing to look into creating pages for some of the other former members. Greenw47 21:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC

Resignation

I noticed that the article listed the people included as having "been excommunicated, or no longer profess to be Latter-day Saints" but it did not mention the term resignation. This is a growing method to seperate from the church.

By simply saying "profess" it seems to imply that they are still members of record instead of the finality of full resignation. It might be better to phrase it as this.

"been excommunicated, resigned, or no longer profess to be Latter-day Saints"

The initial bit implies excommunication is the norm while many resign or were excommunicated when they tried to resign before that option was available. The stigma associated with the term excommunication might be lessened by using the term resignation to balance it...as that is an option

-Gunnerclark 17:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into "Ex-Mormon"

I propose that a shortened list from Former Latter-day Saints be merged into Ex-Mormon. There is also an "Ex-Mormons" category which can be more all-inclusive. There is really no need for such a "list" article, when all the background info is on "Ex-Mormon" and all the people are in the "Ex-Mormons" category. Any thoughts? Porlob 12:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a growing consensus on Ex-Mormon to not merge, and even I am starting to become less inclined to merge them... But let's leave it up for now to solicit consensus. -Porlob 17:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the list is not to be merged then Ann Eliza Young needs to be moved into the Ex-Communicated section. RyanNerd (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criminals

I don't object to the presence of the criminals category (or text, in the event of a change to a straight-up alphabetical list, as per discussion), but some of the criminals listed don't have any references to the ex-Mormonism.

Ted Bundy's entry says he was Mormon, then converted to Hinduism. I don't seriously object to Mark Hoffman's entry, as his forgeries indicated an extreme skepticism about Mormon origins (though he didn't, as for as I can tell, express direct disbelief in LDS doctrine)...

But the articles about Gary Gilmore, Arthur Gary Bishop, and "Wild Bill" Hickman do not indicate they ever repudiated church beliefs. If they are to be included on this list, we really need an "Excommunicated, but never repudiated faith" section... Although of course it shouldn't be CALLED that. :) Alternatively, changing away from categories to text would solve the probelm too, a method I am beginning to favor. -Porlob 13:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

Fair is fair. After doing the same to List of Latter Day Saints, i've added "verifify source" tags to any listing that does not either have a citation or article discussing their status as "Former Latter-day Saints". Let's leave 'em up for 30 days, and if citations cannot be provided, we should delete them.

More generally, what are eveyone's thoughts and necessary criteria to be included. Some of the subjects' articles say things like "..was born into a Mormon family." Though that implies that they no longer affiliate with the LDS church, I think we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard... Furthermore, what about people like Jewel, whose family became inactive before they became members? Should she be considered formerly Mormon or never Mormon? -Porlob 15:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's messy, but I've added references to some of the listings. I'm planning to add all of this to the subjects' articles and clean this one up a bit more, but if anyone else wants to take a stab at it, or has any input on the references I've added, please let it loose.

I still think that anyone on the list should have their own article (or a sigificant passage on another one, such as the September Six) to warrant inclusion on this list, so I favor ditching any red links after the 30 days above are up... Maybe some of the high-profile excommunications should have their own article, called something like, well, "High-profile excommunications", but I'm not knowlegeable enough on the topic to do so myself (greenw47, I'm looking your direction).

Vardis Fisher is listed here, but a reference on his article implies (though does not state) that he was never Mormon, or even of "Mormon heritage". See the talk on his page.

-Porlob 03:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifications for inclusion of "List of former (x)s"

I have recently started a thread at Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity#Qualifications for inclusion of "List of former (x)s" in which I am hoping we can standardize the qualifications for inclusion in such lists. Any constructive comments would be more than welcome. John Carter 14:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for inclusion

This has been brought up before here in past years, but I still think it's unclear who belongs on this list.

I don't think this is a list of people who no longer have church membership. As the article states, the LDS Church doesn't reveal when church records are removed. Instead this is based on the public statements coming from the subjects themselves. So it seems to me that the determining criterion should be self-identification.

Now this starts to get murky, because religious identity is very subjective. Members on church records may decide they reject that affiliation without going out of their way to resign. Persons who are inactive or unbelieving may still identify as LDS on their own terms. Some might never return to their religious institution or even be excommunicated, yet continue to think of themselves as Mormons. Several founders of different Latter Day Saint sects (such as Strangite, RLDS, FLDS, etc) were excommunicated from the LDS Church, but they still identified as Latter Day Saints. Some have argued that they are cultural Mormons or secular "reformed Mormons".

Suggestion to exclude from the list:

Re-converts: Those who left and then returned to the church (whether having resigned or not). Exclude because the final word is that they were Latter Day Saints.
Oliver Cowdery, Thomas B. Marsh, Luke S. Johnson, Maxine Hanks, Don Bradley
Inactive: Members who aren't involved with church activities, but still see themselves as LDS (at least culturally). Exclude because their self-identification is still LDS.
I wonder if a few on the current list see themselves as inactive Mormons, but not former Latter Day Saints. Should we be more careful here?
Doubters: Some people may reject some Latter Day Saint teachings, but they might still attend church or see themselves as Latter Day Saints (or Mormons). Exclude because their self-identification is still LDS.
Calvin L. Rampton, Stewart L. Udall, [1], John Dehlin, Sterling M. McMurrin
Parents/Childhood: Had LDS parents, or were briefly involved with the religion during childhood. Exclude because "former" implies they first self-identified as LDS.
Gutzon Borglum, Christina Aguilera, Jewell (singer)
New LDS churches: Some people have left one LDS sect and joined another. Exclude because all these groups are within the larger Latter Day Saint movement.
Emma Smith, Steven L. Shields, John Hamer

Excommunicants: Some who are excommunicated don't necessarily leave their belief or identity. They may be unsatisfied with their church, but still self-identify within a larger Mormonism. I like the separate list in this article, but we might state that such persons may still identify as Latter Day Saints on their own terms. In fact, if an excommunicated person professes disaffiliation it might be better to put them in the other list, since the excommunication list seems like and exception to the rule, listing persons who still see themselves as Mormons.
George D. Watt, John W. Taylor (Mormon), Ogden Kraut, Lavina Fielding Anderson, D. Michael Quinn, Denver C. Snuffer, Jr., Kate Kelly (feminist)
- Before or after excommunication, some joined different Latter Day Saint groups. Should they still be in the excommunicated list, or not listed at all because they are not "former Latter Day Saints"? (see New LDS churches)
  William McLellin, David Whitmer, John E. Page, Sidney Rigdon, James Strang, William Smith (Latter Day Saints), Lyman Wight, Amasa Lyman, Lorin C. Woolley, Charles W. Kingston, John W. Woolley (there are just tons of people in this category)

So I think the two lists are divided by:

"Those who now reject Latter Day Saint affiliation."
"Those who are rejected by the Latter Day Saint institution, but retain personal LDS identity."

——Rich jj (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After all that, it occurs to me that the two lists are best summed up by "Non-Excommunicated Ex-Mormons" and "Excommunicated persons". Does anyone agree? I think the word "inactive" doesn't belong, since that doesn't necessarily make an Ex-Mormon. ——Rich jj (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm not so sure anymore, since I see excommunicated Ex-Mormons on both lists:

Former LDS list

Excommunicated list

So, which list should the following excommunicated Ex-Mormons be added to?

——Rich jj (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restart: Criteria for inclusion

Allow me to distill my concerns from above. My confusion is with the list groupings. Inactives are lumped in with "former members", though inactives often means Jack Mormons, which don't fit here. And the list name for "Excommunicated members" implies former membership, which is already the name of the first list. What's the difference between these lists and who qualifies for either categorization?

Non-excommunicated Ex-Mormons: No longer affiliate or believe. May have lapsed or resigned.
Should be listed under Former members, since they do not apply to the list for the excommunicated.
Excommunicated Mormons: May still affiliate (attend) or believe, despite their excommunication. This means they still self-identify as Latter Day Saints, but the excommunication challenges that identification.
If we assume they actually qualify as "former Latter Day Saints" at all, then they should be listed under Excommunicated members.
Excommunicated Ex-Mormons: No longer affiliate or believe, and were also excommunicated. Excommunication may or may not relate to their change in self-identification. This is the one that is not clear to me. Should they be listed alongside believers and Cultural Mormons who are excommunicated? Or should they be listed alongside the Ex-Mormons who left on their own accord?
I'm leaning toward the latter. In many cases the major difference between an Ex-Mormon who resigned/lapsed and one who was excommunicated is the zeal of their particular church leaders. A local leader may decide to not push a dissenter out of church membership, hoping they might return someday. Or maybe the leader decides to pursue excommunication, though the dissenter would have eventually resigned on their own. It seems to me that in either case the person's self-identity as a "former Latter Day Saint" is unchanged.

I propose:

The list header "Former and inactive members" be changed to "Former Latter Day Saints".
This excludes Jack Mormons, while still allowing for Ex-Mormons who are also lapsed members. Of course, those who resigned would still be listed here.
The list header "Excommunicated members" change to "Excommunicated Latter Day Saints".
This clarifies that they still self-identify as Latter Day Saints, not as Ex-Mormons, though they are known to be former members.
Excommunicated Ex-Mormons be listed under "Former Latter Day Saints".
They are not "Excommunicated Latter Day Saints" because they do not identify as Latter Day Saints. Their self-identity is more aligned with the first list than the second.

——Rich jj (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Your proposed change sounds logical to me. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something's holding me back from making this change. Maybe it's because this list could work under the name "List of former Latter Day Saint church members." But as I've argued above, membership is not equivalent to self-identity. One could be a "Former Latter Day Saint" by just making a personal decision and walking away, without having resigned or having been excommunicated.

Also, excommunication is ambiguous. Before 1989 resignation did not exist, and to remove LDS membership a church court had to convene for excommunication.[2] So many were excommunicated but might have resigned if the option had been available, and now they are scattered onto both the Former/Inactive list and the Excommunicated list. Since excommunication can imply wrong-doing, I think we should be careful about when it's used. And excommunication can be applied inconsistently, as the result of the level of zeal in one's local church leaders. So it isn't always a good indicator of self-identity or faithfulness.

And it's hard to know someone's internal self-identication based on excommunication, or even resignation. They may be upset with people or policies, but they may retain their own personal belief or cultural identification as LDS. I'd like to avoid one of these folks reading that they are labeled as a former Latter Day Saint, to their own dismay.

So which kind of excommunicants should be on which kind of list?

Excommunicated for sins, intended as motivation to mend ways and return as renewed into the fold again

→ Excommunicated list, unless no longer self-identifing as LDS

Excommunicated radical voices ("apostates"?) to make them into outsiders and delegitimize them

→ Excommunicated list, unless no longer self-identifing as LDS

Excommunicated as a formality, recognizing that the person has left the faith and its practices, without intention to return

→ Former Latter Day Saint list (no longer self-identify as LDS)

I think this helps clear up some of the ambiguity that's been holding me back. I'm a little concerned that casual readers will get confused as to why many are in the Former LDS list that were technically excommunicated, so some of this clarification might belong in the body of the article. ——Rich jj (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further Considerations (Onhech) Rich jj, thanks for contribution and I support most all of your ideas. I think it is of utmost importance we need to establish criteria inclusion. Right now it's inconsistent and messy. I like your categories but have a few comments:

I think we have to keep in mind the wide umbrella of "Former Latter Day Saints" (LDS, CoC, Strangites, FLDS, breakoffs) as opposed to "Former Latter-day Saints"(LDS). Because of this, we have to treat this the same way we would treat "Christianity" and "Catholicism;" It would not make sense to list someone as an "former Christian" if they left Catholicism to join the Methodists. Similarly, I do not think anyone should be included on this list who still identifies (or would identified at death) to a Latter Day Saint movement.

On the same line, using excommunication as a category is difficult because you are dealing with several churches. For the sake of simplicity and accuracy, I think we should stop categorizing by membership in the LDS church or change the article name to Former Latter-day Saints.

My thoughts on categories would be to include only those who no longer self-identify as Mormon/Latter Day Saint (this way, it is based on belief not the problematic "membership"). The hardest part about classifying by belief is distinguishing who identifies as Mormon still where clear statements are not available. A couple of heuristic regarding this decision would be:

In all cases we assume individuals still identify as Mormon if there are no public statements or suggestive actions to the contrary ("actions" being such as Mark Hoffman's Salamander letters which could be seen as a reflection of disbelief in the prophetic call of Joseph Smith).
If one no longer identifies as part of a Latter Day Saint organization (LDS,CoC,FLDS,etc.), it is assumed they no longer identify in the overall Latter Day Saint umbrella, unless statements or actions are to the contrary (in most cases, if one still identifies as Mormons it is apparent (e.g. Brian David Mitchell who rejected LDS but not Mormonism).

Currently, the list consists of believers, non-believers, people who identify as Mormons, people who don't, people who have never identified as Mormon. Further, because of individualistic ideals there are some excluded where others in similar circumstances are included (Brian David Mitchell, an excommunicated believer, is excluded whereas Lavina Fielding Anderson, an excommunicated believer, is included). We should agree on some metric and stick to it.

Onhech (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't acted on this. The more I think about it, the more I see complexity. We've discussed several criteria for who is a Latter Day Saint, and who is a "former Latter Day Saint". If we said "Latter-day Saint", the standard might be simpler, just being based on membership in the LDS Church. But "Latter Day Saint" casts a broader net, including other sects aside from the LDS Church, even very small groups and independent believers. Here's how I have been thinking of classifying this criteria:

	Member		Non-Member
	A. Believer	B. Non-Believer	C. Believer	D. Non-Believer
1. Self Identify	Current Latter Day Saint (typical Mormons)	Cultural Mormon (also New Order Mormons)	Independent Mormon (Lavina Fielding Anderson, D. Michael Quinn, etc)	Cultural Mormon (also "ethnic Mormons", like John Dehlin, etc.)
2. Don't Identify	Does this exist? (believers are likely to self-identify)	Disaffected (likely candidates for resignation)	Omnism? Baha'i? (open to Mormon theology)	Ex-Mormon

A clean rule might be that all of Row 2 are "former Latter Day Saints". But even this may be too simplistic. Where is the dividing line between believer and non-believer? Some people believe the moralistic teachings of Jesus, but don't believe in truth claims of the restoration. Are they non-believers? And I just read where someone resigned and saw himself as an ex-Mormon or former Mormon, but also saw himself as a cultural Mormon or ethnic Mormon. (I think I might have even heard Kate Kelly say something like this.) That really blurs the line for me. ——Rich jj (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Children and teenagers

Some of the people on this list were raised as Mormons, but it's not clear that they ever self-identified as adherents of the faith. If their family left the church or they as minors rebelled against their upbringing, does that count as being a "former Latter Day Saint"? If their church activity never extended into adulthood were they ever Latter Day Saints to begin with? Maybe this is more of an issue for younger kids. Some of these seem problematic to me:

Amy Adams: family left when 11 years old
Gutzon Borglum: family left when 4 years old [3]
Phil Cunningham (folk musician): left at 15 years old
Eliza Dushku: left at "a young age" [4], "teenager" [5]
Ryan Gosling: "I grew up Mormon. I wasn't really Mormon, my parents were. [6]
Jewel (singer): family left when 7 years old
Bert McCracken: left as teenager?
Culbert Olson: atheist at age 10
Marco Rubio: joined at 8, returned to Catholicism at 11 [7]
Warren Zevon: as far as I can tell, only his mother was a Mormon
Butch Cassidy: Mormon parents, left home as teenager. Inactive by 13?[8] Baptized?[9][10] I can't sources about his personal faith or excommunication.

If someone attended the LDS Church as a child, or had LDS parents, I wouldn't call them a "former Latter Day Saint" unless they describe themselves that way. ——Rich jj (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have a separate list for children who were raised as Mormons or by Mormons, but never practiced into adulthood themselves? ——Rich jj (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of former Latter Day Saints. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100512191020/http://living.scotsman.com:80/music/Interview-Phil-Cunningham-.4932184.jp to http://living.scotsman.com/music/Interview-Phil-Cunningham-.4932184.jp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of former Latter Day Saints. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of former Latter Day Saints. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2004/march/?ft=boyer
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930180956/http://www.maximonline.com/articles/index.aspx?a_id=4046&src=fc to http://www.maximonline.com/articles/index.aspx?a_id=4046&src=fc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of former Latter Day Saints. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130825161517/http://bogritz.com/biography.htm to http://www.bogritz.com/biography.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2FUU_EAD%2C1830
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/10/27/laake/index.html?CP=YAH&DN=110

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

The page title was problematic. For example, it is not at all unusual for many dissident Mormons who have been excommunicated by the LDS Church to continue to consider themselves of Mormon culture and/or to participate in various fashions within the Latter Day Saint movement. Moved it to an iteration accurately encompassing of list's members without this inaccuracy mentioned.-Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Mindy Gledhill?

I'm not a big Wikipedia editor type person, so I'm sorry if I'm doing anything wrong. Mindy isn't hugely famous, but has a page on Wikipedia. She's come out on her public social media accounts as having left the LDS church, and her most recent album is about her faith crisis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.186.83 (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive Mormons

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I love this list, and after adding my own "finds" in historical sources, realize some of them have been dropped because they don't meet the criteria. Would any of you see value in creating a separate list for Inactive Mormons? Two examples that come to mind are items I added and then re-added after some have deleted them: Merlin Olsen and Brent Scowcroft.

In both cases it is public knowledge that they were not active for most of their adult lives. No one can produce any positive evidence that they had any of the markers of an active Mormon, and there is strong evidence to the contrary that is public: Olsen's funeral in a non-Mormon Christian church, and Scowcroft's own admission that he was not active.

However neither one made a public break with the Church, and yet both lived for all intents and purposes, non-Mormon lives. Both married non-Mormon spouses and raised their children outside the Church. I think having an Inactive Mormon category for these types of inactive members would expand the scope of this page, and yet it is accurate as it describes a relevant, widespread cultural phenomenon that I don't see addressed elsewhere on Wikipedia. Jrnilsson (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]