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

Latter Day Saint movement Unassessed

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

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.

Untitled

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]