You're moving your horsey wrong

[tooblue]

We could have a lot of fun with this. But just for starters, what group of people or thought process would "tooblue" be short hand for?

American.

[jay santos]

I always thought the B in TBM was blue. And the connotation to be on the positive side very loyal, faithful, traditional, solid and on the negative blindly following and close minded. I think it can be used both as a pejorative and as complimentary depending on the perspective.

[pelagius]

So help us out here. What are the proper terms we should be using?

(FTR, I hated the Fowler book. Interesting ideas, but I thought the writing was awful.)

It doesn't matter to me ... use TBM, morg-bot, mullah, stage 3, iron-rod mormon, chapel, etc. I have never publicly objected to any of the terms used on CUF ... I do think you will have a hard time getting those that are the object of these designations to agree that they are neutral terms which is why in the end everyone goes back to liberal and conservative. They are not great terms but the greatest number of people tend to find those designations the least offensive.

[tooblue]

I always thought the B in TBM was blue. And the connotation to be on the positive side very loyal, faithful, traditional, solid and on the negative blindly following and close minded. I think it can be used both as a pejorative and as complimentary depending on the perspective.

Every and any label is potentially pejorative. As such where the subject matter is naturally emotionally charged it's probably best to avoid the use of labels. It's hard though -- they are wonderfully useful.

[UtahDan]

American.

For me it is nannies. Mary Poppins, Fran Fine, Mrs. Doubtfire, etc.

[pellegrino]

I always thought the B in TBM was blue. And the connotation to be on the positive side very loyal, faithful, traditional, solid and on the negative blindly following and close minded. I think it can be used both as a pejorative and as complimentary depending on the perspective.

This is how I have seen it too. I think part of the problem is that those who use it pejoratively are using it as a means to get back at those Mormons who view them as heretics or inferior/unworthy church members. That is somewhat childish and if used for that purpose it is obviously mean spirited.

I've always preferred SIEQ's way of referring to himself: orthoprax, but heterodox. That sums up my existence in the church. My conduct is in accordance with all of the essential lifestyle activities of the church (WoW, chastity, service, etc.) but I allow for a different opinions within the church. I think it's better to try and define yourself, rather than define others.

[tooblue]

For me it is nannies. Mary Poppins, Fran Fine, Mrs. Doubtfire, etc.

We don't want this thread to be about me. It should be about tone -- at least the bump by pellegrino as I understood his post was intended to push it in that direction. How can this forum maintain the tone UtahDan indicated in his earlier post where the stated TBM's (in the non pejorative sense) for the most part avoid the fray and the rest of the questioners (in equally non pejorative terms) can continue their discussions.

Or, should there be a greater tone change so that the TBM's (in the non pejorative sense) are encouraged to want to participate more ... or, is it too late?

[tooblue]

This is how I have seen it too. I think part of the problem is that those who use it pejoratively are using it as a means to get back at those Mormons who view them as heretics or inferior/unworthy church members. That is somewhat childish and if used for that purpose it is obviously mean spirited.

I've always preferred SIEQ's way of referring to himself: orthoprax, but heterodox. That sums up my existence in the church. My conduct is in accordance with all of the essential lifestyle activities of the church (WoW, chastity, service, etc.) but I allow for a different opinions within the church. I think it's better to try and define yourself, rather than define others.

I too think it's better to try to define yourself. Would it surprise you to discover that I too would describe myself as orthoprax, but heterodox?

[Surfah]

This is how I have seen it too. I think part of the problem is that those who use it pejoratively are using it as a means to get back at those Mormons who view them as heretics or inferior/unworthy church members. That is somewhat childish and if used for that purpose it is obviously mean spirited.

I've always preferred SIEQ's way of referring to himself: orthoprax, but heterodox. That sums up my existence in the church. My conduct is in accordance with all of the essential lifestyle activities of the church (WoW, chastity, service, etc.) but I allow for a different opinions within the church. I think it's better to try and define yourself, rather than define others.

I wear no label. I am like the American Apparel Mormon. Doh.

[pellegrino]

I too think it's better to try to define yourself. Would it surprise you to discover that I too would describe myself as orthoprax, but heterodox?

No, not in the least bit. I think there are a lot of posters here that feel that way. I think the problem is that here we have a lot of those who are or have been open about that in church or with their family and they have been branded as heretics, which hurts. It is natural to lash out a bit against those who have "wronged" you, which is perhaps why some of the tone in the forum can be uninviting to those who don't have the same questions, or haven't had a crisis of faith.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I prefer a poker analogy. Instead of TBM, etc. I call it the "All in, Mormon(insert whatever religion group)". basically says that emotionally and spiritually, you have fully committed to a faith without chance of second guessing. You are not hedging your bets.

[tooblue]

No, not in the least bit. I think there are a lot of posters here that feel that way. I think the problem is that here we have a lot of those who are or have been open about that in church or with their family and they have been branded as heretics, which hurts. It is natural to lash out a bit against those who have "wronged" you, which is perhaps why some of the tone in the forum can be uninviting to those who don't have the same questions, or haven't had a crisis of faith.

I think we have all had a crisis of faith and therein lies much of the frustration with this forum for me. While I may define myself as orthoprax, but heterodox I am also willingly orthodox and devout. I have made a choice -- I have chosen faith. My reasons are based on many powerful personal spiritual experiences. I have as much knowledge as the next person but I am willing to admit that I may never have answers to many questions. Nonetheless my embrace of the absurd is perfectly rational yet it is repeatedly labeled irrational.

I prefer a poker analogy. Instead of TBM, etc. I call it the "All in, Mormon(insert whatever religion group)". basically says that emotionally and spiritually, you have fully committed to a faith without chance of second guessing. You are not hedging your bets.

I'm ok with this -- I am all in.

[LA Ute]

It doesn't matter to me ... use TBM, morg-bot, mullah, stage 3, iron-rod mormon, chapel, etc. I have never publicly objected to any of the terms used on CUF ... I do think you will have a hard time getting those that are the object of these designations to agree that they are neutral terms which is why in the end everyone goes back to liberal and conservative. They are not great terms but the greatest number of people tend to find those designations the least offensive.

I agree because "liberal" and "conservative" at least allow us to use a sort of spectrum. I reject any effort to define anyone precisely (including myself) because we are talking about very nuanced stuff here.

When I ask myself how I define myself in this context, I fall back on what I aspire to be, more than on what I am: A convinced, committed, imperfect member of the Church who is trying hard (more effectively some days than others) to get this discipleship thing right. I suspect many see themselves the same way.

I don't like labels. I especially detest "mullah." To me that's just like "Nazi," a word that has lost much of its meaning because of overuse.

I think we have all had a crisis of faith and therein lies much of the frustration with this forum for me. While I may define myself as orthoprax, but heterodox I am also willingly orthodox and devout. I have made a choice -- I have chosen faith. My reasons are based on many powerful personal spiritual experiences. I have as much knowledge as the next person but I am willing to admit that I may never have answers to many questions. Nonetheless my embrace of the absurd is perfectly rational yet it is repeatedly labeled irrational.

[UtahDan]

I think we have all had a crisis of faith and therein lies much of the frustration with this forum for me. While I may define myself as orthoprax, but heterodox I am also willingly orthodox and devout. I have made a choice -- I have chosen faith. My reasons are based on many powerful personal spiritual experiences. I have as much knowledge as the next person but I am willing to admit that I may never have answers to many questions. Nonetheless my embrace of the absurd is perfectly rational yet it is repeatedly labeled irrational.

One of my favorite drums to beat is that faith is a choice. So you and I are right on the same page about how this all works. But I have to ask whether someone is restraining you from expressing your faith in this way or is ridiculing you because of the choice you are making?

This is what I am not seeing. I see people disagreeing but I'm sure that it is not mere disagreement that is bothering you. In the past it has been an issue of "tone" but as I say I do think we are doing better there. Maybe if you could give me a concrete example or two of what has been bothersome to you that would aid my understanding.

[tooblue]

One of my favorite drums to beat is that faith is a choice. So you and I are right on the same page about how this all works. But I have to ask whether someone is restraining you from expressing your faith in this way or is ridiculing you because of the choice you are making?

This is what I am not seeing. I see people disagreeing but I'm sure that it is not mere disagreement that is bothering you. In the past it has been an issue of "tone" but as I say I do think we are doing better there. Maybe if you could give me a concrete example or two of what has been bothersome to you that would aid my understanding.

Obviously it is not an issue of restraint for me At times there is ridicule. Overall it is an issue of whether formulating an answer is worth the effort. I suppose I could find an example but basically I've made a choice and thus I am fully prepared to live with the consequences of my choice. It strikes me that the questioners (in non pejorative terms) have also made a choice but are unprepared to live fully with the consequences of that choice. I have other thoughts but I fear they might only come across as antagonistic. It is not easy to explain and this type of discourse is inherently difficult. Suffice it to say, at face value when the conversation starts with a complaint there is little chance there will be real searching and questioning. I can't speak for others but I have little patients for complaints. Mostly I stay away but eventually I grow tired lash out in return.

As far as tone is concerned it has and always will be the biggest deterrent to posting in this forum. My personality is such that I am brash. That means I am as big a culprit as the next poster. Does admitting such mean I am more humble than others. Of course not. And I doubt other posters will admit similar culpability.

Having been around long enough I'm convinced the tone of this place hasn't really changed. The bumping of this thread managed to get pellaguis or LA to post but I think there participation will be short lived. It is what it is.