Talk:Practicing Cultural Mormon/archive

I don't have anything against this group, but I don't think this article belongs here as it is new research. Jgardner 21:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I lied. I do have something against this group. I'm a faithful believing Mormon and I think these guys should see their Bishop and get over their problems. I would be interested in seeing an article on this group if and only if they became notable and there was some research done on them. Jgardner 21:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These People are Trapped
It is a disgrace that these people must live in such fear. I know such a person who is terrified to show truth to her family, for fear of persecution. Go see your Bishop? Hah. And what, be fed more lies?

They do exist...
Adding this article was not meant to offend the believing Mormons, but to draw attention to the fact that these people actually exist.

I admit the name makes it sound like an organization, which it clearly is not...but this is the only word I have found to describe this group of people.

As you said, if actual sociological research is done on this topic, maybe a standardized name will be given to them.

If you believe that New Order Mormons need to just see their bishop, I suggest you read a little on their website...there are well-written articles written on their website explaining their difficult position, most notably one called "The Paradox of the Faithful Unbeliever"

http://home.comcast.net/~zarahemla/peggy_rogers1.htm

You said "I would be interested in seeing an article on this group if and only if they became notable and there was some research done on them."

The problem is that by its very nature, this group is a quiet minority within the LDS Church. No research will be done on them, because no one knows they exist. No one can tell how many there are, because they won't admit it, for the sake of their families.

If you feel a more generic word should be used on Wikipedia, as they are not a formal organization, perhaps we can think of one?

Unorthodox Mormon?


 * How about we call them "Mormons with issues about the church" and leave it at that? Are you sure that this isn't self promotion? What have these done? What role have they played? Are they significant in any way besides their sole existence? Compare this group with Opus Dei. There's just no comparison because Opus Dei is important, has affected the church they belong to in a significant way and such. Until New Order Mormons do something, who cares? The bottom line is, in my opinion, is that this is a group of people who are borderline ready to leave the church. There's been people like this since the beginning, and there will be people like this until the end. It's not until they decide to do something about their feelings that they become important. The fact that they all get together on a website and talk to each other isn't significant. There's a million groups out there like that.
 * I am being hard, and I admit that, in the interest of being terse. But I hope it either helps you rethink whether this article belongs here at this time, or come up with some good reasons why it does - reasons I haven't seen yet. Jgardner 23:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--

It is not self-promotion...I do not own the New Order Mormon website, though I am a member.

Why write about them?

They are an interesting social phenomenon that is unique to the LDS Church because of its emphasis on keeping the family together. The LDS Church is one of the most difficult churches to leave if one does not believe the doctrines because the family ties are "eternal".


 * I'm a bit confused on the flow of the conversation here. Please leave four tildes (~ ~ ~ ~) (without the spaces of course) after your posting. Put colons to indent the text. Jgardner 05:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

-- Why not write about them Jgardner? Are you somehow threatened that these people exist in the Mormon church? Your responses are mean spirited and I just wonder why I guess. I'm sure that there asre plenty of people who are in the mormon church that don't really believe who might find an article like this helpful. This is a free internet site. Just wondering why it makes you so angry to read this information.


 * I could tell you why I get upset, but it doesn't belong here. If you're interested you can contact me offline at jgardner@jonathangardner.net Jgardner 05:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Research on the NOM
The N.O.M. group represents some important areas of nuance present in Mormonism. People attend church for a wide variety of reasons, as suggested by Gordon Allport, whose views are summarized at the wikipedia here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_religion#Gordon_Alport_:_Mature_Religion_and_Immature_Religion and here on this website by a psychologist who studies religion http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/ukraine/index.htm (scroll down about half-way, or search for 'Allport'). The New Order Mormon seems to be a good illustration of this idea that people's outward behavior may be motivated by very different inner states.

As far as the question of research having been done on the group, perhaps the longest-lasting project is an ongoing series of articles published in Sunstone magazine (http://www.sunstoneonline.com) by Jeff Burton. His column, which has appeared in every issue of Sunstone for several years now, addresses life on the 'borderlands' of Mormonism, where people are LDS outwardly, but inwardly they are not. His term is different, but the phenomena is the same. This column builds on his book on the subject, For Those Who Wonder: Managing Religious Questions and Doubts.

The NOM idea also is consistent with sociological research on Mormonism. For example, both Armand Mauss (in The Angel and the Beehive) and Kendall White (in Mormon Neo-orthodoxy: A crisis theology) discuss the general sociological factors that promote the institutional church's effort to create and maintain strong boundaries and high conformity. The NOM people are the individuals who feel torn by these institutional and sociological forces. They are the people who desire involvement in the church without assenting to one or more of its doctrines, and as a result are left in Burton's 'borderlands', neither completely in nor out of the church. I should mention that both Mauss and White are highly respected sociologists. Mauss edited the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion and his Angel and the Beehive book received an award from the Mormon History Association. Mauss and White have been presidents of the Mormon Social Science Association (http://www.mormonsocialscience.org), and Mauss also was president of the Mormon History Association (http:www.mhahome.org).

This idea also is recognized periodically by general authorities in the church. If I recall correctly, it was Elder Holland last year who discussed people sitting on the periphery of the church's campsite; he invited them to sit closer to the light of the campfire and to embrace more fully the church. If the church leadership is sufficiently concerned about the NOM condition to devote general conference talks to them, it would seem to be a noteworthy part of Mormonism.

So, I understand that the NOM idea might be met skeptically by more devout church members, but I would suggest that the Wikipedia is more complete by having this entry.
 * Clearly, this article belongs in wiki. There is more to this group than what I originally thought. You've convinced me. I'll take my frustration with the group and vent it elsewhere. Congratulations, you've convinced a stubborn man. You may want to put a small note somewhere relevan in other articles. Jgardner 05:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You are fair, and right to be careful. But I agree with your decision - it helps to show a broader spectrum of the people who comprise the LDS faith.

What Needs the Cleanup?
I noticed on the to-do list at Template:LDSTaskBox that this article needed some clean-up. But it looks OK to me. Was there something in particular that was at issue? KevinM 03:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why the proposal for deletion?
The subject of whether or not "New Order Mormon" is a subject worthy of a Wikipedia entry has already been discussed on this page. Another person has asked for specifics on what needs to be "cleaned up" about the entry. I don't see any new information on either of those topics here on the talk page, and yet the article has been tagged with a "proposed deletion"? Just curious as to why ... --Dlugar 05:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I proded this because there it is not verifiable. There are very few hits on google for the term google claims 42 unique out of about 500. And from what I can tell there are not publications that use the term - only the forums and sites that introduced the term.
 * "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Verifiability policy
 * "However, we should avoid relying on self-published material ... as a sole source. That is particularly true when the subject is controversial, and the self-publisher has no professional or academic standing." Reliable sources guideline
 * At the very least this should be merged with ex-mormon, anti-mormon, former mormons whatever the article ends up being called about people who are in some way disaffected with Mormonism. -- Trödel 13:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How about merging with Practicing Cultural Mormon? The content and theme seems to be similar, and avoids using the term "New Order Mormon" which seems to be specific to one group/web site. --Dlugar 15:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's even better - didn't know that article existed - would be interested to see the references in that article - or helping identify some. -- Trödel 18:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible Sources
Here's a list of possible sources for information for this article, and possible references as well. About half are bloggish in nature; the others are published articles and books.


 * http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/activity/lifestyle_eom.htm
 * http://www.shields-research.org/WP/?cat=5
 * http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1560851341/
 * http://www.farmsresearch.com/display.php?table=review&id=524
 * http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Facet.shtml#culture
 * http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/096347328X/
 * http://content.lib.utah.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=719 6 (page 110)
 * http://farms.byu.edu/getpdf.php?filename=OTY1Mzg0MTA2LTYtMi5wZGY=&type=cmV2aWV3 (page 19, footnote on page 25)
 * http://www.religionomics.com/cesr_web/papers/cesr_workshops/McBride%20-%20ClubMormon%20-%2019Jan06.pdf
 * http://www.sunstoneonline.com/ (no specific link here)

Citation Needed
There are a number of statements in the current article that claim the LDS Church sees doubt as a sin to be repented of and detail various actions the church has taken against cultural Mormons. These need documentation, otherwise I would suggest the article be deleted. --MrWhipple 23:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)