Excommunication of Landon Brophy

[Pyreaux]

When news is slow, I look at ex-LDS forums to see what they talk about. A wave of discussion following the formal excommunication of podcaster and content creator Landon Brophy in mid-May for public apostasy. The event sparked debate among Redditers and Mormon Stories regarding how the Church handles online critics. Even though every organization, whether a corporation, a sports league, or a religious body, has standards of conduct, membership requirements, and boundaries. Church discipline is not an act of malice, it is a necessary mechanism for maintaining the integrity of the faith and the community.

What Did Landon Brophy Do Wrong?

On his show, he openly questioned and criticized the translation and authenticity of the Book of Abraham. Historical, DNA, and archaeological challenges regarding the Book of Mormon. The divine authority of Church leadership and modern revelation. All designed to undermine the faith of others.

The podcast regularly engaged in direct, public criticism of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Church guidelines explicitly state that repeatedly and publicly attacking or campaigning against Church leadership constitutes clear grounds for a disciplinary council. Landon Brophy’s actions directly met the definition of public apostasy.

While the Ex-LDS community often frames church discipline as a punishment for simply having doubts, the Church's guidelines distinguish between private struggles with faith and public opposition. As a co-host on the Mormonish Podcast, Brophy moved far beyond private disbelief. He used a public platform to consistently question, deconstruct, and criticize Church doctrines, history, and leadership.

Brophy had a long history of high-level leadership, and his public actions created a fundamental breach of church integrity. When local leaders reached out to him after General Conference to discuss his status, Brophy admittedly ignored the correspondence, missed the certified mail, and chose not to participate in the local council. Church discipline is intended to be an invitation to repentance and a local, pastoral process. When a member completely withdraws from that process while continuing to publicly attack the Church, leaders are left with no choice but to formally update the records to reflect reality.

Other Strange Ex-LDS Outcries

The vocal uproar from the Ex-LDS community following Brophy's excommunication highlights several logical inconsistencies and double standards within that space.

A common refrain in ex-Mormon forums is that the Church "has no power" and an excommunication letter is meaningless. Yet, the massive influx of angry posts, dedicated Mormon Stories episodes, and coordinated outcries completely contradicts this claim. If the decree truly carries no weight, the intense emotional and reactive preoccupation with it reveals that the community still attributes an immense amount of significance to it.

Ex-LDS commentators frequently criticize the Church for maintaining inactive members on its membership rolls, claiming it is inflated with people who no longer believe. However, when the Church takes formal steps to clean up its records by removing a vocal, long-inactive critic like Brophy, the same community decries the move as an aggressive purge or attack.

Every community establishes boundaries to define who is part of the group and who is not. If a member of a political party, a secular nonprofit, or a tight-knit club spent years publicly campaigning against the group's core mission, no one would question that organization's right to revoke their membership. The hypocrisy lies in demanding that the Church remain a free-for-all, forcing it to carry the name of a public antagonist on its records under the guise of tolerance.

A membership council is not a hostile courtroom. It is a formal acknowledgment of a choice the individual has already made when someone spends years publicly acting outside the boundaries of Latter-day Saint fellowship.

Edited Friday at 12:28 AM by Pyreaux

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

ex-LDS

Can you help me understand this terminology? I have never seen an ex-LDS forum or an individual who identifies as ex-LDS. Am I missing something?

[rpn]

It's pretty standard for Church leaders to remove membership when member doesn't show up for the meeting.   

[Pyreaux]

12 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Can you help me understand this terminology? I have never seen an ex-LDS forum or an individual who identifies as ex-LDS. Am I missing something?

Yet, sociology, psychology, and religious studies researchers almost exclusively use "ex-LDS." Should we really let an online forum's branding dictate what term to use? I am identifying them by the exact organization they left. If someone leaves the Jehovah's Witnesses, they are an ex-JW. Calling someone who left the LDS Church ex-LDS is standard English use. The "ex" is certainly an identity they already claim. I'm not forcing some new status on them.

Perhaps you are trying to invalidate a term you personally don't like?

Edited Friday at 01:33 PM by Pyreaux

[Calm]

8 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Can you help me understand this terminology? I have never seen an ex-LDS forum or an individual who identifies as ex-LDS. Am I missing something?

Have you seen someone identify as exMormon?  (I know you probably have online, but maybe you are thinking differently about it than I am?) If so, do you see a difference?

PS:  I was curious if there was an exLDS.org.  I got redirected to exMormon.org, so it seems someone thinks others might use the term even if not as common as exmormon.  I redid it with ex-LDS.org and that didn’t come up (can you have a dash in an address?).

There is also quite a few ex-LDS sites online though most are drowned by exmormon.  You need to put quotes around it for them to come up.

Edited Friday at 09:06 AM by Calm

[The Nehor]

I haven’t spent a lot of time in ex-LDS spaces but I find the idea that there is a collective hive mind that finds excommunication meaningless a little unlikely. They might do some tough-guy talk about how it has no eternal ramifications but that is not the same thing.

[the narrator]

10 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Yet, sociology, psychology, and religious studies researchers almost exclusively use "ex-LDS."

No they don't.

[the narrator]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Have you seen someone identify as exMormon?

Seems post-Mormon is used more frequently now.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Have you seen someone identify as exMormon?  (I know you probably have online, but maybe you are thinking differently about it than I am?) If so, do you see a difference?

PS:  I was curious if there was an exLDS.org.  I got redirected to exMormon.org, so it seems someone thinks others might use the term even if not as common as exmormon.  I redid it with ex-LDS.org and that didn’t come up (can you have a dash in an address?).

There is also quite a few ex-LDS sites online though most are drowned by exmormon.  You need to put quotes around it for them to come up.

Everyone i’ve personally interacted with who has left the church, when self identifying, uses the term "Mormon". Post-mormon. Ex-mormon. Formerly Mormon. I have never met someone who uses "LDS" or "Latter-day Saint" to identify their former membership. 

Edited Friday at 06:26 PM by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Yet, sociology, psychology, and religious studies researchers almost exclusively use "ex-LDS." Should we really let an online forum's branding dictate what term to use? I am identifying them by the exact organization they left. If someone leaves the Jehovah's Witnesses, they are an ex-JW. Calling someone who left the LDS Church ex-LDS is standard English use. The "ex" is certainly an identity they already claim. I'm not forcing some new status on them.

Perhaps you are trying to invalidate a term you personally don't like?

I think people should be reffered to in ways that they prefer. That's why I refer to members as "Latter-day Saints" and not "Mormons". From Claude:
 

Which is more common nomenclature, ex-LDS or ex-mormon.

11:39 AM

 

 

"Ex-Mormon" is significantly more common. It's the dominant term used in everyday conversation, media, and online communities (the main Reddit community is r/exmormon, for example). "Ex-LDS" exists and is understood, but it's used much less frequently.

"Former Mormon" is also common and tends to appear more in formal or journalistic writing, as it sounds slightly less charged than the "ex-" prefix.

 

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think people should be reffered to in ways that they prefer. That's why I refer to members as "Latter-day Saints" and not "Mormons". From Claude:
 

Which is more common nomenclature, ex-LDS or ex-mormon.

11:39 AM

 

 

"Ex-Mormon" is significantly more common. It's the dominant term used in everyday conversation, media, and online communities (the main Reddit community is r/exmormon, for example). "Ex-LDS" exists and is understood, but it's used much less frequently.

"Former Mormon" is also common and tends to appear more in formal or journalistic writing, as it sounds slightly less charged than the "ex-" prefix.

Academic literature, peer-reviewed journals, and university dissertations use "ex-LDS" as a standard analytical category because researchers require strict classifications rather than internet subculture shorthand. "Mormon" can refer to over a dozen distinct breakaway denominations, academic protocols default to referencing the specific institution being exited. I have several published examples demonstrate how standard and widely accepted this vocabulary is.

I think it's a manipulation game. They only want to be called Ex-Mormons precisely because the Church doesn't want its members called Mormons. Even if you are calling current members "Latter-day Saints" to respect their wishes, you are still following a naming convention that the community is actively using as a point of defiance. Since, the vocabulary itself is a political battlefield, is exactly why a neutral, clinical descriptor is sometimes necessary.

You speak of courtesy while they intentionally weaponize the word "Mormon". If they reserve the right to ignore the naming preferences of Latter-day Saints, they have very little standing to demand that a faithful LDS bend standard English grammar to match the online brand.

By choosing to say "ex-LDS" I strip away the politics and return the conversation to a calm, clinical reality. As someone participating in a faithful, academic space aligned with FAIR, my baseline for language follows the Church's style guide, which asks us to phase out the cultural nickname 'Mormon.' While you are completely free to brand your own spaces however you like, calling someone who left the denomination 'ex-LDS' is factually accurate and aligns with the vocabulary standards of my faith. Courtesy goes both ways, if the online community can ignore the naming preferences of the Church, they shouldn't be surprised when faithful forum's member default to standard, literal descriptors instead of subculture branding.

Edited Friday at 09:17 PM by Pyreaux

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

You speak of courtesy while they intentionally weaponizing the word "Mormon". If they reserve the right to ignore the naming preferences of 17 million Latter-day Saints, they have very little standing to demand that a faithful LDS bend standard English grammar to match the online brand.

Wow, touched a nerve. CFR that identifying as post/ex/former Mormon is “intentionally” weaponizing the word. 

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

By choosing to say "ex-LDS" I strip away the politics and return the conversation to a calm, clinical reality.

Not really when you clearly have  no solid data that those you are discussing view it that way.  Maybe no one does, maybe a minority do.  Should a minority’s behaviour cause less civil behaviour to the majority? (If it’s a majority, you should be able to document this motivation rather than speculate.)

You have chosen to view the use of exmormon, etc as a political stance.  You have therefore imported emotion yourself into the conversation.

This reminds me of why I couldn’t use Ms instead Mrs back when I was first married even though it had nothing to do with politics and all to do with me just feeling like they were confusing me with my mother in law and detesting the constant breaking into song of “here’s to you, Mrs. Robinson…”

Mind reading people’s motivations is never wise.  It only leads to misunderstanding and too often unnecessary conflict and resentment.

If they have actually intentionally weaponized the label,, that’s on them.  Why should it bother you if you can maintain a calm, clinical approach yourself?

Edited Friday at 10:10 PM by Calm

[Rain]

56 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Academic literature, peer-reviewed journals, and university dissertations use "ex-LDS" as a standard analytical category because researchers require strict classifications rather than internet subculture shorthand. "Mormon" can refer to over a dozen distinct breakaway denominations, academic protocols default to referencing the specific institution being exited. I have several published examples demonstrate how standard and widely accepted this vocabulary is.

I think it's a manipulation game. They only want to be called Ex-Mormons precisely because the Church doesn't want its members called Mormons. Even if you are calling current members "Latter-day Saints" to respect their wishes, you are still following a naming convention that the community is actively using as a point of defiance. Since, the vocabulary itself is a political battlefield, is exactly why a neutral, clinical descriptor is sometimes necessary.

You speak of courtesy while they intentionally weaponize the word "Mormon". If they reserve the right to ignore the naming preferences of Latter-day Saints, they have very little standing to demand that a faithful LDS bend standard English grammar to match the online brand.

By choosing to say "ex-LDS" I strip away the politics and return the conversation to a calm, clinical reality. As someone participating in a faithful, academic space aligned with FAIR, my baseline for language follows the Church's style guide, which asks us to phase out the cultural nickname 'Mormon.' While you are completely free to brand your own spaces however you like, calling someone who left the denomination 'ex-LDS' is factually accurate and aligns with the vocabulary standards of my faith. Courtesy goes both ways, if the online community can ignore the naming preferences of the Church, they shouldn't be surprised when faithful forum's member default to standard, literal descriptors instead of subculture branding.

I haven't figured out what I want to be called since I'm technically a member and go to church most weeks (to support my husband) as well as other things. I don't participate in any former member groups. When I finally figure it out it probably won't include any church name.  If the topic comes up I'm likely to just say "I no longer believe."  In other words, I just don't care which way others title themself.

But I think using the word "Mormon" as part of their titles has far more to do with history than because the church doesn't want people to say the word Mormon. Exmormon was around far before President Nelson changed everything. I'm sure there will be some who do use it that way, but I would be surprised if most do.

 

Edited Friday at 10:08 PM by Rain

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Rain said:

Exmormon was around far before President Nelson changed everything.

This, it’s most likely habit and seeing it everywhere maintains the habit.  Why would someone that was no longer a member change what they use as nomenclature when that takes a lot of mental energy to break the habit?

Edited Friday at 10:20 PM by Calm

[Pyreaux]

20 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Wow, touched a nerve. CFR that identifying as post/ex/former Mormon is “intentionally” weaponizing the word. 

Find every Ex-LDS thread that refences the "major victory for Satan". Every title of an episode of Mormon Stories. The forums openly discuss that they intentionally lean into the word "Mormon" precisely because the current leadership was trying to move away from it. It's also a calculated business decision in a Search Engine Optimization standpoint, "Mormon" generates massively higher search volume than "LDS."

Whenever an Ex-LDS enters faithful spaces and insists on using "Mormon" to provoke active members is weaponizing it. Using language not to communicate, but to score a tactical point. You can't seriously be denying online spaces explicitly double down on 'Ex-Mormon' and 'Mormon' as deliberate acts of reclamation and institutional resistance since 2018.

Edited Saturday at 06:18 PM by Pyreaux

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Whenever an Ex-LDS enters faithful spaces and insists on using "Mormon" to provoke active members is weaponizing

So you knowing their preference is exMormon, are you weaponizing exLDS every time you engage with former LDS?

”Usinglanguage not to communicate, but to score a tactical point.”

How are you not doing the same thing?  Serious question since you are directly responding to them in what feels like an offensive (as in the opposite of defensive, not insulting) intent.  I don’t want to use aggressive as that adds an emotional connotation I don’t think is there.  You are being assertive, but more in my view…not just holding your own, but trying to diminish their effect.

BTW, the vast majority of former LDS (I am using LDS here to differentiate from other Mormon communities as I don’t have experience with others) do not hang out on sites critical of the Church in my experience. Why do you believe it is important to extrapolate from the minority to the majority?

Edited Friday at 11:53 PM by Calm

[the narrator]

18 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Academic literature, peer-reviewed journals, and university dissertations use "ex-LDS" as a standard analytical category

No they don't.

[Pyreaux]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

So you knowing their preference is exMormon, are you weaponizing exLDS every time you engage with former LDS?

”Usinglanguage not to communicate, but to score a tactical point.”

How are you not doing the same thing?  Serious question since you are directly responding to them in what feels like an offensive (as in the opposite of defensive, not insulting) intent.  I don’t want to use aggressive as that adds an emotional connotation I don’t think is there.  You are being assertive, but more in my view…not just holding your own, but trying to diminish their effect.

BTW, the vast majority of former LDS (I am using LDS here to differentiate from other Mormon communities as I don’t have experience with others) do not hang out on sites critical of the Church in my experience. Why do you believe it is important to extrapolate from the minority to the majority?

Here is the difference, "Ex-LDS" is a literal, technical description of a change in organizational status. If you used to be a Latter-day Saint member and now you are not a member, you are an ex-Latter-day Saint. It contains zero emotional commentary, zero theological judgment, and zero slang. It is completely vanilla English.

"Mormon," on the other hand, is slang, a historically complex nickname that current Church leadership has explicitly asked members to phase out.

I'm not the one marching onto r/exmormon and correcting their posts to say "Ex-LDS," then I would be weaponizing language to annoy them in their own home. But that isn't what is happening. I am participating in a faithful, academic, FAIR-aligned space, using vocabulary acceptable by the Church's style guide. I am choosing "Ex-LDS" to maintain consistency and institutional respect within a faithful environment. Expecting a faithful forum to adopt internet branding inside its own digital walls is upside down.

I'm not saying "Ex-LDS" to make them angry, to mock them, or to get a defensive rise out of them. I'm using it because it is the most factually precise way to describe former members who are now in an adversarial relationship with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints without engaging with the word "Mormon."

The comparison doesn't hold up under scrutiny, because 'Ex-LDS' and 'Mormon' aren't doing the same linguistic work. From a certain perspective, it diminishes a political effect and replacing it with a rather quiet, neutral, institutional description.

Why focus on the minority? If you haven't noticed the minority is the group actively driving this conversation.

Edited Saturday at 04:14 PM by Pyreaux

[Tacenda]

On 5/28/2026 at 4:37 PM, Pyreaux said:

When news is slow, I look at ex-LDS forums to see what they talk about. A wave of discussion following the formal excommunication of podcaster and content creator Landon Brophy in mid-May for public apostasy. The event sparked debate among Redditers and Mormon Stories regarding how the Church handles online critics. Even though every organization, whether a corporation, a sports league, or a religious body, has standards of conduct, membership requirements, and boundaries. Church discipline is not an act of malice, it is a necessary mechanism for maintaining the integrity of the faith and the community.

What Did Landon Brophy Do Wrong?

On his show, he openly questioned and criticized the translation and authenticity of the Book of Abraham. Historical, DNA, and archaeological challenges regarding the Book of Mormon. The divine authority of Church leadership and modern revelation. All designed to undermine the faith of others.

The podcast regularly engaged in direct, public criticism of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Church guidelines explicitly state that repeatedly and publicly attacking or campaigning against Church leadership constitutes clear grounds for a disciplinary council. Landon Brophy’s actions directly met the definition of public apostasy.

While the Ex-LDS community often frames church discipline as a punishment for simply having doubts, the Church's guidelines distinguish between private struggles with faith and public opposition. As a co-host on the Mormonish Podcast, Brophy moved far beyond private disbelief. He used a public platform to consistently question, deconstruct, and criticize Church doctrines, history, and leadership.

Brophy had a long history of high-level leadership, and his public actions created a fundamental breach of church integrity. When local leaders reached out to him after General Conference to discuss his status, Brophy admittedly ignored the correspondence, missed the certified mail, and chose not to participate in the local council. Church discipline is intended to be an invitation to repentance and a local, pastoral process. When a member completely withdraws from that process while continuing to publicly attack the Church, leaders are left with no choice but to formally update the records to reflect reality.

Other Strange Ex-LDS Outcries

The vocal uproar from the Ex-LDS community following Brophy's excommunication highlights several logical inconsistencies and double standards within that space.

A common refrain in ex-Mormon forums is that the Church "has no power" and an excommunication letter is meaningless. Yet, the massive influx of angry posts, dedicated Mormon Stories episodes, and coordinated outcries completely contradicts this claim. If the decree truly carries no weight, the intense emotional and reactive preoccupation with it reveals that the community still attributes an immense amount of significance to it.

Ex-LDS commentators frequently criticize the Church for maintaining inactive members on its membership rolls, claiming it is inflated with people who no longer believe. However, when the Church takes formal steps to clean up its records by removing a vocal, long-inactive critic like Brophy, the same community decries the move as an aggressive purge or attack.

Every community establishes boundaries to define who is part of the group and who is not. If a member of a political party, a secular nonprofit, or a tight-knit club spent years publicly campaigning against the group's core mission, no one would question that organization's right to revoke their membership. The hypocrisy lies in demanding that the Church remain a free-for-all, forcing it to carry the name of a public antagonist on its records under the guise of tolerance.

A membership council is not a hostile courtroom. It is a formal acknowledgment of a choice the individual has already made when someone spends years publicly acting outside the boundaries of Latter-day Saint fellowship.

I think the church makes it worse when they ex communicate people for speaking out about the church. Sure ex communicate evil people, but Landon and even Dehlin seem far fetched. Especially when Radiofree Mormon hasn't been ex'd why would that be? Unless he already took his name off of church records. Which wasn't so as long as I can remember. I no longer watch/listen to anything on Mormon Discussions, or it's been many months. And suing Dehlin is probably a bad move especially if it draws people to him.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

19 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Find every Ex-LDS thread who refences the "major victory for Satan". Every title of an episode of Mormon Stories. The forums openly discuss that they intentionally lean into the word "Mormon" precisely because the current leadership was trying to move away from it. It's also a calculated business decision in a Search Engine Optimization standpoint, "Mormon" generates massively higher search volume than "LDS."

I have never seen an "Ex-LDS" thread so no idea how to find one there. Former mormon's for sure mock the church's 180 on the term Mormon. That has nothing to do with why they identify as such. I suspect it has everything to do with ease and simplicity. If I tell anyone anywere that I used to be Mormon, there is not further explanation needed. Easy peasy. 

19 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Whenever an Ex-LDS enters faithful spaces

You mean "Mormon" dialogue and discussion forum? 

 

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I'm not the one marching onto r/exmormon and correcting their posts to say "Ex-LDS," then I would be weaponizing language to annoy them in their own home. But that isn't what is happening. I am participating in a faithful, academic, FAIR-aligned space, using vocabulary acceptable by the Church's style guide. I am choosing "Ex-LDS" to maintain consistency and institutional respect within a faithful environment. Expecting a faithful forum to adopt internet branding inside its own digital walls is upside down.

I was simply curious why you don't call people how they prefer to be called. I mean I call members of your church, Latter-day Saints because that's their preference. I also call Latter-day Saints Christian because they identify as such. Should I drop these courtesies? I think not. Apparently such curtesy is one-sided in a "rules for thee but not for me" kind of way. Duly noted. You do you. 

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I'm not saying "Ex-LDS" to make them angry, to mock them, or to get a defensive rise out of them. I'm using it because it is the most factually precise way to describe former members who are now in an adversarial relationship with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints without engaging with the word "Mormon."

Correct. If you have an ideological ax to grind against the word "Mormon", ex-LDS is the most factually precise wording to use (by default). But ONLY because you are ideologically opposed to the word Mormon. That is completely arbitrary choice and has nothing to do with the mostly widely used neutral nomenclature.

 

Edited Saturday at 06:21 PM by SeekingUnderstanding

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I have never seen an "Ex-LDS" thread so no idea how to find one there. Former mormon's for sure mock the church's 180 on the term Mormon. That has nothing to do with why they identify as such. I suspect it has everything to do with ease and simplicity. If I tell anyone anywere that I used to be Mormon, there is not further explanation needed. Easy peasy. 

You mean "Mormon dialogue and discussion" forum? 

I was simply curious why you don't call people how they prefer to be called. I mean I call members of your church, Latter-day Saints because that's their preference. I also call Latter-day Saints Christian because they identify as such. Should I drop these courtesies? I think not. Apparently such curtesy is one-sided in a "rules for thee but not for me" kind of way. Duly noted. You do you. 

Correct. If you have an ideological ax to grind against the word "Mormon", ex-LDS is the most factually precise wording to use (by default). But ONLY because you are ideologically opposed to the word Mormon. That is completely arbitrary choice and has nothing to do with the mostly widely used neutral nomenclature.

Nope, you don't get to unilaterally define the conversation as a test of basic human decency and declare that I somehow failed it without objection. You haven't defined courtesy as me being able to absolutely hold my standards while being civil, without capitulation, surrendering my standards just because an opposing side demands it, which is exactly what you seem to be suggesting I do, assuming if I were a decent fellow. 

When Christians choose to call Latter-day Saints "Christians," they are indeed extending a courtesy by respecting how that group defines their own relationship with Jesus Christ. But "Ex-Mormon" is doing the exact opposite. Once a Christian enters an LDS space and insists on saying, "You aren't Christians, you are Mormons," they are intentionally ignoring the group's self-identity to score a theological point. Everyone recognizes that as a provocation. Nobody recognizes 'Ex-LDS' as a provocation.

It's a massive false equivalency. Nobody is walking around getting triggered, offended, or baited by a literal descriptor like "Ex-LDS."

Edited Saturday at 08:13 PM by Pyreaux

[SeekingUnderstanding]

25 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

You haven't defined courtesy as me being able to absolutely hold my standards while being civil, without capitulation, surrendering my standards just because an opposing side demands it, which is exactly what you seem to be suggesting I do, assuming if I were a decent fellow. 

I have pointed out that as a group, former members of your church identify as ex/post/former Mormon overwhelmingly. You don't want to use that terminology because you think your church leadership has told you not to. That's fine. But please don't pretend it comes from a clinical neutral place, when clearly you have a strong moral objection to using the word as indicated by your words "capitulation" and "surrendering your standards". Own it.

[Pyreaux]

7 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I have pointed out that as a group, former members of your church identify as ex/post/former Mormon overwhelmingly. You don't want to use that terminology because you think your church leadership has told you not to. That's fine. But please don't pretend it comes from a clinical neutral place, when clearly you have a strong moral objection to using the word as indicated by your words "capitulation" and "surrendering your standards". Own it.

No, because I clearly used both terms interchangeably in this very topic, which means I'm not afraid of the terms, you are. My issue is the cultural enforcement you are trying to pull on me. Feigning ignorance of a term like "ex-LDS" even exists exposes that you are the one with the rigid ideology.

When I talk about capitulation, I’m not describing a moral crisis or a blind refusal to use a term. Allowing an outside counter-culture to dictate the terminology allowed inside a faithful forum is, by definition, capitulation.

You continue to confuse popularity with neutrality. Just because adversarial online subcultures may overwhelmingly chose highly politically charged labels doesn't make that label neutral. If tomorrow the community enters this forum and insists that they now collectively identify as the 'Enlightened Ones' or as 'Free-Thinkers,' am I uncivil if I refuse to refer to them how they identify? By your logic, I would be guilty of a 'rules for thee' double standard and failing a test of basic human decency. Yet, everyone here would know how ridiculous that would be.

Edited yesterday at 04:27 AM by Pyreaux

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

because I obviously used the terms interchangeably in this very topic, which means I'm not afraid of terms,

Then if you don’t really care, it seems it is all about making sure the other guy isn’t happy. (I don’t understand your reasoning based on what you said…you are good with using both, but you are critical of others using Mormon…why is it a problem for them if not for you, so I am trying to be very clear on how it comes across, not attack you)