Talk:Mercy Multiplied/Archive 1

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Opinions are not Knowledge

"Mercy Ministries operates both an ex-gay program that offers conversion therapy, as well as a pro-life program that serves young women with unplanned pregnancies."

The Mercy Ministries page is being disputed because of the insistence of certain Authors continuing to contribute their opinions under the guise of factual information. These authors would like to control public perception and present their bias as truth and their actions undermine the purpose of Authoring on Wikipedia which is "to write articles that cover existing knowledge"^[1]. Opinions of this nature may well be important to include on this page but not if it is presented as fact. Because opinions are not knowledge.

In particular the semantics of the above statement are misleading as Mercy Ministries does not offer any of these types of program. There are in-fact specific Ministries that are explicitly and purposefully ex-gay and pro-life. These issues are certainly not the foundational tenets on which Mercy Ministries operates. Whilst these issues may be addressed in the life of a young woman in the program it is only because Mercy Ministries is unashamedly Christian in both its organizational foundations and its modus operandi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.145.234 (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why anybody would dispute that MM is not a pro-life organization because one of their main objectives is to help teens/women with unplanned pregnancies. Why is that somebody's opinion? In addition, Nancy has stated that they "help" girls who are "struggling with their sexual orientation". I do not purport that this is the sole purpose of the program, just as helping girls with eating disorders is not the sole purpose of the program. However, if somebody was looking for an alternative to abortion, and needed help, Mercy Ministries would be a place that she would consider as a "safe haven" so to speak, that she might have a place to stay during her pregnancy, and get help making plans to either parent her child or pursue a private adoption. And according to Nancy Alcorn, a girl who was "struggling with her sexual orientation" would also be welcomed into the program for help with that "issue" (Again, quoting Nancy).Victoria Lucas (talk)

I meant to mention this in the previous discussion about the 'ex-gay' issue but got snowed under at work and never got around to it. I appologise for leaving it this long.

I don't think that merely welcoming a girl who is struggling with her sexual orientation into the program is quite the same thing as running an ex-gay program, even if the program is based on Christian beliefs. My understanding of the terms 'ex-gay program' and 'Conversion therapy' is that they involve taking specific steps 'reorient' an individual towards a heterosexual lifestyle, or at least a lifestyle where they do not act upon their homosexual urges. I don't think that, for example, simply offering theological advice on the church's teachings on homosexuality, offering a 'sanctuary' for a person who is confused about their sexuality to think things over or helping them to deal with issues stemming from their confusion is quiet the the thing as running an ex-gay program.

If an assertion that MM offers "help" young women who are "struggling with their sexual orientation" in dealing with that issue is the only evidence that it offers an ex-gay program, and no details about exactly what that 'help' entails are given, I don't think that it is sufficient to warrant the statement that MM operates an ex-gay program. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to simply say something along the lines that, according to its founder, MM offers assistance to young women coping with unplanned pregnancies and confusion about their sexual orientation in dealing with these issues. This may be a little vague, but from what I can gather, not having had time to listen to it myself, so is the source material.

And 202.80.145.234, might I suggest that you go easy on the accusations. Even if the edits about the ex-gay/pro-life programs were inappropriate, this may stem from a simple misunderstanding of the terms, not from any attempt to 'control public perception'. Landithy (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. Nancy doesn't fully explain what she means by "help." I still see no problem with calling the organization pro-life though. It's not as though I would even consider describing them as "anti-choice". I thought the pro-life part of their program was a major positive point for their organization.

Also, possibly there could be a statement in the controversy about the ex-gay program because of this article: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gods-cure-for-gays-lost-in-sin/2008/03/18/1205602385236.html, and some of the statements made by the girls.Victoria Lucas (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Having finally gotten to listening to the audio file you provided as a reference for the "pro-life"/"ex-gay" statement, there doesn't seem to be anything in the interview that supports the assertion that MM is "pro-life" either. It simply states that MM takes in clients with unplanned pregnancies, and while no options besides raising the child or having it adopted out are mentioned, no explicitly "pro-life" political views are expressed at all, much less than with regard to the services offered by MM. I think it is too great a leap of logic to assume that MM runs a pro-life program, simply because they are a Christian organisation which offers help to people with certain problems. Particularly when so many different denominations and interpretations of Christianity exist. You may not see anything wrong with those movements, but that doesn't mean that it's OK claim that they form the basis of MM's programs, if there is no credible evidence to support it. The problem isn't that it derogates from MM's reputation. The problem is that it's not verifiable.

Also, with regard to the term "pro-life" itself, it is a political term, the same way that "anti-choice" is. Perhaps "anti-abortion" would be a more neutral and specific term, if one is going to mention it at all. Plus, the pro-life movement is opposed to a number of other practices, besides abortion. Landithy (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

With regard to referencing the audio file, I wasn't using that as evidence of their pro-life stance, just the ex-gay part of the program. I truly didn't think the pro-life position would be an issue, but I will look for other references. As far as the term "pro-life" I though it was the most positive was to refer to the services they offer, but perhaps you are right that anti-abortion would be better, on the basis that pro-life does have to do with the debate over the legalization of abortion, whereas anti-abortion is a more general belief against having abortions, and not necessarily a political belief about abortion laws.

However, I do think it is unfair to say that just because they do not call themselves "anti-abortion" that we may not write about them as being such, if there is evidence that they are against abortion, because that is what the term means, no matter what connotation the word carries. For example, if they described themselves as red, yellow, and blue, for somebody to then describe them as colorful, and then to be told that it is inappropriate because MM is not red, yellow, blue and green, or because they do not consider themselves colorful, or because they have never used the word "colorful" in describing themselves. Here is a piece just published on their site: http://www.mercyministries.org/LearnMore/News/AnotherLifeSaved.aspx. I suppose you could say that the "life" was "saved" because of a number of things, but I think at some point it becomes inaccurate to avoid a certain term just because it is politically charged. To stay in the program, a girl has two options, parenting or placing her child. This is detailed on their website, and there is no mention of an option of abortion, although that part of the ministry's description would be the appropriate place to mention it. I feel that including the specific information that abortion is not an option in their program is relative, and using the adjective "anti-abortion" is a good way of doing so.

So perhaps we might write something like this: Its founder, Nancy Alcorn has stated that Mercy Ministries also welcomes girls who are "struggling with their sexual orientation[1]." In addition, Mercy Ministries is an anti-abortion organization that offers young girls and women who are seeking abortion alternatives the option of placing their child for adoption or preparing to parent their child while they complete the program requirements.[ref appropriate part of website]. Followed by "After entering the program...(following sentence describes how residents are helped to decide)Victoria Lucas (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you are stating, as a matter of unequivocal fact, that MM operates programs aimed at producing certain results ("anti-abortion" and "ex-gay"), or use particular methods, when you have no unequivocal evidence to back such a statement up. In my opinion, the statement currently in the article (in bold above) contravenes Wikipedia's rule against original research, because it is, at best, speculation based on tenuous evidence. If had MM made a statement to the effect that its program for women with unplanned pregnancies aims to prevent those pregnancies from being terminated, it would be fair to say that they run an anti-abortion program, but I am unable to find any sources where MM makes such a statement.

I also think it is fine to state that some sources have described MM as "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" (plenty have), so long as you state who made the allegation, but I don't think it is appropriate to state as a matter of fact that they MM is opposed to abortion, unless the organisation has expressed explicitly anti-abortion views.

I would suggest simply stating that MM provides adoption services and parenting classes to women with unplanned pregnancies, with an appriate reference (eg. this FAQ section from MM's UK site[2]. Then the reader can draw their own conclusions about the program. Any specific information, from a reliable source, about the nature of the help that MM offers to clients who are "struggling with their sexuality" would also be appropriate. Landithy(talk) 01:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, what you're saying makes sense, but I do have a question. Does this mean the only reliable source we have about the program comes from the program's site, promo videos, etc? Truthfully, they do not give very much specific information on how they treat any of the issues that they help people with. Man does this article have some serious issues!

This is seriously an honest question because I am relatively new to contributing. Looking up at my own example, I can see my flaw because if something is comprised of three colors, we should just state that it is comprised of three colors, and leave the reader to decide whether three colors makes something "colorful". I assure you, I am not trying to contravene the rules, but it's hard not to synthesize when you are trying to state things concisely. For example, in the Joyce Meyer entry, it states that she is a proponent of the prosperity gospel, but (as far as I can tell) it doesn't have a source following it. It is easily deduced from her teachings, but I have never heard her say, "I am a proponent of the prosperity gospel." In your opinion, is that statement inappropriate?

Also, do you think that any mention or quotes by people as MM being pro-life/ex-gay, etc. should go into the controversy section? After our discussion, I think so. I am going to reword it, with citations and quotes, etc. and move it there for now. Let me know what you think about the changes.

Nancy talks again about bringing lesbians into the program, along with other girls, and gives a bit more detail about the MM treatment methods during this program: http://youtube.com/watch?v=-r-PEFhZ3uE. (On Youtube, but from their site, they also have an mp3 of the sermon here:http://media.ccconline.cc/sermons/2_10_08.mp3)Victoria Lucas (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that an organisation's own promotional material is the only source that could ever be considered reliable regarding that organisation's policies. From what I can gather, a published interview with an official spokesperson would be suitable too. Some kind of publication in a reputable, independant source might also be suitable. My concern with the radio interview was not so much that it wasn't a reliable source per se. It was simply that what was said in the interview didn't support the statement that was the subject of this discussion. I think that it is a perfectly good source for anything that Nancy Alcorn did explicitly say about MM, because she was acting as MM's official spokesperson for the purpose of the interview. For example, it is a good source for the fact that MM takes in young women who are confused about their sexuality, or that it planned a "Chick's Day" to celebrate its 25th anniversary.

From what I can gather from Wikipedia's policies, they want a slightly different standard of evidence to say, a news report or even a scholarly article. Information should ideally have already been reported in a reputable secondary source. There is some useful information in the article about Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policyfor dealing with conflicting sources, where no one source can be considered more reputable than the others.

I agree that it is hard to find reliable information on the actual content or mentods used in MM's programs. Much of what has come up in my research seems to come with a heavy dose of either pro-MM or anti-MM spin and/or be extremely vague. There are many first or second-hand accounts of former clients of MM around, but none that I have seen have been independantly verified, and therefore can't really be treated as reliable sources . I think that given the lack of any kind of consensus or verifiable accounts, it is best to name the source of any claims

And I agree that these issues deserve a mention in the controversy section. If claims about MM's "pro-life" and "ex-gay" programs can't be independantly verified, and claims that such progams exist can be attributed to more than just a tiny minority, I think it counts as controversy. Besides which, even if it could be established that MM runs such programs, opinions differ considerably about the value, validity and ethics of such programs.

Re. your question about Joyce Meyer, obviously I'm not the ultimate authority on Wikipedia's guidelines, but I don't think that the assertion that she is a proponant of the prosperity gospel falls withing Wikipedia's criteria as to when it is necessary to cite a source. For example, it is unlikely that somebody would challange the assertion that Meyer is a proponant of the prospertiy gospel, because there is just so much evidence that her teachings fall within that category, and it would be readily apparent to a layperson that her teachings could be categorised as such. To contrast this with the discussion at hand, the assertion that MM uses conversion therapy in its programs, or is anti-abortion is likely to be challanged, because there is so little direct evidence that this is the case, and it is not readily apparent from the information that MM has made public, or any other reliable source. To use another simple annalogy, it's like saying that something is red, when it is on public display and countless pictures and descriptions of it exist. In that case, it would be fine to state that it is red without citation. However if the object is hidden away in a cupboard somewhere, and there are only a few eyewitness accounts of people claiming to have seen it, some claiming that it is red, but others asserting that it is clearly purple, then it probably needs a citation. Landithy (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to throw in here, that not only are opinions not knowledge, but it is generally considered that homosexuality is NOT a mental illness. This is a barbaric view of homosexuality, perpetrated by those with a hateful attitude towards the GLBTTQ community. I think that, to make that part of the article as factual as possible, it should state that MM offers programs based on the views that homosexuality is something that needs to be 'removed' or 'forced' out of someone's personality, because they are not a mental health organization, nor are they medical professionals. Therefore stating that they are assisting these girls with mental health issues is very biased. 99.240.235.230 (talk) 05:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added this to the first paragraph:

Some residents attend the program for help with lesbianism and sexual promiscuity.

after finding some testimonials by young women which discussed this. I am not sure if I should rephrase this or not, but I feel like this is a fair way of addressing the fact that they regard homosexuality as something that needs "help" while being NPOV. CelticLabyrinth (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethos

I have removed the following, its the personal opinion of the author and has the effect, whether intended or not of sidelining serious instances of abuse as a casuality in the culture wars, or a difference of perspective. I think it better to just state the facts

' Such controversy emerges from the different ethical standpoints employed by observers. Those who employ virtue ethics ask questions about the purpose of any practice, whilst others use a rights based, deontological or utilitarian approach. The Evangelical Christian commitment to virtue as a basis for ethics brings them into direct conflict with those who believe in moral relativism, or that someone should not be discouraged from doing anything they want with their own body.'

Allegations?

In light of the recent allegations SMH 17/3/2008, it may be worthwhile setting up a new section following the progress of the investigation as it develops. The current article is quite uncritical of Mercy Ministries. Orthabok (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea, actually. Some of the information about the allegations made by the SMH is currently under the "Use of funds" heading, which seems a little confusing, and isn't really relevant to that heading. I'm also a little concerned about the tone of the article. It seems a little weasel-wordy. I think it needs to be made clearer that the only investigation into the matter as yet (as far as I'm aware) has been carried out by the SMH. I don't think that the article should jump from being uncritical of Mercy Ministries to being uncritical of the SMH's allegations. Landithy (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a new section called "Controversy", and added a POV tag for that section too, as some of the information is probably covered by the original tag in the "use of funds" section. Although I think that a POV tag could safely be applied to the whole article, given that information has been added to the overview which has clearly been cut and pasted directly from Mercy's own promotional material.

I also updated the "Controversy" information a little, to include the reactions of some of Mercy's other corporate sponsors. Will try to dig up some information on Mercy's reaction to the allegations when I've a little more time. Landithy (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV edits re. "Controversy" section (28/04/08)

I've made the following changes to the "Controversy" section:

Deleted however interviews with several young women who have been in the Mercy Ministries program in Australia indicate that Peter Irvine's claims are unfounded. - There is nothing in the source cited to support this statement, and it appears to be a conclusion drawn by the contributor who added the comment. The statement seems rather biased, since there is no obvious logical link between the allegations of a small number individuals and the statement that Irvine's claims are unfounded.

Deleted This is hardly surprising, as Peter Irvine is a director of Mercy Ministries and a co-founder of Gloria Jean's Coffees. - This statement is unreferenced and appears to be a personal opinion of the contributor, which I believe compromises the neutrality of the article. Plus, Peter Irvine's involvement with both Gloria Jeans and Mercy Ministries is mentioned elsewhere. If some specific allegation of conflict of interest has been made, I'm all for reporting it, but with appropriate references and mention of the accuser.

Edited the paragraph dealing with the ACCC investigation to make it clear that the allegations have not been proven yet. Since the Australian Democrats are the ones making the allegations, they could be considered to be a biased source. To state the allegations as though they were established fact would be misleading. Since this section is about controversy, I think it is important to specify who is making any allegations, and whether those allegations have been proved.

As always, I'm happy to discuss the matter if somebody takes issue with it. Landithy (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

ACCC Investigation

I found links to the Hansard reports for the Senate decision to refer MM to the ACCC over the false advertising allegations. These may be a more reliable source than the press release from the Australian Democrats. I haven't had a chance to properly read through the manuscripts yet, but here are the links:

[3]

[4]

Landithy (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Other Organisations With This Name

A quick Google search shows that the name "Mercy Ministries" is also used by the catholic Sisters of Mercy to describe a shelter in Laredo Texas and by Youth With A Mission (YWAM) to describe their overseas charitable and social work. Both of these are clearly quite different from the organisation described in this article. Should we put something in to this effect to avoid confusion?Majurawombat (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair. I actually did get confused the first time I saw a 'Mercy Ministries' pamphlet, because there's a Catholic-run charity in my suburb called the 'Mercy Centre'. The Sisters of Mercy in Australia have specifically stated that they aren't connected with the Mercy Ministries that this article is about. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Landithy (talk • contribs) 21:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Overview

I've removed the overview section as it is a copyright violation of the Mercy Ministries site. As for the controversies section, I don't see why it needs the POV tag. It seems well referenced. Is anyone disputing the neutrality? Because otherwise it doesn't need the tag. Recurring dreams (talk) 07:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said, I put it in because I'd moved material from another section that already had a POV tag, I wasn't sure exactly what the POV tag in that section applied to, and I didn't want to remove it purely on the basis of my own edits. I've no objection to it being removed. Landithy (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the tag for the reasons given above Majurawombat (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm really all that bothered, but the above discussion related specifically to the tag in the "Controversy" section.Landithy (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent IP edits

Recent IP edits from 70.148.121.218 have, amongst other things, removed the "Controversy" section, leading to the edits being reverted. That IP address is in fact registered to "Mercy Ministries of America". I have left a "welcome" message for the IP, including reference to WP:COI, but I did also wonder whether the article was over-dominated by the controversy section and whether it needed to be that long in comparison to the rest of the article. It may be that the balance of the article needs to be looked at. I've asked the IP to discuss matters here before editing the article further. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page, because the edits are being noted on some news websites. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Controversy part is definitely too long. Especially in light of the fact that the articles are all Australian and the fact is that Mercy Ministries is an International organisation. Wrinkleintime123 (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly there are probably some worldwide view issues with the article, because Mercy Ministries seems to have risen to greater prominence in Australia, due to the afore-mentioned controversy, and its connections to the Hillsong and Gloria Jeans Coffees, which are both large and to varying degrees, controversial organisations. There is also more readily accessible information about the Australian perspective for similar reasons. However while perhaps the 'Controversy' could be trimmed down a bit, I think some of the other sections could do with expanding. In particular, they could do with more detail about MM outside Australia.Landithy (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: Cut down the article a bit. I've tried to focus on the most serious/concrete of the allegations.Landithy (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How come the controversy section has been cut down so much? I think the controversy section is more relevant than what it has been cut down to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahmkelly (talk • contribs) 05:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The article was cut down following the above discussion. No mention was made of the USA allegations (mentioned here[6]) in the original version. If you have verifiable information regarding any such allegations, by all means, include it. Was there some part of the original version which you think should be kept? Landithy (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC) (edited Landithy (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

Mercy Ministries is a rather small international organization with only a handful of homes worldwide catering to a small number of women at each home. From what I've read on the websites there are 3 homes in the US, 2 homes in Australia, 1 home in New Zealand and 1 home in the UK. They serve no more than 200 young women in all of the homes combinedat any given time. This would give the allegations greater relevance given the relatively small amount of young women cared for by the organisations. This isn't like the Teen Challenge or the Salvation Army which are much larger and serve many more people in comparison. CelticLabyrinth (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)CelticLabyrinth (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The controversy section did say: Controversy On 17 March 2008, an article appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald, containing allegations of mistreatment by several former clients of Mercy Ministries in Australia. They claim the organisation has made false claims about its services, and that instead of receiving counselling from qualified professionals, they were placed in the care of Bible studies students who treated them with techniques including exorcisms and prayer readings. [7] Australian Government agencies such as Centrelink have also been drawn into the controversy, as residents are required to transfer their benefits to Mercy Ministries. There are also allegations that the group receives a carers payment to look after the young women. Mercy Ministries says 96 young women have "graduated" from its program since its inception in 2001. But many have apparently been expelled without warning and with no follow up or support. ("They sought help, but got exorcism and the Bible", Sydney Morning Herald, March 17, 2008) Peter Irvine, a director of Mercy Ministries and co-founder of Gloria Jean's Coffees, has stated, in response to the allegations, that Mercy Ministries had received "overwhelming positive feedback from graduates, their families and the community" and that clients were made aware of the details of the programs before they joined.[8] Since the allegations were first made public, several other former clients have come forward, reporting negative experiences and abuse at the hands of Mercy Ministries.[9] Gloria Jean's Coffees, a major sponsor of Mercy Ministries, has stated that, despite the allegations, it does not intend to change its funding arrangements for Mercy Ministries. Several other corporate sponsors have announced that they will be severing their connection with Mercy Ministries.[10][11] On 16th April 2008, the Australian Democrats announced that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) would be investigating Mercy Ministries Australia over their alleged misrepresentation. The Democrats claim that Mercy Ministries advertised that their program provided professional medical and psychiatric care for their patients, however the young women were placed in the care of Bible College students who were unqualified to treat mental illness. It is also alleged that Mercy Ministries advertised that they did not charge young women to be part of their program, however the ministry did require payment from young women in the form of their Centrelink benefits. [12] In 2006 it was revealed that Nancy Alcorn, founder of Mercy Ministries, earned $178,583.00 from the charity for the financial year.[13] The wages paid to other directors of Mercy Ministries are unknown.

There were a lot of references in there to support it. I'm disappointed that a lot has been edited out, and as the other person said, Mercy Ministries is a very small organisation compared to TC, Salvos etc, and the fact that so many from Australia and some from the USA have come forward, is a very big deal.

I don't want to argue about it though - I'm fine with the majority on here making a decision about the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahmkelly (talk • contribs) 02:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not looking to start a row either. However I do think that it's good to discuss these things. I particularly welcome constructive criticism of my own edits, since it's easy to lose objectivity when looking at one's own contributions, and obviously I'm not omniscient. :-)

I honestly can't find anything in the referenced articles which refers to the allegations from outside Australia. Also, much of the information I removed was vague or of questionable relevance. Otherwise, I've tried to make the article as concise as possible while still covering the main points. I've also tried to avoid the emotive tone of many of the articles referenced in the interests of providing a NPOV.

I would also like to reiterate my view that I think that while Mercy Ministries may be a small organisation, it is affiliated with two very large and prominent organisations and has a high media profile (at least in Australia). While obviously it doesn't merit an article as large as an organisation so old and widespread as the Salvation Army, I think that it does warrant a slightly larger article than it has at present. I would argue that the fact that it is more prominent in Australia than in other countries does not necessarily mean that it is not worthy of more attention. In this respect, it could be likened to the Magdalene Asylums, which existed around the world, but became particularly notorious in Ireland. Landithy (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Links

I cleaned up the links removing all but the links to the mercy ministries websites and the mercy survivors website. These links were to various christian publications as well as to youtube and myspace. I did not see the relevance of any of them being included. Here are the links I removed for anyone to review and add their input.

Mercy Ministries on MySpace Nancy Alcorn Speaks Little Big Town Touchs on Baby shower that supports Mercy Ministries Nancy Alcorn Founder of Mercy Ministries talks to Life Today about Mercy Ministries Have Mercy Woman of Mercy A Survivor Story: Meet Laura Schultz… Treatment or Death Mercy Ministries Promo video Another Article on Mercy Ministries A fan visits Mercy Ministries Career Minded - Mercy Ministry President, Nancy Alcorn Help for Women with Eating Disorders CelticLabyrinth (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits during protection

I have a new account and want to make a few minor edits that do not change content, should I just wait or post suggestions here?(Victoria Lucas (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

If you want to make edits such as rewording or grammar checks, or you want to add cited information to improve the article then please go ahead. Just don't outright delete sections of cited information or rewrite the article without discussing it here first. If you're new to wikipedia then I would suggest using a sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox first. CelticLabyrinth (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not letting me make even minor edits and I think I have to submit something on this page to request specific override of protection in order to make minor edits, so honestly I think I am just going to wait until it's unprotected, since some of the problems I have with it are as simple as correcting the names of the various locations of the organization (Mercy Ministries of America/ Mercy Ministries Australia instead of "in the US" or "in Australia".
However, I would like to admit my bias regarding the article as I am a former resident. In my defense, I have a library science and literary research background and am trained in technical writing, so I am familiar with the necessity of references, and believe in the case of Wikipedia it is particularly important to be as impartial as possible, to list out facts for people who are looking for information on a subject, and not attempt to remove information, or make an argument defending my view on the recent controversy.
I think both the overview and the controversy sections need clarification, and can be more concise, while adding more detailed information, so I'm hoping to do that once the article is unprotected.Victoria Lucas (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing the Overview Section

I am not finding the quote "... to provide opportunities for young women to experience on teaching young women aged 16-28 about Jesus Christ" in the referenced interview with Darlene Zschech. Where is it exactly? I can't find any sort of quote that references MM's mission. The quote itself is also not grammatically correct as "to experience on teaching" should either be "to experience teaching" or "to teach", but neither of those makes sense for what I understand their mission to be as the residents to not actually teach anything to other young women. You could change the statement to "to provide opportunities for young women aged 16-28 to experience Jesus Christ," or alternately "to learn about Jesus Christ". But again, there is nothing in that interview that references the mission statement of MM, that I can see. I think we should find a better mission statement, maybe from their site?Victoria Lucas (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally have no objection to using a (properly referenced) a mission-statement from the official site. It's possible that some of the references got pushed around a bit when a whole bunch of copyrighted material (cut & pasted wholesale from MM's website) was removed out a little while ago. Landithy (talk) 03:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversial Overview Edits

I rewrote the overview paragraph explaining the mission statement/objectives of MM. There are a couple of items that are probably going to be controversial, so I thought I would address them preemptively. I will have the citation up soon, but all of this information is paraphrased from either a recent radio interview by Nancy Alcorn found on the MM of America website or the other already referenced history pages, etc also found on the website. At this point, all that needs to be done in the first two paragraphs is clean up the references, but as a new Wikipedian I am still working on doing that without messing the whole page up, or deleting references by mistake.

I can most likely find more references for most of what I've written, but I think it is a good choice of reference because Nancy herself is describing the ministry. Here is the link to the interview I am basing the overview on (It can be found on the site under the Audio/Visual section of their press center.): http://www.mercyministries.org/shared/audio/public/Nancy_Radio.mp3

I wrote:

"Mercy Ministries is an international Christian charitable organization that offers a long-term residential Christian-based treatment program for girls and women aged 13-28 who struggle with life-controlling mental illnesses such as eating disorders and depression, as well as psychological issues that arise from sexual abuse and predispose girls and women to attempt suicide, self-injure, or abuse drugs and alcohol."

Paraphrased from interview. I phrased the "psychological issues that arise from sexual abuse and chemical dependency, etc." the way I did because sexual abuse is not an actual illness, and MM is not a detox facility, but instead works to treat the roots of the problems that they feel caused the residents to become dependent on drug and alcohol, self-injury or attempt suicide in the first place.

"In addition, Mercy Ministries is both an ex-gay program that offers conversion therapy to residents who struggle with their sexual identities, and a pro-life ministry that takes in girls and women who seek help with their unplanned pregnancies."

I stated this in as neutral a way as possible, and feel the pro-life and conversion therapy are equally valid parts of their program and should be included along with information on the psychological issues they treat. I made sure to stress that the pregnant girls and women who enter the program have in fact sought help of their own volition.

When I mentioned the gay conversion aspect of their program I also made sure to stress that the potential residents were again seeking help of their own accord because they feel they need help.

Nancy mentions both of these aspects of the program in her interview, and I made sure to refer to their ministry as pro-life and not "anti-choice" as some might view it because, again, residents make their own decisions to go there.(Victoria Lucas (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Just wanting to clarify something. Does that list of programmes run by MM apply to all MM institutions worldwide, or just the ones in the USA? Only this article, says that MM "denies it runs an "ex-gay" program". I've no problem with the article stating that MM offers such a program if it can be verified, and the article I mentioned is admittedly from a secondary source, but perhaps the issue warrants further investigation in light of this anomaly. Landithy (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that the programs are the same across the board. I do think it's fair do include the ex-gay part of the program (and to some extent a fact that should be included for a thorough overview) because the reference [7](that I need to add, sorry I've been on vacation) is a radio interview where Nancy, the founder mentions it herself. I agree, though, that the gay conversion part of the program has been denied, so I thought it might be something to include in the controversy section. Thoughts on that?(Victoria Lucas (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

Reference 16 should be April 16, not March 16, since you have editing rights Victoria could you please change it? Thanks

Done. I am going to try and figure out how to link the mp3 file to the end of the first and second paragraphs. I'm not sure if it's different than linking a webpage, and I think I need to put the "retrieved" date on there, but am figuring that out as well. If there is a tutorial specifically for references, can you lead me to it? I am also in the process of figuring out how not to repeat a reference without creating a second reference that is the same link because I see one link is repeated instead of just having the same number referenced in two locations. Does that even make sense? I can see there is a different code, but I'm still figuring it out.(Victoria Lucas (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Have you tried this article, and some of the cross-referenced ones? Landithy (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've removed the reference/example for the fact that the Sisters of Mercy use the term 'Mercy Ministries' in reference to their work. On reflection and review of Wikipedia's referencing policies, I think that this point would fall within the category of general common knowledge and does not need a citation, and the reference was only an example, not a statement of a policy. Landithy (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Closing of the Sunshine Coast Home

http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2008/jun/07/mercy-ministries-close-coast-home/ I can't add it right now, but I thought I would bring it to the attention of others working on this article. CelticLabyrinth (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

removal of addition to controversy section

I also think the addition of the "positive articles" statement shows bias. I merely added as fact that statement by MM that the home is closing. I understand if the fact of the closing needs to be removed to the overview section because placing it in the controversy section might be considered biased (as there is no proof that the closing is related to the controversy). However, I do not think listing the existence of what might be considered positive articles has merit. Mentioning relevant information that references the articles would be fair, I think. I am totally open to discussion about this, of course, but for now I took it out.Victoria Lucas (talk)

Another IP (from Sidney Australia- my best guess is it's Mercy Minitries) is editing this page and removing controversial information. Last time it happened I notified some editors of it- I think we need to protect IP's from editing the page- but I don't know how to do it, I'm not a very good wikipedian, but if you don't want to deal with it I'll deal with it later tonight. I'll also see about putting a warning on their profile and blocking that IP from editing this page CelticLabyrinth (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have semi protected this article for another month to stop the IP from editing it for the time being. They'll have to register to edit it from now on. CelticLabyrinth (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I felt sort of weird protecting myself as I didn't want to seem like I was trying to stop them from ever editing it, or seem like it was a personal thing. Maybe they could weigh in on the discussion? Victoria Lucas (talk)

There was more vandalism today by 202.80.145.234 I have reverted it back. Melanie587 (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Books by Alcorn

Since Nancy does not have a page of her own, do you think this would be an appropriate place for a list of her books/teachings? Just a thought. I was also thinking of expanding the funding section, well, making it less confusing as well, but I thought I might list some of the other churches/pastors who support MM financially, such as Joyce Meyer, Joel Osteen of Lakewood Church, Abundant Life Church, Darlene and Mark Zschech, Chris Caine, Hillsong, any other major contributers. I will of course find references, but I think in each major city that they are expanding, they are partnering with a local church, usually of some notoriety, that have at least the beginning of an article on Wikipedia. I think she has mentioned some major private sponsors, as well, but I will have to check on whether there are any of notoriety. Thoughts? Victoria Lucas (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up/adding references

I'm in the process of cleaning up/adding references, and could use help. I'll eventually figure it out myself, but I don't yet know how to create anchors, and it's clear that several references are repeated. I also have not gone through and checked all of them, but am hoping to do that within the next couple of days. I have tried to list a variety of appropriate ones, and not rely on a single source, even when possible. (I'm assuming that's a good thing.)

Also, I haven't even begin to deal with references in the beginning of the controversy section as I think they've gotten jumbled up.

I will defer to those who can help in deciding if I've "over-cited" the article, etc.

Also, with the formatting, I have placed the citations inside of the final punctuation as the end of the appropriate sentence and outside of the punctuation of the final sentence when cited for more than once consecutive sentence. I think that is right, but haven't dealt with this for many years. I haven't gone through and done this for the entire article, however, because I haven't checked every ref/statement yet and thought the actual formatting would be a good thing to do last, so I will look into it and see if that is the correct formatting before I get to that stage. (Unless somebody already knows?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by V.Lucas (talk • contribs) 07:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Does anyone know why the NPOV tag was put back up? I can find information on older NPOV issues, but none that are current. CelticLabyrinth (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it was added by the person who initiated this discussion, presumably for the reasons outlined in said discussion. Personally, I'm satisfied that that particular issue has been resolved, although the person who put the tag on and initiated the discussion hasn't added anything further to it. Landithy (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think they did. I have no objection to take it off now that revisions have been made to the passage in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V.Lucas (talk • contribs) 17:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Texmis (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I added some further information taken from a recent article Texmis (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

The opening sentence (posted below in the dotted box with my emphasis) makes it sound like homosexuality is a mental illness. While this may be the view of Mercy Ministries, it is not the commonly held position amongst psychiatrists and other mental health professionals of the modern day. Therefore, this wording needs to be changed.

Mercy Ministries is an international Christian charitable organization that offers a long-term Christian residential treatment program for young women aged 
13-28 who struggle with various issues, including mental illnesses such as eating disorders, mood disorders, homosexuality, sexual addiction, and substance 
addiction and the affects of abuse.

I am also removing the part about "affects of abuse" because that isn't necessarily a mental illness. It's also redundant given the later cite. I also removed the second mention of self-harm and suicidal thoughts. CelticLabyrinth (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed Australian age reference

I removed the Australian age reference as MM's has different age ranges in different countries (the UK is 18-28, AU is 16-28, NZ is 16-28, the US is 13-28, who knows what Canada and Peru are going to have). 13-28 is inclusive of all of the age ranges, so I think it is the most appropriate thing to put up. CelticLabyrinth (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hyper3 Edits

What does everyone think of the deleting of information and other edits that Hyper3 has done? Hyper3 can you explain why you believe your edits enhance this article? If you make your points we can discuss them. Thanks

Happy to answer any questions you may have. Hyper3 (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Great. The questions are above. It's also good you're now willing to discuss it before simply going in and changing whole sections. Discussions can promote improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletree80 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to "be bold" and "assume good faith." I'm sure you are in favour of both. I hope you don't mind, but I can't anticipate what you don't like about my edits - you need to ask me specific questions for me to be able to answer. Hyper3 (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"Can you explain why you believe your edits enhance this article?" Type your proposed changes in here and explain why you believe they are necessary. We then discuss them and come up with a version that everybody is happy with. Appletree80 (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Really happy to address your specific concerns. Your proposed procedure is not the wikipedia process. Being bold involves making the edits you think are the best. If there is a problem, then anyone who wishes to object can raise them on the talk page, and we can work for a proposal that satisfies legitimate concerns. If I have to justify every aspect of my edits, I will inevitably waste time addressing issues you have no problem with. By all means be specific, and I will answer. Hyper3 (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Reviewed

I have done a substantial overhaul of the article, which was repetitive and unbalanced. It still may be over-emphasising those who have an axe to grind. There have obviously been a number of problems with MM, its just that life is more complex than good guys and bad guys, and this needs reflecting better in the article. Hyper3 (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing this piece again, I think that the neutrality of this article is in doubt because half of it is given over to complaints. Because it is on a religious topic, there are bound to be differences of opinion. For example, exorcism is presented as always and every time a wrong approach; adherents would obviously not agree. The issue here is to do with consent, one which was given by the parties on entering the course. One could also say, that because the course participants were vulnerable, this consent was not validly given... In other words, its not about exorcism really, it is about consent and vulnerability. The tone of the text should be amended to reflect this. Hyper3 (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you that consent was given for the exorcisms. Where are your sources?

There is overwhelming evidence that consent was not given for the exorcisms, and Mercy Ministries itself is not open about its practices of exorcism. I can see that it was you Hyper3 who added a reference saying that very thing - that Mercy Ministries on their website claim that they do not do exorcisms. I cannot see how you can now say that consent was given for the exorcisms.

I see no evidence anywhere that the exorcisms were done with any sort of consent, but if you find a valid reference I would be interested in seeing it.

I have to state my interest in this article (as I believe Hyper3 you also have an interest in it.) I work in the social work field, I'm a Christian and I have a dear friend who attended Mercy Ministries. I do have information about the program from knowing somebody who attended, however that knowledge cannot come into it as things need to be referenced. Rainy885 (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Rainy - nice to hear from you.

Actually I know no-one involved, though I am acquainted with the sort of Christianity that it entails. I am contributing to this page because it is a good example of the sort of ethical conflicts that arise for Christians in a postmodern society. People who begin with different ethical standpoints speak across each other.

I am suggesting that the consent issue is more relevant than the exorcism issue. Of course secular humanists don't believe in demons, and why should they? But it is important that each side is treated with respect. That tone of respect is lacking.

The main question is whether the vulnerable people who agreed to join the course (which they were aware was being run by Christians) gave a valid consent to MM to use whatever spiritual goods they believed they had to offer. It is possible that they consented to participate in a course about which they did have full understanding - we might call that trust. It may well be that everyone who joins MM is in that position. Perhaps their life controlling issues do not allow them to concentrate, or maybe they don't really care, as long as it works. However, MM owes a duty of care to the individuals involved not to take that trust too far. Yet it may be that MM folks honestly believe that praying against demons is the best they have to offer. How do we solve such a conundrum?

Interestingly, it appears that MM has realised that they have a problem that arises out of the cultural conflicts involved, that may be more acute in Australia. They have changed their course, and though they themselves obviously do believe in exorcism, they have realised that they need to be careful in the way they approach people who are vulnerable and have offered them their trust. Not scaring them and threatening them with increased demon possession if they don't co-operate, is definitely a start!

There have obviously been some serious mistakes made, and from what I can read, there is both the cultural conflict evident, and some problems with being honestly sorry. They should be able to learn from their mistakes and continue, though. It would involve much humility however.

Actually, I think your knowledge, which is probably accurate and yet limited due to it being only one person, is still relevant. No one is unbiased!

I would find your thoughts very interested, and if you wanted to email my from my user page I would find it a privilege. Hyper3 (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hyper3 I appreciate your reply. I think the key here is to look at the advertising - does Mercy Ministries advertising lend itself to being open about what their practices are, and what a young woman should expect when in the program? Only when a practice is explained, can it be consented to (and then as you stated, it may not be informed consent due to the nature of the girl's illness.) The advertising on the Mercy Ministries websites says they do not perform exorcisms, and their brochures (from which young women often learn about the program) have no mention of exorcism or deliverance either. I have never seen any form of information brochure or advertising from Mercy Ministries that says they perform exorcisms. http://s495.photobucket.com/albums/rr314/mercysurvivors/?action=view&current=Mercybrochure.jpg The brochures indicate the young women will be treated by psychiatric and medical professionals. I'm sure you'll agree that consenting to a program that says the young women will be treated by professionals, is quite different from consenting to exorcisms by untrained staff. What are your thoughts on the issue? Rainy885 (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Rainy - thanks for your information, and the picture of the brochure.

The brochure mentions "physical, spiritual and emotional" wellbeing - and good Modern Western culturally aware people think they understand what the references to "professionals" means, so they don't ask further questions. Actually, there are hundreds of "therapeutic modalities" and research done into many of them does not prove their utility especially when compared to "spontaneous recovery." One could accuse much that counts for therapy of being abusive, manipulative and money orientated: it would not however seem plausible, and most would reject it. A Christian approach that includes Christian versions of therapy (including deliverance) is much more implausible to the modern Western mindset, and therefore accusations against it stick more readily. It is very likely that the therapists mentioned as being "professional" are also Christians, and therefore may well use a variety of approaches, from prayer to Freud. My point is that we must ask the question whether even Modern Western therapies are openly described.

What MM believes spiritual well-being to mean is not what modern Westerners in general believe it to be. Christians and this particular type of Christian group, come from a tradition that defines "the good life" in a particular way, and therefore their path towards it, and what they count to be the virtues that are needed to lead the good life, are far more divergent than you might expect. When it comes to instructing the vulnerable how to live the good life, there is no doubt at all that this is brought out more starkly.

I think it is important that MM and those like them are very careful at this point, because the accusations that can be made are extensive, and therefore they need to be as honest as they can. It is clear from the beginning, that Christians come to different conclusions to non-Christians, and that it is unlikely that Christian therapeutic modalities are going to be wholly acceptable to non-Christians.

What bothers me more is that they seem to have been taken by surprise in this. I think it is the difference between Australia and America that particularly has brought it out.

Was consent given when the girls entered the programme? I believe that this is really the main part of the debate. I think we need to be open to the fact that these girls often are willing to try anything, and therefore have offered quite a wide consent. Are they in a position to give that consent given their vulnerability? I don't think there is a general answer, but there should be some work done on a case by case basis to make sure. Some of those who do give consent, may do it unwisely, and regret it later. The majority buy in to the whole package, and feel they have been helped. These are some of the most difficult people to help. Other therapies may be more acceptable, and less effective. There will always be failures and complaints. MM statistics claim 7% failure, because 7% are asked to leave, and 7% say they did not progress. This is very low, in my opinion. If you look at secular drug rehabilitation figures, their success rates are often in the low single figure percentage. And this is why Alcorn began. Hyper3 (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

From my knowledge of them in Australia, many more than 7% are asked to leave, and many more again leave after joining the program and realising it was not what they consented to or expected. Whether this was across the board in both homes I don't know, but certainly in one house over a length of time. My view is that this isn't so much a question of Christian belief and how faith is perceived by non Christians. It's more about services needing to be honest about their treatment regimes, whether they take a faith based approach or a secular approach. Keep in mind that Mercy Ministries have flatly denied doing exorcisms. It's not simply that they didn't mention them in their advertising - they outright denied it. Therefore when a young woman consented to the advertised program, there was no consent for the exorcisms as she did not know they were a part of the program. Rainy885 (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think on the issue of what they said and didn't say, there is clearly a muddle that turned into a PR fiasco, and made them look like they were caught lying. I think there are a number of issues to do with openness that have not been dealt with well here. But then, perhaps we can agree that the main issue is the area of consent and honesty about treatment regimes? Hyper3 (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Closure of Australian Operations

I've added a brief statement about the announced closure of MM's operations in Australia. Other parts of the article, such as the "Locations" section of the article will also need to be updated in light of this. Will try to get around to this in the next few days, once I've sourced appropriate information. Landithy (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added quotes from MM's own site and from Hillsong's (extraordinary, IMHO) statement cutting MM loose and admitting damage by association. I've also taken the liberty of referencing the only site I could find that carried an earlier, harsher version of a statement from Hillsong that Hillsong's own website no longer carries.

I would regard this as very much an open section which will further evolve over time; MM's claim of mere financial unviability and Houston's statement admitting there is an ongoing "investigation" (which may or may not be related to the ACCC investigation of 2008) and exhorting co-operation means there is undoubtedly more to tell. --baliset 11:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baliset (talk • contribs)

Reasoning

It seems like this page still has a lot of issues and it seems like someone is trying to give Mercy Ministries a bad name instead of just reporting the facts. Referencing blogs on this site is a stretch. Blogs are based on opinion not fact.

For instance, the descriptions of Mercy Ministries in the first section are NOT true. The entire ministry is NOT charismatic. I have met several of the staff members and happen to know that several denominations are represented, including Methodist, Church of Christ, Presbyterian, Four Square, non-denomational, etc.

You really should change the heading of “Exorcism” on this page. What Mercy Ministries is doing is not even close to the TRUE definition of an “exorcism”. If you look on Mercy’s site, in the FAQ section, they clearly state that they do not perform exorcisms. They also don’t use the “restoring the foundations” program mentioned. They are using a program called “choices that bring change”. These facts really should be cleared up if this page is to keep with wiki standards and guidelines.

Even the language used to “balance” this section is also inflammatory – “nonetheless” etc.

This word “exorcism” was first used in descriptions of Mercy Ministries when a former Australian resident was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald as saying, “when they laid hands on me and prayed, it felt like an exorcism.” This word was used incorrectly to sensationalize what is commonly practiced in all denominations – laying on of hands and praying for people. (http://www.ccel.org/contrib//exec_outlines/top/layhands.htm)

The term “exorcism” is very loaded especially after the 1970s movie – “The Exorcist” – and is used on the Mercy Ministries wiki page in a way that clearly indicates an axe to grind by those who are posting it.

As I read this section, it is very one-sided and serving only to attack Mercy Ministries rather than report FACTS – which is what Wikipedia is supposed to do. This is a side bar to the overall Mercy Ministries page and should be under a controversy or discussion section and not presented as “fact” as it currently is.

Also, all of the 50 articles that are referenced, with the exception of 3, are Australian and include blog postings by Australians. There IS NO Australian organization anymore! Seems very biased and one-sided; even with some of the edits. I really don’t see any indication that the truth was sought in this page’s discussion of Mercy Ministries.

Lastly, according to this YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJoSMifx02c , “Victoria ‘Vickie’ Lucas”, who is responsible for a large part of the edits, is actually the alias for “Jodi Ferris” who is quoted in the Tennessean article and who has written Truth Will Out Blog – which indicates an “axe to grind” in and of itself. “Jodi Ferris” is also responsible for a Mercy Survivor story by Sean the Blogonaut, where she is using the name “Hope”. From what I’ve read, there has only ever been ONE former Nashville resident who has spoken out about being required to take part in group prayer sessions for casting out demons, and that was Jodi Ferris, a.k.a. Victoria Lucas, a.k.a. Hope, a.k.a. Vickie Lucas.

The comment about the Nashville Scene reporting – belongs in the Australian controversy part and not in this area. I am suggesting that this area be labeled – other controversy… —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denice May (talk • contribs) 01:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum to slander an individual, nor is it a forum to discuss personal opinions about the organization. Exorcism was the term used by numeronew sources regarding the treatment at Mercy Ministries in both the US and abroad, I do not believe there is a more neutral term for it. The Australian controversy is in large part what makes this organization notable. Certainly there is room in the article to detail other notable things about this organization, and if you have cited information to add then please do! CelticLabyrinth (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The above comments do throw light on serious problems with the article: blogs should not be used WP:BLOGS and being involved in the dispute is a conflict of interest WP:CONFLICT. These two problems if remedied properly will reduce the article in size considerably. Hyper3 (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Opinions are not Knowledge

"Mercy Ministries operates both an ex-gay program that offers conversion therapy, as well as a pro-life program that serves young women with unplanned pregnancies."

The Mercy Ministries page is being disputed because of the insistence of certain Authors continuing to contribute their opinions under the guise of factual information. These authors would like to control public perception and present their bias as truth and their actions undermine the purpose of Authoring on Wikipedia which is "to write articles that cover existing knowledge"^[2]. Opinions of this nature may well be important to include on this page but not if it is presented as fact. Because opinions are not knowledge.

In particular the semantics of the above statement are misleading as Mercy Ministries does not offer any of these types of program. There are in-fact specific Ministries that are explicitly and purposefully ex-gay and pro-life. These issues are certainly not the foundational tenets on which Mercy Ministries operates. Whilst these issues may be addressed in the life of a young woman in the program it is only because Mercy Ministries is unashamedly Christian in both its organizational foundations and its modus operandi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.145.234 (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why anybody would dispute that MM is not a pro-life organization because one of their main objectives is to help teens/women with unplanned pregnancies. Why is that somebody's opinion? In addition, Nancy has stated that they "help" girls who are "struggling with their sexual orientation". I do not purport that this is the sole purpose of the program, just as helping girls with eating disorders is not the sole purpose of the program. However, if somebody was looking for an alternative to abortion, and needed help, Mercy Ministries would be a place that she would consider as a "safe haven" so to speak, that she might have a place to stay during her pregnancy, and get help making plans to either parent her child or pursue a private adoption. And according to Nancy Alcorn, a girl who was "struggling with her sexual orientation" would also be welcomed into the program for help with that "issue" (Again, quoting Nancy).Victoria Lucas (talk)

I meant to mention this in the previous discussion about the 'ex-gay' issue but got snowed under at work and never got around to it. I appologise for leaving it this long.

I don't think that merely welcoming a girl who is struggling with her sexual orientation into the program is quite the same thing as running an ex-gay program, even if the program is based on Christian beliefs. My understanding of the terms 'ex-gay program' and 'Conversion therapy' is that they involve taking specific steps 'reorient' an individual towards a heterosexual lifestyle, or at least a lifestyle where they do not act upon their homosexual urges. I don't think that, for example, simply offering theological advice on the church's teachings on homosexuality, offering a 'sanctuary' for a person who is confused about their sexuality to think things over or helping them to deal with issues stemming from their confusion is quiet the the thing as running an ex-gay program.

If an assertion that MM offers "help" young women who are "struggling with their sexual orientation" in dealing with that issue is the only evidence that it offers an ex-gay program, and no details about exactly what that 'help' entails are given, I don't think that it is sufficient to warrant the statement that MM operates an ex-gay program. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to simply say something along the lines that, according to its founder, MM offers assistance to young women coping with unplanned pregnancies and confusion about their sexual orientation in dealing with these issues. This may be a little vague, but from what I can gather, not having had time to listen to it myself, so is the source material.

And 202.80.145.234, might I suggest that you go easy on the accusations. Even if the edits about the ex-gay/pro-life programs were inappropriate, this may stem from a simple misunderstanding of the terms, not from any attempt to 'control public perception'. Landithy (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. Nancy doesn't fully explain what she means by "help." I still see no problem with calling the organization pro-life though. It's not as though I would even consider describing them as "anti-choice". I thought the pro-life part of their program was a major positive point for their organization.

Also, possibly there could be a statement in the controversy about the ex-gay program because of this article: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gods-cure-for-gays-lost-in-sin/2008/03/18/1205602385236.html, and some of the statements made by the girls.Victoria Lucas (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Having finally gotten to listening to the audio file you provided as a reference for the "pro-life"/"ex-gay" statement, there doesn't seem to be anything in the interview that supports the assertion that MM is "pro-life" either. It simply states that MM takes in clients with unplanned pregnancies, and while no options besides raising the child or having it adopted out are mentioned, no explicitly "pro-life" political views are expressed at all, much less than with regard to the services offered by MM. I think it is too great a leap of logic to assume that MM runs a pro-life program, simply because they are a Christian organisation which offers help to people with certain problems. Particularly when so many different denominations and interpretations of Christianity exist. You may not see anything wrong with those movements, but that doesn't mean that it's OK claim that they form the basis of MM's programs, if there is no credible evidence to support it. The problem isn't that it derogates from MM's reputation. The problem is that it's not verifiable.

Also, with regard to the term "pro-life" itself, it is a political term, the same way that "anti-choice" is. Perhaps "anti-abortion" would be a more neutral and specific term, if one is going to mention it at all. Plus, the pro-life movement is opposed to a number of other practices, besides abortion. Landithy (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

With regard to referencing the audio file, I wasn't using that as evidence of their pro-life stance, just the ex-gay part of the program. I truly didn't think the pro-life position would be an issue, but I will look for other references. As far as the term "pro-life" I though it was the most positive was to refer to the services they offer, but perhaps you are right that anti-abortion would be better, on the basis that pro-life does have to do with the debate over the legalization of abortion, whereas anti-abortion is a more general belief against having abortions, and not necessarily a political belief about abortion laws.

However, I do think it is unfair to say that just because they do not call themselves "anti-abortion" that we may not write about them as being such, if there is evidence that they are against abortion, because that is what the term means, no matter what connotation the word carries. For example, if they described themselves as red, yellow, and blue, for somebody to then describe them as colorful, and then to be told that it is inappropriate because MM is not red, yellow, blue and green, or because they do not consider themselves colorful, or because they have never used the word "colorful" in describing themselves. Here is a piece just published on their site: http://www.mercyministries.org/LearnMore/News/AnotherLifeSaved.aspx. I suppose you could say that the "life" was "saved" because of a number of things, but I think at some point it becomes inaccurate to avoid a certain term just because it is politically charged. To stay in the program, a girl has two options, parenting or placing her child. This is detailed on their website, and there is no mention of an option of abortion, although that part of the ministry's description would be the appropriate place to mention it. I feel that including the specific information that abortion is not an option in their program is relative, and using the adjective "anti-abortion" is a good way of doing so.

So perhaps we might write something like this: Its founder, Nancy Alcorn has stated that Mercy Ministries also welcomes girls who are "struggling with their sexual orientation[8]." In addition, Mercy Ministries is an anti-abortion organization that offers young girls and women who are seeking abortion alternatives the option of placing their child for adoption or preparing to parent their child while they complete the program requirements.[ref appropriate part of website]. Followed by "After entering the program...(following sentence describes how residents are helped to decide)Victoria Lucas (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you are stating, as a matter of unequivocal fact, that MM operates programs aimed at producing certain results ("anti-abortion" and "ex-gay"), or use particular methods, when you have no unequivocal evidence to back such a statement up. In my opinion, the statement currently in the article (in bold above) contravenes Wikipedia's rule against original research, because it is, at best, speculation based on tenuous evidence. If had MM made a statement to the effect that its program for women with unplanned pregnancies aims to prevent those pregnancies from being terminated, it would be fair to say that they run an anti-abortion program, but I am unable to find any sources where MM makes such a statement.

I also think it is fine to state that some sources have described MM as "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" (plenty have), so long as you state who made the allegation, but I don't think it is appropriate to state as a matter of fact that they MM is opposed to abortion, unless the organisation has expressed explicitly anti-abortion views.

I would suggest simply stating that MM provides adoption services and parenting classes to women with unplanned pregnancies, with an appriate reference (eg. this FAQ section from MM's UK site[9]. Then the reader can draw their own conclusions about the program. Any specific information, from a reliable source, about the nature of the help that MM offers to clients who are "struggling with their sexuality" would also be appropriate. Landithy(talk) 01:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)