You're moving your horsey wrong

[UtahDan]

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.

I think that is a very good insight, actually. Though certainly not true of everyone.

[tooblue]

I think that is a very good insight, actually. Though certainly not true of everyone.

I agree it's not true of everyone.

[UtahDan]

Back on the subject of labels, how about orthodox and unorthodox? That seems to work okay for other traditions. Joanna Brooks said this, which I thought was interesting:

I envy the Jews.
What Mormon doesn’t have a thing for the original chosen people? (Even though, in my experience, most Mormons don’t really have a great grasp on contemporary Judaism.) As I got to know the world of contemporary Judaism through Jewish friends and (later) Jewish relatives, one thing that struck me was the bandwith of the tradition. Over the last millennia or more, Judaism has generated a number of threads and channels that can accommodate a number of modes of belief (including non-literalist and atheist standpoints) and practice (ranging from ultra-orthodox to modern orthodox to conservative to reform to reconstructionist to secular humanist).

And, unless you’re hanging with some pretty observant folks, simply eating a hot dog does not un-Jewish you.

The world of Mormonism, by comparison, can be a bit more categorically rigid—a bit more black-and-white, in-or-out. Lots of people have experienced that rigidity, and it doesn’t feel good.

Calling myself an “unorthodox” Mormon is one step I take to create a less rigid, more forgiving, and more robust Mormon world for myself to inhabit.

http://mormonmatters.org/2010/05/31/...rmon-say-what/

[LA Ute]

Back on the subject of labels, how about orthodox and unorthodox? That seems to work okay for other traditions. Joanna Brooks said this, which I thought was interesting:



http://mormonmatters.org/2010/05/31/...rmon-say-what/

Where to begin? I'll start with intra-Judaic strife. Over several decades now (yes, I am that old) I have developed close friendships with Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jews, along with many of the gradations (Messianic, atheist, and so forth). I've been to bar and bat mitvahs in all three traditions. Although those branches all draw from the same tradition, a Reform Jew is more different, in belief and practice, from an Orthodox Jew than a Community of Christ member is from an LDS Mormon. Most Orthodox Jews do not even consider Reform Jews to be "real Jews." So I am not attracted to the idea of Mormons emulating the Jews in that regard.

Second (and this almost goes without saying), doctrinally we believe Judaism has been in a state of apostacy since several hundred years before Christ's ministry. As they have fragmented they have moved even farther from the truth. Another reason they are no model for us, at least regarding diversity of views.

And finally, in terms of core doctrines and saving ordinances, what is "rigid" to some is also the "strait gate" and "narrow" way to others. But that is getting into pretty fundamental thinking (using "fundamental" in the most benign, value-neutral manner). Our faith is not a "tradition" (a term I find very loosey-goosey when discussing religion), it is a church and a religion.

So I don't find the idea of greater "bandwidth" very appealing. Otherwise, she makes some interesting points.

[ERCougar]

For every example of offensive tone in the Foyer, I could find 10 far worse examples next Sunday alone of things said that I could potentially take offense at if I obliquely applied to myself or others that I know. If TBM's the best you got, I could find 20. Maybe I should just avoid that place.

I can't help but be reminded of white people complaining of discrimination. I can't help but wonder if we have people who are down-the-center leadership track (and I don't mean that pejoratively--don't want to use "TBM") Mormons who suddenly find themselves mildly marginalized (and I think I'm being generous with that word) and just aren't used to that position.

Sorry...I just don't get it. If you can show me an example of derisive or offensive language, I'll retract. (I agree that mullah and stage 3 can have negative connotations, but I can't remember the last time anyone used either of those terms on here.)

[LA Ute]

If you can show me an example of derisive or offensive language, I'll retract. (I agree that mullah and stage 3 can have negative connotations, but I can't remember the last time anyone used either of those terms on here.)

To be fair, I don't think I've seen "mullah" used for a while. I am not sure what "stage 3" even means. As for feeling "marginalized," all I can say is that it's you guys who are crazy, not me.

[UtahDan]

Where to begin? I'll start with intra-Judaic strife. Over several decades now (yes, I am that old) I have developed close friendships with Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jews, along with many of the gradations (Messianic, atheist, and so forth). I've been to bar and bat mitvahs in all three traditions. Although those branches all draw from the same tradition, a Reform Jew is more different, in belief and practice, from an Orthodox Jew than a Community of Christ member is from an LDS Mormon. Most Orthodox Jews do not even consider Reform Jews to be "real Jews." So I am not attracted to the idea of Mormons emulating the Jews in that regard.

Most LDS don't consider FLDS or CoC to be Mormon either. But aren't they? What does it mean to be Mormon? I'll answer my own question by saying that I think SU is Mormon, FWIW. But all I think Brooks is highlighting is the idea that there are various levels there and not just "all in" and "not in at all." I'm not saying that is the model we want, but the idea that there are not just two groups is somewhat appealing.

Second (and this almost goes without saying), doctrinally we believe Judaism has been in a state of apostacy since several hundred years before Christ's ministry. As they have fragmented they have moved even farther from the truth. Another reason they are no model for us, at least regarding diversity of views.

I'm not sure how you get any further away from a failure to recognize the Messiah. But obviously yes, all Christians believe that the Jews have it wrong.

And finally, in terms of core doctrines and saving ordinances, what is "rigid" to some is also the "strait gate" and "narrow" way to others. But that is getting into pretty fundamental thinking (using "fundamental" in the most benign, value-neutral manner). Our faith is not a "tradition" (a term I find very loosey-goosey when discussing religion), it is a church and a religion. So I don't find the idea of greater "bandwidth" very appealing. Otherwise, she makes some interesting points.

I think the Mormonism is a lot more than a set of core set of doctrines and a litmus test for whether you believe them or not. I actually do think it is a tribe and a culture and so in that sense it is a "tradition." I use that word just to refer to the idea that there are lots of flavors of our faith besides ours and many flavors of belief within ours. Certainly a rigid one that doesn't accept the validity of others is one of them, but I'm not sure its the primary one.

[wuapinmon]

I'll answer my own question by saying that I think SU is Mormon, FWIW. But all I think Brooks is highlighting is the idea that there are various levels there and not just "all in" and "not in at all." I'm not saying that is the model we want, but the idea that there are not just two groups is somewhat appealing.

This is very appealing to me, and I think it speaks to what Robin has been asserting since I´ve been on CUF. He feels like a secular Mormon. Perhaps the use of ´Mormon´over time will become a cultural signifier while ´LDS´ takes on a more religious significance.

I too would call SU ´Mormon´in a general sense, but I don´t think that it would´ve been accurate to call me ´Mormon´until I was baptized. Even though my family, on back through the generations, were Mormon, I wasn´t and never ever felt like I was part of any kind of Mormon culture until I began attending church. Perhaps Mormoness can both be inherited and adopted and lost, in ways that Judaism cannot (unless your mom is a Gentile).

[LA Ute]

Most LDS don't consider FLDS or CoC to be Mormon either. But aren't they? What does it mean to be Mormon? I'll answer my own question by saying that I think SU is Mormon, FWIW. But all I think Brooks is highlighting is the idea that there are various levels there and not just "all in" and "not in at all." I'm not saying that is the model we want, but the idea that there are not just two groups is somewhat appealing.

I don't disagree with this at all. In my post I was not thinking culturally, but more along the lines of commitment - between those who take the covenants seriously and those who don't. But culturally there are many different kinds of Mormons.

I think the Mormonism is a lot more than a set of core set of doctrines and a litmus test for whether you believe them or not. I actually do think it is a tribe and a culture and so in that sense it is a "tradition." I use that word just to refer to the idea that there are lots of flavors of our faith besides ours and many flavors of belief within ours. Certainly a rigid one that doesn't accept the validity of others is one of them, but I'm not sure its the primary one.

It looks like you and I were talking past each other a bit. Sure, there are multiple traditions within Mormonism, and we are a "people." I am just distinguishing between teachings and tradition. The BofM shows that traditions can be damaging to a people's ability to accept truth.

I continue to reject, by the way, the notion that the Gospel is "rigid." Not a fair characterization, IMO. But I do not want to play "word gotcha" with you because I am pretty sure you didn't mean it that way.

[myboynoah]

Most LDS don't consider FLDS or CoC to be Mormon either. But aren't they? What does it mean to be Mormon? I'll answer my own question by saying that I think SU is Mormon, FWIW. But all I think Brooks is highlighting is the idea that there are various levels there and not just "all in" and "not in at all." I'm not saying that is the model we want, but the idea that there are not just two groups is somewhat appealing.

- - - - -

I think the Mormonism is a lot more than a set of core set of doctrines and a litmus test for whether you believe them or not. I actually do think it is a tribe and a culture and so in that sense it is a "tradition." I use that word just to refer to the idea that there are lots of flavors of our faith besides ours and many flavors of belief within ours. Certainly a rigid one that doesn't accept the validity of others is one of them, but I'm not sure its the primary one.

Certainly a lot of Dehlinism there. I guess I'm not convinced that the same dynamic exists for an overall recognized classification of "Mormon" referring to those not closely affiliated with LDS. I don't get a sense that the groups that have already stepped away (CofC, FLDS, etc.) even want the moniker. While they acknowledge their "Mormon" roots and some individuals may fancy the term, as a whole I think they have staked their ground and it is definitely outside the universally recognized "Mormon" Church.

That said there is something very appealing about sharing a "Mormon" tradition with those who have been touched in some way by and value the Mormon experience. I can get on board with that. But I wonder if there is enough interest among those who would be "Reformed" Mormons to carve out their own space as a group outside the tent of orthodoxy.

[UtahDan]

Certainly a lot of Dehlinism there. I guess I'm not convinced that the same dynamic exists for an overall recognized classification of "Mormon" referring to those not closely affiliated with LDS. I don't get a sense that the groups that have already stepped away (CofC, FLDS, etc.) even want the moniker. While they acknowledge their "Mormon" roots and some individuals may fancy the term, as a whole I think they have staked their ground and it is definitely outside the universally recognized "Mormon" Church.

That said there is something very appealing about sharing a "Mormon" tradition with those who have been touched in some way by and value the Mormon experience. I can get on board with that. But I wonder if there is enough interest among those who would be "Reformed" Mormons to carve out their own space as a group outside the tent of orthodoxy.

Good thoughts, and you are probably right that those groups don't want to be "Mormon," I meant it more as a thought exercise on what the term means.

But to return to my original point, it is not to say that members of the church ought to give up their core beliefs. Certainly not. Nor did I mean to suggest that the Gospel is rigid as LA said. What Brooks said that I liked is the idea that currently the categories are pretty rigid. In other words, we as members have pretty definite boxes we put people into and there aren't very many of them. There might only be two. This is the sort of thing that leads to marriages, family relationships and friendships being torn apart because once you are not in the proper box, you are an "other." Not one of the group any more.

But what if there were more boxes and the "otherness" of them wasn't such a powerful taboo? Could an orthodox LDS accept an openly cultural Mormon who is heterodox as part of his congregation and as a brother/sister? Or some other variant? Right now a person like that is a dangerous outsider. But do they have to be? I don't know.

[myboynoah]

Good thoughts, and you are probably right that those groups don't want to be "Mormon," I meant it more as a thought exercise on what the term means.

But to return to my original point, it is not to say that members of the church ought to give up their core beliefs. Certainly not. Nor did I mean to suggest that the Gospel is rigid as LA said. What Brooks said that I liked is the idea that currently the categories are pretty rigid. In other words, we as members have pretty definite boxes we put people into and there aren't very many of them. There might only be two. This is the sort of thing that leads to marriages, family relationships and friendships being torn apart because once you are not in the proper box, you are an "other." Not one of the group any more.

But what if there were more boxes and the "otherness" of them wasn't such a powerful taboo? Could an orthodox LDS accept an openly cultural Mormon who is heterodox as part of his congregation and as a brother/sister? Or some other variant? Right now a person like that is a dangerous outsider. But do they have to be? I don't know.

See, this is where I think Brooks' wishful analogy starts to fall apart. LA pointed out the rigid differences between Orthodox and reformed Jews. Imagine your scenario spanning members of those two groups. Could it work, or would one or the other be seen as a dangerous outsider?

I like a big tent, as long as those in the tent are sensitive to the rules of the tent.

[tooblue]

For every example of offensive tone in the Foyer, I could find 10 far worse examples next Sunday alone of things said that I could potentially take offense at if I obliquely applied to myself or others that I know. If TBM's the best you got, I could find 20. Maybe I should just avoid that place.

I can't help but be reminded of white people complaining of discrimination. I can't help but wonder if we have people who are down-the-center leadership track (and I don't mean that pejoratively--don't want to use "TBM") Mormons who suddenly find themselves mildly marginalized (and I think I'm being generous with that word) and just aren't used to that position.

Sorry...I just don't get it. If you can show me an example of derisive or offensive language, I'll retract. (I agree that mullah and stage 3 can have negative connotations, but I can't remember the last time anyone used either of those terms on here.)

Tone is an difficult issue to tackle. It's long been a point of contention. Let's consider the discussion since this thread was bumped where the question was raised:

Do you feel the discourse in the foyer has changed even since you posted this? if so, how?

The discussion has since morphed into a discussion about tone and labels. In the process, early on, the general tone of the forum was revealed. The TBM's* are perceived as lacking the inclination to "study up" unlike the liberals*, agnostics* or apostates* who it is implied are searching and questioning and therefore frequently know more.

I don't think UtahDan meant to be derisive. Unfortunately others are either willfully or ignorantly derisive and rarely are do they offer an apology or acknowledge their tone is a form of mocking. The common response as you've done with your post is to infer that the TBM's* are too sensitive. Ironically you raised the issue of being marginalized. Many times this forum is lauded as a breath of fresh air. The liberals*, agnostics* or apostates* often feel marginalized in their personal experience at church or with members and leadership of the church and are grateful to be able to come here and talk about it.

To answer your question directly: do I feel marginalized? No. Do I feel misunderstood and generally unwelcome? Yes.

*in non pejorative terms

[ERCougar]

The discussion has since morphed into a discussion about tone and labels. In the process, early on, the general tone of the forum was revealed. The TBM's* are perceived as lacking the inclination to "study up" unlike the liberals*, agnostics* or apostates* who it is implied are searching and questioning and therefore frequently know more.

I don't think UtahDan meant to be derisive. Unfortunately others are either willfully or ignorantly derisive and rarely are do they offer an apology or acknowledge their tone is a form of mocking. The common response as you've done with your post is to infer that the TBM's* are too sensitive. Ironically you raised the issue of being marginalized. Many times this forum is lauded as a breath of fresh air. The liberals*, agnostics* or apostates* often feel marginalized in their personal experience at church or with members and leadership of the church and are grateful to be able to come here and talk about it.

To answer your question directly: do I feel marginalized? No. Do I feel misunderstood and generally unwelcome? Yes.

*in non pejorative terms

Do I feel misunderstood and generally unwelcome at church? Sometimes. Maybe I should avoid that place (and all other places that make me mildly uncomfortable).

OR...maybe I should stop trying to take offense at things or trying to read into things meanings that just aren't there. I have never meant the term TBM in any sort of pejorative sense. Maybe it's used that way on other boards, leading pelagius to read it that way (I'd never thought it meant "true believing mormon" until he said it). I mean it as a convenient way to describe someone who's come to an equilibrium with things that falls well within the "norms" of Mormon practice and belief (orthoprax and orthodox). I'm not implying anything about how much thought and investigation went into it--for some, I'm sure a lot, for others I suspect not much at all. It strikes me as really odd that people read that into it. I'm happy to use a different term if it's that offensive, but it needs to be fewer keystrokes than "orthoprax and orthodox" or "orthoprax and heterodox". (Or we could just stop assuming the worst in everyone's intent. Nah...)

[ERCougar]

The discussion has since morphed into a discussion about tone and labels. In the process, early on, the general tone of the forum was revealed. The TBM's* are perceived as lacking the inclination to "study up" unlike the liberals*, agnostics* or apostates* who it is implied are searching and questioning and therefore frequently know more.

I wonder how "liberals", "agnostics", and "apostates" (you left out "intellectuals") are viewed at church.

I can give specific examples if you'd like (something I'm still waiting for from you).