BCC Zeitcast 10.3.4: “It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time”
Here at long last is the final entry in the series of podcasts devoted to the Banner of Heaven scandal. In previous entries, I interviewed DKL, Rusty Clifton, and Geoff J. In this entry, we finally hear from Steve Evans, who has shouldered most of the blame (credit?) for the hoax.
There isn’t any assigned reading this for this podcast, as the relevant posts have already been linked to copiously in previous entries.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
——————
Subscribe to the BCC Zeitcast in iTunes here. (Also, by way of shameless self-promotion, please write a brief review in iTunes if you feel so inspired.)
Best intro and outro EVER. Thanks, Scott.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 28, 2010 @ 6:22 pm
When was the Zeitcast recorded?
Comment by Chris H. — June 28, 2010 @ 6:31 pm
Yes, that intro, and the bumper music was spectacular. Very nice job guys.
Comment by Tracy M — June 28, 2010 @ 6:32 pm
Chris H.,
It was recorded Thursday evening.
Comment by Scott B. — June 28, 2010 @ 6:36 pm
Oh, thanks.
Comment by Chris H. — June 28, 2010 @ 6:40 pm
The thing that I like about this podcast is the way it generated such heated conversation and debate.
Comment by Scott B. — June 28, 2010 @ 7:44 pm
The strong spirit felt caused even us cynics to put aside any thoughts of contention or strife.
Comment by Chris H. — June 28, 2010 @ 7:46 pm
I hate you all.
What are we talking about?
Comment by John C. — June 28, 2010 @ 8:18 pm
Great job with this series, Scott. In a very short period of time you’ve earned the title of Bloggernacle Historian.
Comment by Kevin Barney — June 28, 2010 @ 8:28 pm
Kevin,
The field is actually the intellectual history of the bloggernacle. Scott is the Richard Bushman of bloggernacle history.
Comment by Chris H. — June 28, 2010 @ 8:33 pm
I agree with #1
Comment by Dan — June 28, 2010 @ 8:33 pm
I feared that the intro/outtro would doom me because it would garner more attention than the podcast itself. I was right, it seems.
But yes, the intro pretty much deserves a Niblet all by itself.
Comment by Scott B. — June 28, 2010 @ 8:43 pm
Scott,
The interview is excellent. I’ve already said my peace on the matter.
Comment by Dan — June 28, 2010 @ 9:04 pm
Since I chose the theme music for the Final Five from BSG, here’s a theory:
Steve, Naomi, Christian, Brian, and Allison are Cylons.
Comment by Scott B. — June 28, 2010 @ 10:47 pm
This was a fascinating interview and maybe the best exploration of the Evans psyche ever (as frightening as that is to contemplate). It raised some excellent questions which I think deserve more exploration, including:
1. How seriously should we take the nacle?
2. Is it possible (or maybe “appropriate” is a better word) to be justly proud of anything about BoH?
3. Following repentance, is there a statute of limitations on continuing to deplore the sinful behavior?
4. What’s the proper post-mortem verdict on BoH? Was it simply “ethically and morally wrong” as Scott suggests, or is there some level on which it can be justified?
5. What are the permanent effects of BoHoin the nacle? Are there any? If so, are any of them positive (other than the obvious “bonds of war” formed between the co-conspiritors)?
I have my own answers to these questions, but I would be interested in others’ thoughts. I’m not sure Steve actually answered all of these questions in his interview, and I’m pretty sure the others didn’t either. I would love to hear them all weigh in.
Comment by MCQ — June 28, 2010 @ 10:48 pm
Another talking point:
Steve Evans publicly declares that George W. Bush is a kindred spirit to him.
Comment by Scott B. — June 28, 2010 @ 10:48 pm
Scott, not DKL?
Comment by MCQ — June 28, 2010 @ 10:51 pm
No, DKL is clearly not a Cylon. He is more like the commander of the Pegasus.
Comment by Scott B. — June 28, 2010 @ 10:52 pm
That was the hardest part of of the interview to listen to. I almost had to stop. Then i looked into Steve’s soul and found him to be a good man.
Comment by MCQ — June 28, 2010 @ 10:53 pm
That is such an amazing podcast. Thank you, Scott for this entire series.
Steve, you’re the best. One thing that makes me quite proud of Banner of Heaven is the friendships that developed out of it. I love you man! (and I’m not just saying that because I’m drunk)
Comment by DKL — June 28, 2010 @ 11:08 pm
Steve,
Is it really all that unclear to you why so much animus was aimed at you in specific after BofH was exposed? It seems pretty obvious why you got the lion’s share. You want me to spell it out?
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — June 29, 2010 @ 7:51 am
I don’t think I ever pretended to be unclear as to why the animus was directed at me, kurt. Just surprised. And to be fair, I think most people were surprised by the fallout.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 29, 2010 @ 8:53 am
Yeah, who knew that Steve Evans models his life ater George W. Bush? That revelation had me chuckling this morning.
Ok, I’m only a third of the way through the interview, actually. Just had to stop and breathe deeply over that one. More later . . .
(Scott B. — I agree, best intro ever.)
Comment by Hunter — June 29, 2010 @ 9:09 am
The fallout was absurd. It just seemed in the podcast like you werent exactly clear on why you were The Bad Guy when it came to BofH, perhaps I wasnt getting your deadpan delivery.
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — June 29, 2010 @ 9:12 am
I’d like to see MCQ’s questions in15 be made the subject of individual posts — any comments on them here would get lost in the shuffle, but it would be great to have a chance to discuss them.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — June 29, 2010 @ 10:21 am
I propose a special Niblet for sound editing!
I have to agree with Steve’s assessment of the thrill of the game just before everything got really ugly. I know that it was a lot of fun for several days trying to untangle everything. This was aided by the fact that at times several of the BoH bloggers seemed to be participants in the hunt.
I agree with Snarkimus that the fallout was disproportionate to the offense. The small number of people who participated and felt hurt have a right to their feelings, but I think those people were exploited by others who had no investment whatsoever in the events who tried to exploit them for reasons that I still don’t understand.
Comment by a random John — June 29, 2010 @ 10:30 am
Ardis, the themes in the questions Scott and I raise (and echoed by MCQ’s comment) are themes that have dominated my posts since Banner of Heaven. I’d be happy to revisit some of those themes in future posts.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 29, 2010 @ 10:33 am
arJ, the reason they did it was self-righteous axe grinding, plain and simple.
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — June 29, 2010 @ 11:01 am
arJ,
I think the motivation behind the T&S posts, particularly Julie’s, was to protect a community. I think she went too far in terms of the consequences she thought BoH would have, but I understand the instinct because Steve and I told some lies in an effort to protect the BoH community from annihilation, and I think our motivation wasn’t too different in many ways.
Comment by Brian G. — June 29, 2010 @ 11:05 am
Snarkimus Prime,
It might be. I did my best at the time to try to get to the bottom of it but they were mostly non-responsive. Or the response was to delete or edit my comments.
Comment by a random John — June 29, 2010 @ 11:05 am
Brian G,
I think some of her predictions were self-fulfilling prophecies. It might have been that her motive was to protect the community but I think what T&S did only amplified the harm. People who never participated in BoH or even the various discussions on 9M suddenly swooped in having only a rudimentary understanding of what happened and started proclaiming how awful it was to a wide audience. How did that protect the community? Then (as usual) they refused to engage with the substance of points being made by commenters that disagreed with them.
I also have a hard time buying the mother hen protecting “community” argument when T&S was constantly showing disdain for community both in terms of other blogs (notable exception? M*) and commenters on their own blog. Later this has evolved into disdain for their own bloggers! At least we know that they’ll eat their own, it isn’t just you and Steve they’ll gobble up.
Comment by a random John — June 29, 2010 @ 11:20 am
Very interesting, as all the podcasts have been. I was very wary of this retrospective, and still have reservations, but it has been fascinating to hear the various perspectives about it. The BCC backlist sounds more interesting than the bloggernaccle on some days.
Comment by ESO — June 29, 2010 @ 11:33 am
Scott- Thank you for producing such a quality series. I thoroughly enjoyed every post and podcast.
Comment by JA Benson — June 29, 2010 @ 11:40 am
Steve Evans was not well served by the series format. It has been roughly chronological, and by the time Scott B. reached Steve Evans’ interview, he was concentrating on the phase following the unveiling. To go through a half hour mostly answering questions about what it felt like to have a bunch of people angry with you, well, few could do that without sounding self-pitying.
The loyalty issue was interesting. The Bush-Putin comparison seems to indicate a focus on loyalty to people we have interacted with, rather than loyalty to the whole of humanity. Did Julie Smith have that sort of bond with Steve Evans? (Maybe someone else was meant.) If what happened was all in-house, among people who have a claim of loyalty to one another, then how could any disapproving complaints be disloyal? (If my wife complains at home about something I’m doing, that’s not disloyal in the way it could be if she makes the complaints to third parties.) After the arm twisting that Geoff J. described and the public and private lies Rusty described, do claims of loyalty still have force? (From what Geoff J. and Rusty have said, there was claim enough to maintain their friendship with Steve Evans.)
Comment by John Mansfield — June 29, 2010 @ 11:43 am
Scott,
I’ve just listened to your final Zeitcast on the BoH, and I have to say you’ve done great work. You asked good questions, and as a result revealed some interesting ways to think again about events past. You should be proud of what you’ve done.
I do think, ultimately, that it was too bad—a failure, even, though I guess not for lack of trying on your part—that you weren’t able to get a significant level of participation from a BoH prosecutor, whether an aggressive one (Julie) or an analytical one (Nate). So much of the conversation—particularly once Geoff and Steve voiced their opinions—seemed to me to revolve around these rival notions of the “seriousness” of the Bloggernacle, and perhaps more importantly, the different notions of “seriousness.” The Bloggernacle, circa 2005 (which was really means, Times and Seasons and those in awed and/or angry orbit around it) was, to some peoples minds, “serious”: it had (or presumably should have) a mission and/or identity, in the same way that Mormonism, presumably, has a mission/identity. That leads us to assume that there have to be certain norms, bounds, protocols, rules, etc. And, of course, once you have those, then you have insiders and outsiders, you have debates over what “seriousness” means and who is included within it. You didn’t really have anyone defending the “establishment” position, perhaps because that position is dead and gone in the Bloggernacle (I don’t anyone at T&S even believes it anymore, though some of the old guard still talk like they do); still, it’s a legitimate position, and it’s unfortunate that you couldn’t find anyone willing to resurrect that point of view.
I also think, though maybe this is a skewed perspective, that is was, in the end, a very MALE retrospective. I just didn’t see the voices, agendas, regrets of the female participants (as writers and commenters) coming through the way the male voices did. But then, really, as you imply with Steve at the end, wasn’t the BoH essentially just a big, pretentious, fraternity prank? So maybe it’s reasonable that the women were minor voices in it all, both in its development and in reflecting upon it afterward.
But those are quibbles. You’ve done a hell of a job, and you’re not in control of who was willing to talk and who wasn’t. In bringing together the people who were willing to talk, you’ve accomplished something terrific. Many congrats.
Comment by Russell Arben Fox — June 29, 2010 @ 11:54 am
I like Brian G’s comment that the fallout was about protecting community. Internet time is so compressed I think we forget how new and how small blogs and the LDS blogging community were 5 years ago. Today something like BoH would blow over with hardly a ripple, like reading the sidebar about something happening in the church far from where I live.
Five years ago BoH was more like someone in my ward telling me about a study group that had been formed and inviting me to drop by, and then finding out that the study group wasn’t real and that many of the people that I met there and talked with and shared my thoughts and feelings with were in on it but I wasn’t. The magnitude of the fallout has more to do with the perceived emotional closeness in the bloggernacle back then than any real crimes committed.
Comment by KLC — June 29, 2010 @ 11:54 am
Thanks, Russell. I really appreciate what you wrote, and I very much agree with about every bit of it. I talked with Julie Smith on the phone for a while, trying to talk her into posting, but she declined after considering it for a day. That made me quite sad, both because I knew it left T&S without a defender in the plot, and because it meant even fewer females participating–ultimately, annegb was the only one.
However, the non-appearance of Naomi and Allison is also partly explained by my own shyness/cowardice, for which there can be no excuse. For a long time, I didn’t dare bring up the project to any of the perpetrators other than Steve, because I was afraid they would object to me doing the retrospective entirely. In addition to not wanting them to be upset with me for doing this project, I simply don’t know Rosalynde, Naomi, or Allison, and that led to me putting it off a bit. By the time the project was underway, DKL, Brian, and Steve were all on board, and so I started including the women on my email requests for information, but none of them every responded. I think John Crawford, who did the write-ups for Greg Fox and Mari Collier, may have reached out to them, but I don’t know if he got a response.
In the end, it turned into a much bigger undertaking that I ever envisioned it being–I remember the initial plan was to just kind of put a link in the BCC sidebar with “Guess What’s Back?” as the text linking to the reconstructed Banner website. I think you’re right though—it was just kind of a big stupid frat joke, and honestly, one that I could easily see myself doing if I didn’t have this kind of object lesson before me.
Comment by Scott B. — June 29, 2010 @ 11:58 am
John Mansfield–
I think that Steve addressed this himself when he talked about his value on loyalty. He admitted that his demands on loyalty are curious, or hypocritical, or whatever, because he himself is not the best at returning such loyalty.
Comment by Scott B. — June 29, 2010 @ 12:03 pm
John Mansfield’s questions on loyalty are very interesting. As Scott mentions, I’ve never claimed to be personally consistent on this topic. But it’s not like Banner authors were my only friends going in to the project, so things weren’t all “in-house.” I agree that the entire Banner situation was very problematic for me personally in light of my views on personal loyalty, which actually played a major role in my departure.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 29, 2010 @ 12:39 pm
I’d love to hear a podcast with Julie and I think it would really contribute to this project. That said, I think it is likely wise of her to have declined. Sometimes saying nothing is the best thing you can do for a community, which is a lesson I have yet to master.
Comment by a random John — June 29, 2010 @ 12:41 pm
Steve downplays the aesthetic angle. I don’t think that he should even though I predicted the potential fallout of the project.
To expand a bit…
MCQ asks if there is, “a statute of limitations on continuing to deplore the sinful behavior”
The sinful behavior was the deception, but the whole of Banner of Heaven wasn’t the deception. Scott B may still be getting to this, but AMV already explored in some detail the question of if there can still be aesthetic value in something that is ethically dubious (and if that aesthetic value really means anything). I do think that ethical dubiousity colors the way people view a work, but that’s not the entire work itself. With any literary hoax (and Banner of Heaven is just one in a long line of them), we’re still left with the remains of what’s on the page. The actual writing. The aesthetic arguments didn’t fly with most Bloggernaclites back when the scandal broke. I can understand that. But there are (and were back in Oct. 2005) differing views.
As someone who has seen hoaxes and/or deceptive posting damage several, I won’t justify what BoH did to the Bloggernacle. But also having been around the block a few times with online communities, I think that such a Fall was inevitable and I’m glad that in every circumstance I know of at least some people were brought closer together because of the experience.
One benefit, perhaps, of Banner of Heaven was that at the very least we got real writers and basically decent people — that doesn’t always happen.
Comment by Wm Morris — June 29, 2010 @ 12:53 pm
Scott B., yes, Steve Evans spoke on loyalty to some length, and hours later I found that part the most thought provoking.
Steve Evans, by “in-house” I was thinking “bloggernacle” rather than Banner of Heaven, since that seemed to be the circle from which criticism came. I’m not sure whose loyalty you felt came up short. Again, the loyalty issue is an intriguing one, and I’m glad you brought it up.
Comment by John Mansfield — June 29, 2010 @ 12:58 pm
that should be “several online communities”
Comment by Wm Morris — June 29, 2010 @ 12:59 pm
John, the person whose loyalty most clearly came up short was my own, of course, so I cannot throw stones in that regard. At the time of the scandal I remember feeling abandoned by my friends — in retrospect that was hypocritical of me, but that’s nonetheless how it felt. I can’t speak of my experiences during that period without noting all those aspects. I don’t think it paints a particularly sunny picture of my behavior.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 29, 2010 @ 1:05 pm
I’d also add that while I miss the days when I commented on almost every single post on T&S and had read every comment and every post by everyone who was actively in the T&S-sphere, you do get much more diversity of thought, style, tone and relationship to Mormon culture, LDS doctrine(s), and the LDS Church now. That’s a good thing on the whole, imo. Even if I personally am a stiff-minded person with a predilection for the seriousness RAF mentions above.
Comment by Wm Morris — June 29, 2010 @ 1:06 pm
I think loyalty is vastly overrated. In all the cases when loyalty is cited as the motivation for virtuous behavior that same behavior could/should have been motivated by a less problematic virtue like fairmindedness or kindness. In plenty of cases, loyalty is a name for going against your better judgment to do something wrong, covering something up, or sticking up for a person who is in the wrong.
Comment by Jacob J — June 29, 2010 @ 1:41 pm
Without loyalty there can be no friendship.
Comment by Chris H. — June 29, 2010 @ 1:54 pm
I think it was interesting to hear about the ideas of loyalty (and of course, as others have mentioned, Steve’s psychological brotherhood with George Bush.)
But ultimately, I have to agree with Wm Morris.
As someone who was not part in any way of the BoH when it was flying, I honestly can’t begin to talk about the deception. Yet, I still have stuff to say about the BoH (probably from my insolence — I have stuff to say about a lot of stuff). I think that the best stuff that I have to think or say about it regards its sheer creativity and scale of innovation.
Great Mormon novel? Who needs that when we have the BoH?
then again, i am not an artist. i am not a literary critic. i do not know what i am talking about.
Comment by Andrew S. — June 29, 2010 @ 2:59 pm
Russell Arben Fox, the problem with involving Julie or Nate in these discussions is that they were never stakeholders in the process. To the extant that they claimed to be stakeholders in the community, a random john has demonstrated that their claim is bogus.
Comment by DKL — June 29, 2010 @ 3:17 pm
DKL,
RAF is out of town, so I entered the comment for him, and while I can’t say (obviously) what he would respond to your #49 with specifically, I think that he is not arguing so much that Julie and Nate had a stake as much as they themselves claimed to have a stake, and that they haven’t been here to defend that claim.
Certainly, I agree with arJ and others that Julie (specifically) and Nate (to a lesser extent, as his was more philosophical) didn’t really have any standing to opine, but the fact remains that, if such a question were put to a jury, arJ would only represent the prosecution, and we simply haven’t heard from the defense. Again–that is not to say the defense would be convincing; only that we haven’t heard it.
This is a shortcoming of the retrospective, in my opinion, even if it’s one that I couldn’t do much about.
Comment by Scott B. — June 29, 2010 @ 3:36 pm
Jacob, what’s the point of sticking up for people only when they are right? Everybody does that. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same?
Comment by Steve Evans — June 29, 2010 @ 3:48 pm
Jacob J,
I agree with you that loyalty can be used as a defense for doing some stupid, cruel, idiotic things, or for defending those who do them, but I don’t think that’s the sort of loyalty we’re talking about here at all.
My understanding of the loyalty/abandonment Steve referred to in the podcast was not about publicly saying that “What Steve and crew did was good!” but about saying “What Steve and crew did was wrong, but they’re also still my friends, and I know them well enough to know that a) they’re sorry and b) they didn’t mean to hurt people.”
In other words, I don’t think anyone is asking for a loyalty that covers or ignores sins; rather, the idea is a loyalty which prevents us from allowing others’ sins to define them as people.
Comment by Scott B. — June 29, 2010 @ 3:56 pm
That’s right, Scott. It’s not that complicated.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 29, 2010 @ 3:57 pm
Jacob J, loyalty is important because it recognizes that not all social obligations reduce to (a) what’s already accepted as right, or (b) utilitarian concerns.
For example, you have a stronger obligation to your own children than to your neighbors children. A university president has an obligation to the students and alumni of his university that supersede the well being of other universities.
Comment by DKL — June 29, 2010 @ 4:07 pm
I might disagree that Nate and Julie didn’t have a stake in the community.
Their cobloggers were aware of the fictional nature of Banner of Heaven. They had both invested a large amount of time and energy in blogging at Times and Seasons. The bloggernacle like all internet communities largely consists of people opining about stuff they have very little to absolutely no stake in anyway. Banner of Heaven was in many ways an alternative to, if not a flat-out subversion of, Times and Seasons and what it reprsented at the time.
I invested so much f time and energy into Banner of Heaven that when it as a community was threatened by other bloggers, I reacted dishonestly, but I like to think, playfully. Our response was more along the lines of, “Step, right up, join the show, you can play too,” rather than, “Eradicate. Eradicate. Eradicate.”
In short, I understand where they were coming from. I disagree with some of their conclusions, but I would never say they had no right to chime in. I think the way they moderated, or didn’t moderate those threads was random and sloppy, but hey, it was crazy times.
Comment by Brian G. — June 29, 2010 @ 4:13 pm
Brian,
I certainly wasn’t there, so I am likely no better when it comes to talking about this, but it seems from my conversations with those involved that the issue is not that T&S _couldn’t_ or _shouldn’t_ have had a stake, but that they consistently refused a stake when it was offered to them vis a vis the MA. No?
Comment by Scott B. — June 29, 2010 @ 4:33 pm
Steve, what is the virtue of sticking up for your friends differently than you would anyone else? Anyone can blindly stick up for a friend. Even publicans.
Comment by Jacob J — June 29, 2010 @ 4:55 pm
Jacob, actually I think you’re quite wrong about that. History and personal experience shows that people almost never stick up for others when it is inconvenient to do so.
Actually, I think your comments reflect a fundamental failure to grasp the definition of loyalty and friendship. That troubles me. But– none of my business. Carry on.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 29, 2010 @ 5:16 pm
I don’t know, Scott. I think T&S’s decision not to include a link to the MA was almost entirely unrelated to the BoH controversy.
The only substantial connection I see is that BoH uncorked some animosity and resentment that was brewing toward the big blog of the time.
I’d actually probably defend T&S or any blog’s right to decline linking to any blog or aggregator for any reason. I disagree with that initial call regarding MA, but so be it. MA in its time has linked and unlinked a number of blogs I am sure.
Comment by Brian G. — June 29, 2010 @ 5:30 pm
Jacob,
As someone who tried to stick up for his friends let me attempt to explain. Having known (and even met) some of these people prior to BoH I used that background to come to the conclusion that what these people had done was a prank gone terribly wrong rather than a malicious joke. That made it very easy for me to forgive my friends. It is possible that had I not known them I would have reacted differently. I assume that what was so painful about the firestorm for some of the participants is that some of the people fanning the flames were in fact friends of the BoH crew and yet didn’t take that past experience into account when drawing conclusions about BoH.
So yes, loyalty and friendship should have played a part in all of this, and it isn’t about blindly sticking up for anybody.
Comment by a random John — June 29, 2010 @ 5:37 pm
The problem with loyalty is that it can be a vice or a virtue.
It is a vice when a mafia member keeps the murders, rapes, etc of fellow gang members secret and refuses to rat them out. It is a virtue when a Beehive sticks up for the girl not there when other girls start badmouthing her behind her back.
Loyalty was the driving principle behind the secret combinations of the Gadiantons, but it is also a driving principle behind being a faithful Christian and Mormon.
Comment by Geoff J — June 29, 2010 @ 6:02 pm
Nicely done Scott. If that economist thing doesn’t work out, you should go full time on the multi-part bloggernacle retrospectives. How many more years until the 5 year anny on T&S’s current front page format? I’m thinking you can get at least seven podcasts on that one.
Comment by Mike M. — June 29, 2010 @ 6:03 pm
“Loyalty was the driving principle behind the secret combinations of the Gadiantons,…”
No, it was greed and the desire for power.
A mafia member is not loyal because of virtue, but because of fear.
A trait is not always a virtue, but there is a virtue of loyalty, this does not mean that all uses of the term actually apply to the virtue.
Comment by Chris H. — June 29, 2010 @ 6:10 pm
As I said Chris, the problem with loyalty is that it can be a vice or a virtue.
Comment by Geoff J — June 29, 2010 @ 6:17 pm
I’m writing from my parents’ home in Spokane, WA, here…
I think Scott summarizes the main thrust of my comment (originally sent as an e-mail to him) in #50. The question of T&S and the Mormon Archipelago is a side issue, though perhaps a revealing one. The real point is that, for better or worse, the Bloggernacle, as it developed during the year or two prior to BoH, was presumed by many to fill the sort of niche or play the sort of role–above all, a “serious” one–which in many ways, sometimes explicitly and sometimes implicitly, sometimes purposefully and sometimes accidentally, was closely identified with T&S. I don’t think anybody really believes that anymore; by the time I left T&S, I don’t think of the permabloggers there really did either, at least not in the same way many believed it five years ago. (Though admittedly, controlling rhetorical channels and the weight of past decisions remain, both there and elsewhere.) But, again, for better or worse, it WAS believed; to do a retrospective on a Bloggernacle controversy, and fail to include some effort to honestly recollect or recreate the perspective which held, however subtly, that having a stake in the community was contingent upon being a “serious” (establishment-oriented?) participant in it, is a loss to Scott’s overall effort. Not a crippling loss by any means, but it is a lack, nonetheless. After all, we STILL argue today over whether something or someone is “really” part of the Bloggernacle (meaning: how Mormon are they, and how are they Mormon in the first place), though the terms by which we conduct those arguments are different from what they were five years ago.
The more that I think about this, the more I wonder if the lack of women’s voices in the BoH tangle, and all of the above, might be much related, somehow.
Comment by Russell Arben Fox — June 29, 2010 @ 6:18 pm
Geoff,
My point is that the idea of loyalty is not the problem. The problem is when it is used poorly, in which case it is likely not really loyalty but something else. Well, enough Aristotle for one day (though I lack the mean, so I will likely continue).
Comment by Chris H. — June 29, 2010 @ 6:25 pm
Chris,
Calling it “not really loyalty” in cases when it is used to support or cover up wrongdoing is misunderstanding the definition of the word loyalty. Loyalty basically means “unswerving in allegiance”. When mafia members show unswerving allegiance to cover for one another that is loyalty too.
Comment by Geoff J — June 29, 2010 @ 6:41 pm
I am mostly questioning whether that is their true motivation….
Anyways, I am now boring myself. I can only imagine what I am doing to everyone else. Sorry .
Comment by Chris H. — June 29, 2010 @ 6:47 pm
I keep wondering whether I could ever have been a part of BoH. It’s intriguing as an idea, and I know I would be tempted to join such a group, if invited.
On the other hand, I could never have recovered any credibility after the exposure because of the kind of writing I ordinarily do. Think what would be the reaction if it were discovered that I had written posts about completely fictional people “from history,” making them as inspirational and dramatic as I sometimes try to do with my favorite Keepa posts. Since I don’t routinely include source citations on blog, I could theoretically go quite a while without anyone discovering that there had been no such LDS heroine on Malta, or no such dramatic incident in the life of Brigham Young. But once it was discovered, no one would ever again trust my historical posts no matter how many source citations I included. The fear of that loss of credibility would probably keep me from ever going farther than toying with a BoH-ish idea.
I keep wondering whether that makes me and my writing fundamentally different from the BoH bloggers. Somehow it seems to, but I don’t know why it should. When any established ‘nacle blogger writes about testimony or local church conditions or suggestions for improving home teaching, shouldn’t we be able to trust that s/he’s writing the truth as he sees it, as much as I am when I write history?
(And saying that, I don’t mean to claim any personal superiority or suggest any animosity toward any BoH personality. I really am just trying to figure out whether I would or could have been a participant, and why or why not, as well as why I seem to take ‘nacle participation more seriously than Steve claims to in this podcast.)
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — June 29, 2010 @ 7:14 pm
Chris, actually, it’s an interesting question, to me at least. And I think you’re right and Geoff’s wrong, at least in this:
The driving principle is not loyalty, it’s gain or greed as Chris puts it. The idea was first developed by Cain, but it is always the same:
Moses 5 (emphasis added).
Neither Cain and his cohorts nor the Gadianton Band, not the mafia keep their secrets out of loyalty. In fact, you could argue that they have not really kept their secrets at all, but if secrets have been keptin these criminal organizations it is out of the desire to get a share in the spoils that the group receives or out of a fear of reprisals. That’s not loyalty. Loyalty doesn’t expect anything in return. Loyalty is a freely given allegiance that arizes out of a sense of duty or obligation. Compensation or fear makes it something else, not loyalty. Thus, loyalty is never a vice:
Loyalty (from dictionary.com):
(emphasis added)
Again, it’s all a matter of how one defines one’s terms, but to me, loyalty cannot be a vice.
Comment by MCQ — June 29, 2010 @ 7:20 pm
Ardis, what you do is very different, and you’re right that you would lose all credibility if you decided to create fictional stories or characters, because what you do is, at least in some sense, history.
That’s not what BoH was aiming at.
I think you’re right in a way, about our assumptions about the nacle. We expect that most people are being straight with us when they write their posts, but there is certainly no guarantee of that, and I think one of the lasting effects of BoH is that irt makes us more careful and skeptical. For one thing, I tend to take DKL with a big grain of salt, after reading through all the BoH material. I’m just never entirely convinced that he isn’t, at least at times, posing or chain-yanking instead of giving us his straight feelings on a subject. (BTW, I have no problem with that, and find him entertaining, regardless).
But you touch on another subject that I’m having trouble with: How seriously should we take the nacle, and how seriously do others take it? Is it just a playground for some? Steve seems to suggest that it is for him, but (not to be disloyal) I think he’s not being entirely straight with us here. He has written a lot of posts that are completely serious, and show that he takes this place very seriously, at least at times. I also question whether he would continue to participate here at the level that he does if his attitude toward the nacle were entirely recreational. No, this place is serious for Steve, I believe, and for DKL and the others. And it is for me, too.
Comment by MCQ — June 29, 2010 @ 7:32 pm
MCQ and Chris,
I think you’re both wrong about the Gadianton robbers. The “secret” in “secret combinations” is entirely the result of loyalty. They had unswerving allegiance to each other in keeping their oaths and keeping them secret. Whether that allegiance/loyalty is motivated by love or greed or fear is moot. It is still loyalty. Again, the word loyalty mean unswerving allegiance.
If it weren’t for loyalty there would have been no secret combinations at all. Rather there would have been “combinations/schemes that were easily discovered by authorities”. The latter would not have merited even mentioning in the BoM.
While the synonyms section over at Dictionary.com is interesting the actual definition of the word there is:
Over at Wiktionary it is:
Not surprisingly we are not the first to debate whether loyalty itself should be considered a virtue. We get this from the SEP article on loyalty:
Clearly I am in the camp that believe that loyalty as commonly defined is neither moral nor immoral. Rather it is just a word for allegiance and is amoral in itself — neither a virtue nor a vice.
Comment by Geoff J — June 29, 2010 @ 7:37 pm
You keep saying that, but that’s just your definition, not the correct( or at least complete) one.
Again, it’s all a matter of defining your terms. Your definition supports your conclusion, but if your definition is flawed (as I think it is) then so is your conclusion.
Not true. And in fact, these so called “secret” combinations were in fact rather easily discovered, else how do we know about them? Because the secrets were designed to be kept, not out of loyalty, but out of greed and fear. Neither work as well as loyalty. That’s why there is a need for a witness protection program. Greed can be bought, fear can be trumped by someone with a bigger threat, Loyalty has nothing to do with either of those things.
Comment by MCQ — June 29, 2010 @ 7:52 pm
Alright MCQ, which dictionaries are you using for your definition of the word loyalty? You quoted the synonyms section of Dictionary.com but I showed that the actual definition there supports my point. The wiktionary definition does too. Merriam Webster had a useless definition “the quality or state or an instance of being loyal”. But of course those are only a sampling of free online dictionaries. So which dictionary are you leaning on to support your definition?
Comment by Geoff J — June 29, 2010 @ 7:58 pm
MCQ: Because the secrets were designed to be kept, not out of loyalty, but out of greed and fear.
I have no idea why you would assume that loyalty is mutually exclusive of greed and fear. I say loyalty itself can be motivated by greed and fear at times.
Comment by Geoff J — June 29, 2010 @ 8:00 pm
For a philosophical debate, I am not sure if the dictionary really proves anything either way. I think that the SEP article gets to this disagreement. However, loyalty as used originally in the thread (and Zeitcast?) is loyal in the moral sense and not the amoral sense. So, to the extent that Jacob and others think that loyalty is problematic, this is not the type of loyalty being spoken of. Isn’t this fun?
Comment by Chris H. — June 29, 2010 @ 8:02 pm
Chris — I can assure you from experience that the morality of the loyalty being discussed in this case was morally murky at best.
Comment by Geoff J — June 29, 2010 @ 8:06 pm
That may well be the case. I am glad to not have been part of this experience, though only because I started blogging late in 2005 and missed it.
Comment by Chris H. — June 29, 2010 @ 8:09 pm
Ardis,
Oddly enough your first permablogging position was at MM, which exists very much as a result of BoH. So it is possible that it had more impact on you than you know.
Comment by a random John — June 29, 2010 @ 8:39 pm
Ouch.
Comment by Scott B. — June 29, 2010 @ 8:47 pm
Yes, arJ — but I hasten to say that my posts at MM were never intended to be as a permablogger, but only a few contributions to help a new blog get started while I was waiting for a promised but date-as-yet-unfixed invitation to blog with T&S. My being listed as an MM permablogger was an error, and I still occasionally get sneers from snarkers who assume I dumped MM as soon as something supposedly better came along. Whatever impact BoH had on my blogging is different than you assume, if you assume I wouldn’t have been able to step into blogging without a boost from MM.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — June 29, 2010 @ 8:57 pm
Chris H.’s #76 is right.
I do think MCQ is taking my words re: nacle as recreation a little far. Just because I do it for entertainment and personal curiosity doesn’t mean I never take it seriously or don’t have any vested interest in outcomes or people. By recreation I mean that this is not my job, nor is it my calling, nor is it my family. I place it in a sphere of hobbyism and diversion, e.g. it is not my primary source of responsibility/happiness. That’s all. I don’t think my perspective limits my ability to take things seriously, but it does limit the nacle’s ability to consume my life.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 29, 2010 @ 9:20 pm
Which has nothing at all to do with any definition, just an assumption you are making.
In my usage of the word, which is supported by the paragraph I quoted, loyalty requires a certain sentiment which is incompatible with compensation or fear. You may be able to buy or intimidate people into being obligated to you in some way, but my contention is that’s not loyalty.
Comment by MCQ — June 29, 2010 @ 9:22 pm
Ardis,
As a founding member of MM, I never knew that. See? This retrospective brings up all sorts of interesting information.
I certainly don’t assume that you wouldn’t have stepped into blogging without MM. I simply acknowledge the fact that you did. We were extraordinarily lucky to have you.
I do think that the connection of both MM and T&S to the demise of BoH probably plays a small role in the way that people perceive your journey through the bloggernacle even though it likely had no influence on your decisions to participate in either blog. That’s all.
Comment by a random John — June 29, 2010 @ 9:55 pm
So what word do you like to use when someone is loyal for reasons you don’t approve of MCQ? Maybe you could make something up. I hear “horphengroppen” is available. I can see it now: “Vinny was too horphengroppen to The Family to ever squeal. As a result he was sent up the river”.
Comment by Geoff J — June 29, 2010 @ 10:01 pm
Vinny was too scared to squeal, Geoff. That’s why he got sent up the river. If he had squealed, he would be IN the river wearing cement shoes. I’m surprised I have to explain these things to you. You must not get out much.
Comment by MCQ — June 29, 2010 @ 10:45 pm
I have really enjoyed learning about this whole thing, so thanks to Scott and everyone who participated for telling the story. Regardless of where it went, to me the BoH site was a very interesting and artistic social experiment. I wish I had the time to go back and read all of the original posts and comments. Then of course, almost as interesting was where it did end up going and all the backlash and then even the fact that Scott is doing this at all. To me it is interesting. Interesting I say, interesting.
Comment by Brother Matsby — June 29, 2010 @ 10:52 pm
Sure MCQ. Because people can only have one motive at a time… And also because there is no such thing as loyalty among the bad guys… I imagine you also think that Nazi soldiers were never loyal to each other because they were the bad guys right? Yes it is becoming so clear — Loyalty is reserved for the good guys. When bad guys appear to be loyal it is really some other less noble thing going on.
(Yes I know this I am being snarky. But this conversation is starting to remind be of the arguments over the definition of the word “Christian” we Mormons are constantly having to engage in with creedal Christians who insist on ignoring the dictionary.)
Comment by Geoff J — June 29, 2010 @ 11:00 pm
No Geoff, you got it wrong again. Nazis were often very loyal, because many of them truly believed in their country and its leader. It’s not an issue of being good or bad, it’s an issue of motive. Loyalty as a motive means that you truly believe in the person or cause and are giving yourself to that person or cause. The objective rightness or wrongness of the cause is irrelevant. If you are just working for a paycheck or out of fear, that’s not loyalty, though it may be duty or obligation.
I’m happy to help you with these word problems Geoff. Let me know if you need help with the word Christian. It sounds like you might still be confused about that one too.
Comment by MCQ — June 29, 2010 @ 11:24 pm
There was more interest in internet fiction in the days of BoH. Popcorn Popping was still publishing fiction as a blog ezine. But what was noticeable was that no matter what Popcorn published, it just didn’t have the teeth that BoH did. Even after you’d decided that BoH was most likely a fraud, the posts and discussion was just more riveting, more relevant, more probable…
Comment by Johnna — June 29, 2010 @ 11:35 pm
I’d like to resurrect Popcorn Popping one day. We could rebuild her. We have the technology. She could come back stronger, faster, and then all my ill-fated blog endeavors will have risen from the ashes like phoenixes, or rather zombies. What do you say, Steve? What do you say, William Morris?
(By the way, thanks for comment #41, Wm.)
Comment by Brian G. — June 29, 2010 @ 11:44 pm
Well MCQ, thanks for supporting my orginal point. Your is example of Nazis is a good illustration of the fact that loyalty can be a motivation for doing evil or for doing good. Therefore loyalty itself is a-moral and not properly described as a “virtue”. Loyalty can serve as a motivation to behave either morally or immorally.
Comment by Geoff J — June 30, 2010 @ 12:29 am
I thought I’d take a crack at MCQ’s questions. Anything to please Ardis and to distract from the debate over the definition of loyalty.
In a perfect world the bloggernacle could be all things to all people, a place people can take extremely seriously and also a place where others would feel free to make fun of those people. I keed. I keed. Seriously, (no pun intended) there should be blogs and bloggers that suit all tastes and inclinations. Maybe in 2005 people took it much more seriously, and as Steve alludes to, we at BoH and most of our commenters clearly did not. Maybe that’s where much of the conflict sprang from. The disparity between how we saw the bloggernacle and how others did was a gulf much larger than we ever anticipated. The thought leads to other questions: is that gulf bigger or smaller now? Can it be bridged? Anyhow, I agree with Steve: the bloggernacle can’t save you. I personally can’t take it too seriously because I find of the many wonderful things it does sometimes offer, none of them compare to the real article when it’s found in the offline world.
Not surprisingly, I think the answer is, yes, it’s possible, and yes, it’s appropriate. Especially after five years. A certain amount of time has passed. Trouble has been taken to respect those with hurt feelings in the past, and to those with hurt feelings in the present. Scott in his retrospective has sought to give voice to those feelings as well. In 2005, when feelings were still raw it wasn’t as appropriate, moreover it wasn’t even possible, not without getting pounced on.
Love it or hate it, there was never anything quite like Banner of Heaven before, and there will probably never be anything like it again. For a small sliver of time, there was something new under the sun. Does saying this make me egotistical? Probably. Evil? Maybe. Unrepentant? Not necessarily.
I think it depends on the gravity of the sin, of course. If we take the scriptures at their word our sins though crimson will be white as snow. I feel like I have confessed and forsaken. Five years fake-blog free! Yay! For my part I am no longer harrowed up by BoH. I like to think I recognize what was deplorable about BoH and wouldn’t repeat those mistakes.
And, I might add, there is no statute of limitations on my apology. It was resurrected with the blog, and my email address is right at the end of it still, and anyone who is still hurt by it is still welcome to contact me and we can try to reason it out together.
This one is very tricky.
It’s impossible to say it’s wrong and justifiable simultaneously. Particularly, if one believes God doesn’t look on sin with the least degree of allowance. I’ve admitted to justifying it in my mind for artistic reasons at the time. Part of me is still tempted to do so. So like most people do when they have two conflicting values (in this case, integrity on one side, and artistic ambition on the other) I compartmentalize. Some days I wish the wall between the compartments could come crashing down and integrity would flood in and eliminate all the artistic ambition, but I don’t think that will ever happen, and frankly, I don’t even think God would want that to happen. I’ll say this because I know this answer is no answer at all: the lessons I learned from BoH made the artistic ambition compartment smaller and more limited, perhaps more concentrated. There’s less spillover. Believe it or not, I’ve had ideas that are even more suspect and inappropriate than Banner of Heaven and allowed them to shrivel up and die, so that’s probably a good thing.
Is anything really permanent? Isn’t that one lesson of history? That the answer is no.
I don’t regularly read the bloggernacle these days so it’s hard for me to say, but I think that among the possible positive side effects are that people are less naïve. People possibly have more realistic expectations of their fellow bloggers. That’s good, I think. Nobody’s perfect.
Of all the possible negative side effects I think the one I’m afraid could be legitimately laid at the feet of Banner of Heaven is that people are reluctant to be more experimental in pushing the boundaries of what Mormon blogging can be and do. That’s regrettable. I don’t even think the surface has been scratched yet. Some days I’d like to really take a rusty garden rake and scratch the hell out of it.
Comment by Brian G. — June 30, 2010 @ 12:31 am
#80 Scott B., Seriously, I thought you did a great job with all this. Russell Arben Fox makes some good comments on how it could have been better, but still I think it was well done.
#93 Brian G., What other ways do you think that the boundaries of Mormon blogging could/should be pushed?
Comment by Mike M. — June 30, 2010 @ 1:01 am
Steve (#58),
Please leave room for the possibility that rather than me not understanding friendship, you misunderstand my point. FWIW, I think there were plenty of good reasons for people to stick up for you. Actually, re-reading my comment #46 again I am surprised by the strong reaction to it. It doesn’t seem that controversial to me (and thanks Geoff J for the link to the SEP article which discusses all the issues I had in mind and backs up the murkiness). I have loyalty on the mind partly because of a recent mormon matters thread where someone was ripping BiV for being disloyal by questioning the way some church leaders have spun certain doctrinal issues from our past. I thought that was crap. Loyalty is often associated with friendship, but the two are not synonyms. I think friendship is on safe ground as a virtue. I liked this from the SEP:
DKL (#54),
You raise a very interesting point about social obligations. The frequent arguments in the blogs about how people should spend their money often overlook the imporant point you make about the relative strength of our social obligations. I don’t think this point exonerates loyalty in all cases, but when loyalty is virtuous this is often a contributing factor.
arJ (#60),
I don’t have a beef with any of what you said. Quickly condemning someone without taking into account past experience with them is not just disloyal but also unfair and uncharitable (see my original #46). I wasn’t there, so I can’t speak first hand, but from listening to all the excellent podcasts (thanks Scott!) Geoff J’s #77 doesn’t seem far-fetched.
MCQ,
Again, it’s all a matter of how one defines one’s terms, but to me, loyalty cannot be a vice.
Fine, but words are not of private interpretation. Words mean what they mean based on usage, not dictionaries. Loyalty is often involved in morally questionable conduct, which is why the SEP article discusses a long standing debate about loyalty’s position as a virtue. You obviously have something you mean by loyalty which is entirely unproblematic, the only problem is that people have been using the word for a long time and they haven’t be strict enough in following your definition.
Geoff J,
Thanks for sticking up for me.
Comment by Jacob J — June 30, 2010 @ 2:24 am
/begin broken record
The myth of the disdainful and standoffish T&S is a myth, people.
The numbers are very clear. (See, e.g., http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2008/04/28/nacle-numbers-the-commenters/) I have commented a *lot* outside of T&S, for a long time. Ditto for bloggers like Julie and Dave. There is a lengthy history of external participation.
T&S has posted hundreds of links to other blogs. We are *still* a major source of links to other naccle blogs. (Somewhat less so as I have been busy lately, but naccle links have been a significant part of the sidebar for a long time.) We link by name to almost 40 individual nacle blogs from our sidebar. (Compare other blogs which are for some reason not accused of being disdainful, e.g. http://bycommonconsent.com/ ). And we used to link even more. (I condensed the sidebar a few years ago from an old version that linked to over 100 blogs.)
The evidence simply does not support the claim that T&S is especially disdainful or standoffish.
/end broken record
Comment by Kaimi — June 30, 2010 @ 2:25 am
I ought to give Scott a copy of the database, so we can get a series about T&S links to the bloggernacle. Or maybe Ziff.
Comment by Kaimi — June 30, 2010 @ 2:27 am
Kaimi,
First, no one is arguing that T&S IS disdainful. People are arguing that it WAS in 2004-2005. Adam’s comments in Julie’s thread are very clear on this matter.
Second, pointing to yourself and Dave is not meaningful in this because a) you have been personally counted as an exception to the rule of T&S ca 2005 multiple times, and b) Dave Banack was not even at T&S during this whole episode.
The number of pre-meltdown, non-Kaimi, non-Rosalynde comments from T&S bloggers at BoH speaks for itself, really.
Your point about BCC not having a blogroll is a valid one now, but wasn’t during 2005 when this took place. Although I may be in a minority, I wish BCC had a blogroll of sorts.
Comment by Scott B. — June 30, 2010 @ 3:08 am
In fact, Kaimi, one of the points Geoff J made in his podcast (though admittedly part of this got left on the cutting room floor) was that the great fight between T&S and the MA on Julie’s thread ultimately served to diminish T&S’s standoffishness by allowing everyone to get all the grievances off their chests.
Comment by Scott B. — June 30, 2010 @ 3:14 am
To me, the standoffishness or didainfulness at T&A has nothing to do with blogrolls and everything to do with how the permas interact with commenters. It was apparently worse before, but it’s still not a fun place to hang out. One of the enduring legacies of BoH is that it pointedly and in stark relief showed how unwelcome a place T&A was by being exactly the opposite.
Comment by MCQ — June 30, 2010 @ 4:04 am
Heh. Did you say T&A? Hehe.
Comment by Rusty — June 30, 2010 @ 6:45 am
As far as T&S and BofH goes, I cannot believe that people are skirting the issue. What it boils down is T&S and BCC hated each other 5 years ago, so when Steve Evans (a.k.a. BCC incarnate) got into hot water with the BofH, the T&S (e.g., JMS and NO) people smelled blood in the water and attacked. JMS never cared about the Bloggernacle community, and NO only cared by virtue of marriage to MMW permablogger. Neither of them had any investment in the community and were full of crap for getting on their high horse. The only people who really had any business getting on their high horse were the Inquisitors, and all of us, to the man, quickly forgave the BofHers and got over it while interlopers axe grinded out of little more than spite. JMS didnt do a podcast or post here in this retrospective because she would have been raked over the coals for being wrong all the way around.
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — June 30, 2010 @ 7:53 am
Were the T&S writers just ahead of everyone else? Some of those interviewed for this series have mentioned that their own blogging habits these days are limited for the most part to their own websites. On one of its recent design changes, BCC reduced comment emphasis a notch. Then there’s the moribund inability of most Nine Moons and Millennial Star writers to either put up something to read (and comment on) or recruit others who will.
Also, though airing old grievances is part of this series, when does Julie Smith get a break, some acknowledgement that whatever terrible, terrible thing it was she did was also five years ago and of limited importance?
Comment by John Mansfield — June 30, 2010 @ 8:01 am
MCQ,
#70,
I don’t know if anyone else has already responded to this. If they have, my apologies. One thing to note about the Mafia is that they ARE a family. Literally! And the reason is probably very simple: loyalty. They exploit the loyalty within familial bonds as an adhesive to keep their little gang together.
Comment by Dan — June 30, 2010 @ 8:02 am
I think that among the possible positive side effects are that people are less naïve. People possibly have more realistic expectations of their fellow bloggers.
I think this is not true, or rather, to the extent that people grow into more realistic expectations it has nothing to do with BoH and everything to do with the individual experiences of bloggers. I knew very little about BoH through my first years of blogging and didn’t/don’t consciously base any decision on that event. Perhaps some/many who were around through that are less naive because of it, but I am not, and I wouldn’t think others who began blogging post-BoH are less naive because of it.
Even though I was aware that I couldn’t know who was reading me, and therefore edited some information from my posts and comments, I used to be very free with my sincere thoughts and feelings and exposed a lot more of myself in the ‘nacle than I do anymore. That changed not because of BoH, but because, well, when you’ve been ridiculed or slammed by the Greenwoods and Haglunds too often, you stop sharing. If I stick mostly to my own blog these days and guard myself more during my much rarer comments at other blogs, it’s because of personal experience, not BoH. I would expect that if other commenters are similarly more guarded and less open than they were months or years ago, it’s because of similar personal experiences, not BoH.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — June 30, 2010 @ 8:04 am
Bingo.
Comment by Tim J — June 30, 2010 @ 8:11 am
Ardis, I’d like to apologize to you for the haranguing I gave you while you were on T&S. I figured you were privy to and party to all the back channel nonsense there when you signed on with them, and from comments through this retrospective it is plain you werent. I treated you like I treated the rest of them, and that wasnt fair. Kurt
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — June 30, 2010 @ 8:58 am
Thanks, Kurt — that’s a kind and unexpected apology. You had been so quick to understand and forgive my cat’s humiliating (well, humiliating for me, but possibly fun for him) spamming of your e-list a year or two earlier that I didn’t understand what had happened to change that when I started blogging. I of course do understand it somewhat, now.
I of course have no idea what T&S’s backlist chatter was at the time of BoH since I wasn’t there, and backlist chatter ought to be forever confidential anyway, IMO, but by the time I joined T&S there was absolutely no talk about BoH, and no expressed hard feelings about other blogs. I could tell, of course, that there had been some kind of rivalry to provoke the habit of referring to BCC as “some other blog,” but frankly, anytime that was said, it was in such a way that I thought it was simply good-natured rivalry between friends. That’s the way it was whenever I sensed any undercurrents of something I didn’t understand — T&S had of course had a long history that I knew little of, and I chalked up any allusions to things I didn’t know about as being remnants of that previous history. I never picked up any sense of animosity toward the ‘nacle or any particular blog or any particular bloggers.
Of course, since reading this retrospective, I *do* understand a comment by DKL that completely mystified me at the time, added to my post called “Retiring Toscanini”!
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — June 30, 2010 @ 9:32 am
If I could edit #107, I’d delete about 38 “of course”s. Of course.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — June 30, 2010 @ 9:33 am
To quote Geoff J from the intro, “Boom. There you go. Blog smackdowns.”
Comment by Scott B. — June 30, 2010 @ 9:59 am
And to think in comment #6 you were worried there would be no debate.
Comment by Chris H. — June 30, 2010 @ 10:34 am
Mike M.,
Where do I start? I’m just going to start with Mormon fiction because that’s what I’ve given the most thought to. The possibilities are staggering. Blogging can’t save you, but it could save Mormon fiction.
You can publish a novel in installments cheaper and faster and to a wider audience online than you could offline. You could get instant feedback on a writing project, you could form an online writers group.
Because of the anonymous nature of the internet Mormon writers can be more experimental with much less attention to market concerns, or traditional forms, or content that is more palatable to a wide audience.
One writer could blog as a character and as all the commenters, creating an entirely fictional community centered around a blog. Two writers could write a fictional piece consisting only of dialogue in character back and forth. You could write one sentence a day for 365 days and see where you end up. Six writers could portray a fictional family. I’m just going off the top of my head here. The point is the internet provides really unique ways to collaborate.
Interactivity is rarely exploited as a narrative device. You could write a novel and end every chapter with a multiple choice question and allow the audience to dictate the plot. A blog reader could give a writer a first sentence, and get an instant one page story an hour later. Writers that hit a roadblock could solicit suggestions from readers.
Plus, the internet can be instantaneous. Characters can react to breaking news happening now. Traditional publishing takes forever. Extreme timeliness as a fictional element is unexplored. Today I could write a short story about two elders stepping out of a discussion with a troubled oysterman into the path of Hurricane Alex.
These are just ideas for fiction, but I think possibilities for non-fiction and personal history, and even journalism, still remain unexplored. Look what Scott has done with podcasts. Amazing. Audio and video mediums remain largely untapped and underused as well.
I don’t know it’s been three years since I’ve been in the scene, maybe people have tried some things I’m unaware of.
Comment by Brian G. — June 30, 2010 @ 10:54 am
Brian:
Hey, it was you and Steve that bailed on Popcorn Popping. I tried to keep it alive. But also, I think that it was just too soon after BoH and probably the wrong format.
I’d love to do future collaboration — but my non-AMV, non-fiction-writing yet still Mormon Studies time is dedicated to Monsters & Mormons for the next 18 months. Of course, a submission from you would be totally awesome and it’s the kind of thing that’s right up your alley. <hint, hint, *cough*youoweme*cough*).
But as always, if you are serious, let's talk. I'm purposefully leaving my 2012 and beyond open in the hopes of putting together a really interesting Mormon arts-related project.
—–
Johnna:
I think you are right about the Boh to Popcorn Popping comparison. I think a big part of that is the nature of the blog format as well as the cultural change during this past decade towards staged reality. See, for example my post on David Shields new manifesto Reality Hunger. I mean how can a good short story compete with shelving? And Septumus’ little drama with the Sister missionaries?
On the other hand, there are some very good and even new expressions of the Mormon experience in the works we published at Popcorn Popping.
Comment by Wm Morris — June 30, 2010 @ 11:00 am
Ah, Brian posted while I was writing up my long comment.
To respond: yeah, I think there are a lot of interesting things that could be done. And a lot that have already been done.
People have already posted novels on Twittter and crowdsourced stories. In fact, some LDS fiction authors have done some really cool historical re-enactments of major events from Mormon history on Twitter.
I have a ton of ideas about all this, but I’ll shut up for now.
Comment by Wm Morris — June 30, 2010 @ 11:03 am
Kaimi,
How did BoH influence your commenting under different names? How did the history (and particularly your history) of the BoH scandal affect the eventual fallout at T&S when Cafeteria Mormon was revealed?
Comment by a random John — June 30, 2010 @ 11:09 am
John Mansfield- the BCC redesign was not about de-emphasizing comments- we would have liked the comment count to have remained visible (I assume that’s what you’re referring to) however the platform we had to use would not support it. Otherwise, current comments are still represented in real time on the right sidebar, above the fold.
Comment by Tracy M — June 30, 2010 @ 11:23 am
Ardis E. Parshall: Of course, since reading this retrospective, I *do* understand a comment by DKL that completely mystified me at the time, added to my post called “Retiring Toscanini”!
LOL! I’m sorry to have made such a terribly inside joke on your post without explaining it to you. That said, I’m glad that this series was illuminating in at least that way.
Comment by DKL — June 30, 2010 @ 11:42 am
John Mansfield–you’re absolutely right. Julie wrote a post that was (in my opinion) off base and caused more harm than it did good. The same could be (and is) said of BoH. This is not to suggest that they are similar in nature in any way, but rather to point out that the bad feelings and resentment over this scandal were not limited to the perpetrators.
I had hoped Julie would write something for this series. Part of me feared that, as Kurt suggests, she would be raked over the coals harshly, but I also hoped that it would have been a time for everyone to Come to Jesus, so to speak, and eat lunch together after the airing of grievances.
Comment by Scott B. — June 30, 2010 @ 11:48 am
SP writes,
This is more revisionist history.
Kristine was posting at both T&S and BCC from March 2004 through May 2006. I was posting at both from March 2004 through July 2004, and a frequent commenter at BCC.
Steve Evans, Karen Hall, and Brian GIbson all guest blogged at T&S in 2004. A lot of other bloggernacle faces, some associated with BCC, guest blogged at T&S in 2005: William Morris in January 2005, Kevin Barney in February 2005, Naomi in March 2005, and Elisabeth in May 2005.
Julie’s post was not a manifestation of a longstanding prior feud. Julie’s post *caused* the feud. It royally pissed Steve off (which Julie did not realize would happen) and he declared war. It also upset some other observers, like random John.
The current accounts about T&S actions are filtered through that lens.
Comment by Kaimi — June 30, 2010 @ 11:54 am
No, Kaimi, such a perception didn’t originate with Julie Smith’s post. Here’s something I wrote and Steve Evans responded to on Nine Moons’ first Banner:
JM: “Steve Evans’ connection with Banner of Heaven is curious, though. Often it has seemed to me that the Banner of Heaven is mocking most especially Times and Seasons more than the Mormon web blogs in general, and Steve Evans displays a special animosity for that web site and also no bounds for his internet enthusiasm.”
SE: “John, I don’t have a special animosity for T&S – many of the permabloggers there are good friends of mine. I want to make it clear that I like T&S and think very highly of them. If I mock them often in my zeitgeist, it’s because I’m poking fun at friends and expect better stuff from such a talented group.”
I don’t remember why, in 2005, I thought that, but it predated Julie Smith’s post.
Comment by John Mansfield — June 30, 2010 @ 12:14 pm
I think it’s hilarious that five years later, another post about how Banner of Heaven was a bad idea is turning into a thread about why T&S sucks.
What is it we learn from history? Something about it repeating itself?
Comment by Brian G. — June 30, 2010 @ 12:24 pm
We did engage in banter with BCC. (E.g., Steve’s sarcastic comments; posts like this: http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2004/09/crash-davis-at-rameupmtom/ ). That wasn’t intended to be hostile at the time, though I think that post-banner it probably seemed that way.
I’ve seen the T&S conversation about BoH. I’m part of it. At no point was it ever, “how can we stick it to BCC?” There was no bad mouthing of Steve individually. There were a few comments about BoH being a bad idea; and there were some negative remarks about DKL. There was nothing at all about attacking Steve. If anything, his participation was surprising to people. T&S bloggers liked and respected him.
I’ll tell one story out of school here. It has been non-public, but it’s five years old at this point, and the water is *way* under the bridge, and it will hurt no one. And it may correct the misperception.
In mid-2005, I suggested to my co-bloggers that we give Steve a perma invite. There was general support for the idea, including a lot of positive comments about Steve. One major concern was that he was duplicative of existing bloggers (another lawyer dilettante, to go with Nate, Kaimi, Greg, Matt, Adam and Gordon). Another was that if he joined T&S, it would undercut BCC, and that that would be bad for the bloggernacle. (Seriously, multiple T&S writers said that.)
We never did get to a vote. Like many backlist conversations, it veered off in another direction (how big should the blog be? what is our mission?) and then fizzled out. (This sort of dissipation was and still is a problem with the T&S listserv.) I always thought that was kind of unfortunate.
I realize that the Heartless Elder God has now become part of the bloggernacle’s creation myth, but really, there was no institutional anti-Steve or anti-BCC animus.
Comment by Kaimi — June 30, 2010 @ 12:32 pm
(I should note that the Steve discussion was pre-Banner, and pre- any of my knowledge about Banner. I was not trying to pull the wool over my co-bloggers’ eyes on any BoH issues.)
Comment by Kaimi — June 30, 2010 @ 12:35 pm
Kaimi, that is patent bullcrap. Just like your assertions that T&Sers were all over BofH the whole time. The rivalry and animosity between T&S and BCC predates BofH. Accusations of revisionist history from you are just projection. No animus for Steve Evans, huh? How about all those kind and polite words about Steve Evans you posted as Cafeteria Mormon? Would that be an example of your brotherly love of him?
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — June 30, 2010 @ 12:36 pm
SP,
With all due respect, I’m on the T&S backlist, and you’re not. You can assume that you know what people are saying to each other (“let’s stick it to Steve and BCC — mwahaha!”). I actually do know, because I’m on the list.
Comment by Kaimi — June 30, 2010 @ 12:44 pm
Kaimi, remember, I am the one who outed you as Cafeteria Mormon. I read everything you wrote there. Respond to that.
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — June 30, 2010 @ 12:49 pm
Let’s focus, people.
Facts:
1. A rivalry of some sort has existed between BCC and T&S, since at least 2004.
2. One of the suggested names for BCC was “Times & Seasons 2“.
3. Steve and Kaimi have said both nice and less-than-nice things about each other at different points in time.
4. (and this is the important one) If this thread turns uglier than it has been (not saying it’s been overly ugly), then I will play bully and banninate the crap out everyone.
Comment by Scott B. — June 30, 2010 @ 12:56 pm
There’s no real animosity between T&S and BCC — those who claim otherwise are misinformed. That’s true today and it was true in 2005. There is some good-natured teasing, maybe a little bit of rivalry, but no bad feelings. I say that as one who has been on both backlists as a perm. I understand how some might read the two T&S posts about the BoH meltdown and infer animosity, but that was not what animated the posts. This is also evident from the several supportive remarks about Steve made by T&S perms in the comments.
Comment by Dave — June 30, 2010 @ 1:01 pm
I side with Kurt on this one. Though my memory is different from Kurt’s on several details, the overall gist of what he’s saying is much closer to my recollection than what Kaimi is saying. We all have our vested interests, and these do, no doubt, influence the way that we understand the whirlwind that arose around BoH, Kaimi’s comments strike me as white-wash.
Comment by DKL — June 30, 2010 @ 1:06 pm
There are other undercurrents here. Kurt has had it in for Julie ever since their famous dust-up over Hebrew translation in the account of Noah. (Bloggernacle feuds – now with 50% more awesome.) Kurt has disliked me ever since I cussed him out for hounding Heather O. with really vicious comments calling her a bad parent. He has a pretty strong anti-T&S bias.
On the other hand, Snarkernackle had its moments. And Kurt’s Gospel Doctrine site is a good resource. He’s an ordinary person, just like the rest of us.
I’m not arguing that Kurt is the villain, or that Steve or anyone else is. (Except DKL, of course.) There aren’t any real villains, just ordinary people behaving in ordinary ways — sometimes self-interested, sometimes short-sighted. T&S missed the wave, five years back, when it decided to follow the New Republic model. It turns out that folks on the internet are more interested in humor than punditry. Steve called that one right, kudos to him. Add it to the early-2000s housing boom as one market that I completely misjudged.
I do object to my friends being cast as cartoon supervillains.
Comment by Kaimi — June 30, 2010 @ 1:23 pm
#27 Scott No NO NO do not banninate anyone. This is the most fun I have had in days.
Comment by JA Benson — June 30, 2010 @ 1:23 pm
“when does Julie Smith get a break”
I really, really like Julie and bear her no ill will whatsoever.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 30, 2010 @ 1:30 pm
And I defended her right to say whatever she wanted to above.
Comment by Brian G. — June 30, 2010 @ 1:32 pm
So at some point can we have a Truth in the Bloggernacle commission and see our back channel files (from T&S, BCC or wherever)?
Also: should I be creating an official AMV back channel? I had no idea these sorts of things were necessary.
Comment by Wm Morris — June 30, 2010 @ 1:35 pm
Dave’s #128 has it closest. There’s no real animosity. There is competition, but I don’t think anyone really bears actual disdain or hatred for the other blog as a whole. That would just be silly. I don’t actively hate T&S, and never have. There are bloggers there I enjoy more than others, and I am sure reciprocal feelings exist. C’est la vie.
That said, Kaimi is definitely whitewashing, as Kurt and DKL suggest. An example:
“It royally pissed Steve off (which Julie did not realize would happen) and he declared war. It also upset some other observers, like random John.”
Kaimi is overstating things for dramatic effect, I fear, and in the process of describing my feelings for me he misses the mark substantially. To say that the T&S threads “pissed me off” is woefully inaccurate. They grieved me and injured me. I was hurt, not “royally pissed off.” There is a fundamental difference. Further, I don’t know what he means by “declared war.” If by that phrase he means, “completely retreated to himself,” then he’s right.
Otherwise, carry on.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 30, 2010 @ 1:37 pm
Snarkimus, as someone who was also privy to both sets of backlist discussions, I can tell you that Kaimi’s account is much more accurate than your speculation. You’re just wrong (and I mean that in the nicest possible way).
Comment by Kristine — June 30, 2010 @ 1:46 pm
Kaimi, this isnt about me and how much I hate you and whoever else I hate. Its about how you publicly reviled Steve posting under a pseudonym, which is pretty good evidence of where things really were at back then, and the rivalry between BCC and T&S and how it shaped things back then. To sit there and say that I wasnt privy to your T&S back-channel doesnt address anything at all. And saying the back-channel was polite doesnt really address it either. What is at issue here is how you people felt about each other. And it was pretty obvious to everyone there were bad feelings between the two big blogs.
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — June 30, 2010 @ 1:46 pm
Steve: I’m sorry that my post at the time hurt you. FWIW, I thought BoH was a bizarre and slightly dishonest project, but I never paid that much attention to it. I certainly didn’t regard the participants other than DKL as monsters, and my attitude toward DKL is mainly a result of his penchant for killing puppies as opposed to anything related BoH. I am sure that in the heat of the comments over the posts — which I followed only intermittently as at the time I was in court as a defendant on a charge of reckless driving (which I beat) — I developed a much stronger and more passionately held opinion. I can’t, however, for the life of me remember what it was. I would certainly rather be Steve’s friend than stand by whatever I thought then.
Comment by Nate Oman — June 30, 2010 @ 1:51 pm
Wow, this thread just gets weirder and weirder.
Comment by MCQ — June 30, 2010 @ 1:56 pm
Also, MCQ and I are getting married. This October. You’re all invited. (Aaron Brown is going to be the maid of honor.)
Comment by Kaimi — June 30, 2010 @ 1:58 pm
Seriously. I’ve never seen people declare they have no animosity with such animosity before.
Comment by Brian G. — June 30, 2010 @ 2:00 pm
I have only sunshine in my heart for that bastard Brian G.
Comment by Kaimi — June 30, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
Nate, you don’t really owe me an apology, but I appreciate your comment. Next time you are in Seattle, I will buy you a taco.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 30, 2010 @ 2:04 pm
Note that Steve makes this offer to Nate only. This can only be seen as proof of his hidden anti-Kaimi animus.
Comment by Kaimi — June 30, 2010 @ 2:07 pm
Buy your own tacos.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 30, 2010 @ 2:10 pm
Connecting back somewhat to the Banner of Heaven concept, do others private beings and personal communications matter in evaluating public writing? Do the degree that they do, for making a writer understood as he wishes to be understood, then shouldn’t that be part of what’s publicly written?
Comment by John Mansfield — June 30, 2010 @ 2:14 pm
Nate. I’m very happy to hear that you never thought any worse of me for my participation in BoH.
Comment by DKL — June 30, 2010 @ 2:16 pm
Well, he did call you a Monster!
Comment by Tim J — June 30, 2010 @ 2:34 pm
Nate, I’m also sorry to hear that you don’t have more fond memories about the good old days when we used to kill all those puppies together.
Comment by DKL — June 30, 2010 @ 2:40 pm
Kaimi, I told you to keep your mouth shut. The engagement is off!
Comment by MCQ — June 30, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
Tim J, thanks for linking to that post that used a photo of my daughter and me to attempt a humorous comparison to Nazi propaganda and images of Hitler. I’d nearly forgotten about it. I was deeply disappointed by that episode in many of the same ways that I was deeply disappointed by the debacle that surrounded the exposing of BoH and by the lack of virtue that Mormons reflexively exhibit when they interact with others.
My initial response to being compared to Hitler strikes me as about right on:
What is most upsetting about the thread and the BoH aftermath was how saliently it demonstrates an important truth about Mormons (both leaders and members) that I’ve seen played out over and over since I can first remember; viz., they will always prefer parading around in moral indignation over actually demonstrating empathy or sympathy.
Now that the daughter in the photo is old enough to understand, should I explain to her that this photo of us was compared to a photo of Hitler? Such are the dilemmas faced by those of us who have been around the bloggernacle for a while.
Comment by DKL — June 30, 2010 @ 3:08 pm
Wm Morris (#134),
Nine Moons already revealed our backlist drama for everyone to see. It was amazingly hilarious. It was around the same time that Adam revealed the T&S backlist drama. BCC, you’re up next.
Comment by Tom — June 30, 2010 @ 3:16 pm
Nice work, Tom. We’ll keep you in mind for the next fake blog.
Comment by Brian G. — June 30, 2010 @ 3:25 pm
I had forgotten about that Tom. There’s only one problem with it: there’s no mention of me!
Comment by Wm Morris — June 30, 2010 @ 3:30 pm
I am a maid, but I am not honorable.
AB
Comment by Aaron Brown — June 30, 2010 @ 3:49 pm
I’m sure you’re not the only one yearning for those simpler times when we could all agree to dogpile on immigrants and kids wearing baggy pants.
Comment by Peter LLC — June 30, 2010 @ 3:52 pm
No, its pretty much just you DKL. But then, you are also one of the rare few with a post by the likes of Jim F saying how great you are.
Comment by Jacob J — June 30, 2010 @ 5:40 pm
Not to mention a unique 12Q interview.
Comment by Kaimi — June 30, 2010 @ 7:44 pm
Kaimi–there hasn’t been a 12 Questions entry since last October. What gives?
Comment by Scott B. — June 30, 2010 @ 8:02 pm
Also, note the relevant quote from DKL’s 12Q interview:
Comment by Scott B. — June 30, 2010 @ 8:03 pm
What–no link? I’ve got to see this! Contentious Hebrew translation has got to be the bread and butter of the bloggernaccle, no?
Comment by ESO — June 30, 2010 @ 9:46 pm
ESO,
Julie and Kurt engaged in extended Hebrew-commentary smackdown over a series of posts. Such as:
http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2006/02/sometimes-a-cigar-is-just-a-cigar/
http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2006/01/jms-sunday-school-lessson-3/
http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2006/11/what-if-the-woman-taken-in-adultery-wasnt/
As I recall, one of the bigger dust-ups was in a thread about Noah. But I could be misrecollecting.
Comment by Kaimi — July 1, 2010 @ 12:29 am
Jacob J, the irony of Jim F’s post on how great I am is that comments had to be shut down because it became too contentious.
Comment by DKL — July 1, 2010 @ 12:52 am
Kaimi,
Your presentation, as usual, is misleading. I argued with just about everyone on the Bloggernacle, not just JMS. I got banned at both T&S and BCC. Trying to make it look like I was biased against T&S is total crap. My fights with Steve Evans and Aaron Brown/Prudence McPrude are the stuff of legend, and I went after JNS on a number of occasions. I have also fought numerous battles with DKL on numerous blogs. I also had a long running feud with TT on FPR that wore on for way too long, and FPR was one of my favorite blogs ever (I heart Mogget), until the creeps from Urban Mormonism merged with it. I got into it with almost all of the permas at NCT at one point for a month long stretch when they collectively lost their minds. I have fought with people on just about every group blog, including Millennial Star and a host of others. Oh, yeah, and you missed one of my takedowns with Julie, because I posted under an alias, I believe it was “Steve from Austin” (I used an IP from TX) and pointed out she is full of speculative crap, I dont even recall what the subject was, probably women prophets or women getting the priesthood or some other of her pet subjects. But the point is, you cherry picking some fights with JMS in no way is indicative of bias against her or T&S. I was an equal opportunity offender, and showed no favoritism or bias when it came to doling out my unsolicited and ill-informed opinions on the Nackles.
If you want to keep blathering on about crap, why dont you respond to arJ’s question (115) about you posting as Cafeteria Mormon on FLAK? Oh, dont want to because it proves my point? Got it.
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — July 1, 2010 @ 6:19 am
Wow, Kurt. So much anger. That last comment makes me want to find you a prescription for something. Sorry I am not a doctor. Hope you can take a break from your feuds for a while and feel the love, man.
Comment by ESO — July 1, 2010 @ 7:11 am
SP,
Don’t remind him to answer! Having my serious questions ignored by T&S permas proves my point.
Comment by a random John — July 1, 2010 @ 8:54 am
ESO, dont make me go Tom Cruise on you. Take it in context, its 2+ years of fights condensed into one paragraph to show that I am not biased in my approach. As far as taking a break, what do you think I have been doing for the past 4 years? Want to rethink that invitation to join MorMen?
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — July 1, 2010 @ 9:00 am
Kurt, what are we at Nine Moons, chopped liver?? You’ve never gotten into it with any of us at Nine Moons! Just because we’ve never argued anything of substance doesn’t mean we don’t feel the absence of your contention over there.
Comment by Rusty — July 1, 2010 @ 9:02 am
“I also had a long running feud with TT on FPR that wore on for way too long, and FPR was one of my favorite blogs ever (I heart Mogget), until the creeps from Urban Mormonism merged with it.”
TT rules (and I also heart Moggett). However, I am just happy that we got mentioned on a thread dealing with matters of such high importance.
Comment by Chris H. — July 1, 2010 @ 9:12 am
So Kurt = downmarket DKL? Good to know.
I often can’t afford regular DKL, so I often have to substitute Kurt, the Folgers Crystals of the bloggernacle.
Comment by NFlanders — July 1, 2010 @ 9:42 am
Wow, Rusty, I’m touched. I note youve never asked me to guest blog at 9M, so I guess you cannot miss the absence of Kontentious Kurt too much. Chopped liver, nah, more like Head Cheese…but dont be offended, I mean Boar’s Head brand Head Cheese, you know, the good stuff.
Sorry, Chris, we are going to have to disagree on TT. I have no idea what he is like now, but back in the day he was an intellectual bully who played fast and loose with the rules he selectively chose to employ. Kind of like DKL, only schooled in theology instead of philosophy. That sort of thing rubs me the wrong way, and having all his UrbMo cronies play dogpile doesnt help endear me any. He still also owes me $1 from a bet that I won where I provided 5 independent references saying the Song of Solomon is a piece of crap. With interest, thats got to be up to a $1.73 by now.
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — July 1, 2010 @ 9:44 am
Epic, Scott.
Comment by Ronan — July 1, 2010 @ 9:51 am
No, no, Ned. If DKL is the most reviled person in the Bloggernacle(tm), I am the most fondly remembered, yet least missed.
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — July 1, 2010 @ 9:52 am
SP,
I will mention the bet to TT when I get a chance.
I personally think that FPR went downhill when it was “taken over by some sort of strange giant-brained life form with an ego whose size has never been seen outside a university setting.” http://snarkernackle.blogspot.com/2006/05/ts-permabore-breeds-with-unknown.html
That was me. It is hard to imagine…me making a snobby quote about Kant. I only now understand the title. If I have only known all along that Nate was my dad.
Comment by Chris H. — July 1, 2010 @ 10:00 am
SP/Kurt- I’ve got to agree with ESO. Online you appear to have some serious anger issues; and you enjoy it way to much! Medication and therapy will help.
Comment by JA Benson — July 1, 2010 @ 10:11 am
Chris, wow, I totally forgot about that, and most everything else on SnarkerNacle. Rereading it, it was actually kind of amusing. You have to admit that kind of thing has a pretty limited audience (um, lets see, yourself, Clark Goble, DKL and, well, thats it, oh, maybe Mark Butler). Anyway, did you at least find that post amusing, or was it just too pedestrian for the likes of such an one as you?
JA Benson, congratulations, you, like ESO, are an arm chair psychiatrist who’s opinion is so irrelevant I cannot understand why people like you post stupid comments like that. I mean, seriously, if I sat there and told you what you were like IRL and told you to get medicated I think you would be pretty outraged that someone in the ether was condescending to such nonsense. Which is why I love to hate the Bloggernackle, because its full of such ignorance and arrogance in such a splendid combination.
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — July 1, 2010 @ 10:23 am
SP,
I was honored.
Comment by Chris H. — July 1, 2010 @ 10:32 am
Kurt,
You lost the bet. The bet was “I’ll give you a dollar if you can even find 5 unique references to it being disputed.”
http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2007/07/the-song-of-songs-and-divine-eros/#comment-4475
Instead, you provided the JST and a list of secondary sources that all referred to M. Yadayim 3:5, a text which actually concludes: “for all the writings are holy but the Song of Songs is the holy of holies.”
At best, that’s only two. The offer is still open if you can provide three more.
Comment by TT — July 1, 2010 @ 10:42 am
Kurt-Where are my manners??!! I neglected to add a “bless your heart”.
Sometimes I just cannot help myself.
Another thing, please stop with the initials. If it is important enough to mention it; take the time to spell it out. Just curious, what is IRL?
Also, thank you for proving my point. Bless your heart!
Comment by JA Benson — July 1, 2010 @ 10:43 am
TT, still with the same old hooey. How in the world is The Council of Jamnia circa AD 90, Hill & Walton and Pope derivative of Mishnah Yadayim? They arent any more than the JST/IV is. And the Mishnah Yadayim quotes both pro and con sides, so even though some rabbis think it is great some reject SofS for the salacious trash it is, so pretending it draws that conclusion is disingenuous. Glad to see nothing has changed. You owe me a buck, plus interest.
JA, your manners are in the same place your PhD in clinical psychology is. IRL=in real life, in other words, what you have no knowledge of with respect to my person, any more than I have knowledge of you as a real person. If you want to discuss something about the Banner of Heaven (BofH) I would be happy to do that with you. Otherwise, please feel free to contact ESO (sorry dont know what that acronym stands for, please ask him/her) and chat with him privately about how angry I am.
There, Kaimi, you see, I am not just angry at JMS and T&S, I am this way all the time, even random strangers like JA Benson get the same treatment. So, you cannot accuse me of bias when it comes to JMS and T&S in my assessment of their motivation when it comes to BofH.
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — July 1, 2010 @ 11:23 am
DKL (#163), what do you expect of a thread honoring a guy who was compared to Hitler?
Comment by Jacob J — July 1, 2010 @ 11:41 am
DKL, But seriously, I always assumed gst’s post comparing you to Hitler was a piece of obvious satire skewering the people who make you out to be a monster. Was that not the case? It never occured to me to be offended because I thought it was posted in your defense. Was the post itself disappointing (and I misinterpreted it entirely) or was it comments on that thread that were disappointing, or what?)
Comment by Jacob J — July 1, 2010 @ 11:48 am
Kurt,
Do you know the difference between a primary and a secondary source? You’re supposed to find evidence to back up your assertion that “The text has always been controversial. Look into its history in being canonized.” Providing modern commentaries that discuss the origins of the text (none of which challenges its canonicity) and that paraphrase M. Yad 3:5 don’t demonstrate your point that the canonization of the text was seriously disputed, let alone that it has “always been controversial” throughout Jewish and Christian history.
As for M. Yad 3:5, I already counted this one since you are to some extent correct that is records a debate about whether or not SoS was “pure” and required handwashing. I’m not sure that this is as strong of evidence that you think it is that SoS’s canonicity was in question, but merely its rank among other canonical texts. Further, while somewhat anomalous for the Mishnah, this text actually does conclude that one side was right and the other was wrong. The pericope concludes that R. Azzai was right, there was a dispute and it was settled that SoS makes the hands impure. The authoritative take is that SoS was undisputedly canonical.
Comment by TT — July 1, 2010 @ 11:48 am
I must be getting old — I had totally forgotten about the multi-post Old Hebrew Sources smackdown with TT.
Comment by Kaimi — July 1, 2010 @ 11:59 am
TT, nope, we were clearly not communicating on that point. I just looked up primary source and that is not what I was looking for. I was looking for unique, unrelated sources. Holding the requirement that there be five “primary sources” is pretty unfair, and according to the above definition the JST/IV and the Mishnah Yadayim dont qualify either, given the text of SofS definitely predates the Christian era. Why allow the JST/IV and Mishnaic source when they arent primary? There are no primary sources for the SofS, given the antiquity of the text. I think in good faith you should still send me the buck, as a good faith gesture I will drop the demand for interest.
You see, Kaimi, its not just you and your T&S permabores.
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — July 1, 2010 @ 12:10 pm
Kurt,
So, I guess you don’t know what a primary source is. In this case, it would be sources from Christians and Jews from anytime in the history of these traditions that would provide evidence of your assertion (now increasingly without any warrant whatsoever) that “The text has always been controversial. Look into its history in being canonized.” I asked you to actually “look into its history in being canonized” to demonstrate this claim. So far, you only provide one actual piece of evidence that a Christian or a Jew believed that it shouldn’t be canonized (the JST). Besides Joseph Smith, you point to an ancient Rabbinical text that says that there was once a dispute about the relative holiness of SoS. Frankly, counting either of those as evidence that the “text has always been controversial” or that the history of the canonization of the text is evidence of great disputes over the text is a gift to your cause, because they don’t amount to much.
Do you understand why a modern commentary talking about the origins of SoS does not pose a challenge to its canonicity nor constitutes evidence that the text is “controversial” in the history of Judaism or Christianity? Honestly? It may mean that you think the text is controversial given its origins, but not that the rest of Judaism and Christianity do.
My claim that the SoS has been one of the most important texts in the history of Jewish and Christian interpretation given the sheer volume of attention the text has received (more medieval sermons on this text than any other biblical text!) is simply a fact. That you don’t consider it worthy of consideration is your opinion, to which you are entitled. Claiming that it is not worthy of consideration because it has been “controversial” and disputed in Jewish and Christian history is an opinion which is not based on any resemblance to reality.
Comment by TT — July 1, 2010 @ 12:29 pm
Man, this is like a bloggernacle version of Behind the Music.
Comment by Steve Evans — July 1, 2010 @ 12:41 pm
Oh yeah, reading on in the original post, I realized that I already said of this back then and it didn’t make a dent. I guess I shouldn’t expect things to have changed.
http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2007/07/the-song-of-songs-and-divine-eros/#comment-4430
Comment by TT — July 1, 2010 @ 12:44 pm
TT, give it a rest. You say “I’ll give you a dollar if you can even find 5 unique references to it being disputed” and when I do, then you make the requirements more stringent and insist on “primary sources”. Thats like playing calvinball, making the rules up as you go so the other player cannot win. I gave you 5 unique sources that dispute it’s authenticity, according to your original challenge, and you reject them based upon a subsequently more restrictive set of rules. So, yes, you are right, nothing changes. You still owe me a buck, since I provided you with 5 unique references.
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — July 1, 2010 @ 12:53 pm
If I chip in a buck, will you stop?
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — July 1, 2010 @ 1:04 pm
Kurt,
Once again, all that I did was ask you to back up your claim that “The text has always been controversial. Look into its history in being canonized.” This has nothing to do with the “authenticity” of the text (whose changing the rules now?) but with asking you to back up your completely crazy assertion with real evidence. That you don’t know what counts as evidence for historical claims like that ones that you make up is hardly my fault. Then, when I do explain to you what “evidence” is, you pretend as if I have invented some impossible-to-know definition of how to go about substantiating an argument about the history of the interpretation and acceptance of a text.
There is certainly someone that is “full of such ignorance and arrogance in such a splendid combination” (176), but I don’t think it is the Bloggernacle.
Comment by TT — July 1, 2010 @ 1:09 pm
Ardis, you’d be better off sending that buck to annegb.
Comment by MCQ — July 1, 2010 @ 1:16 pm
Ardis,
I really will give him a dollar if he can meet the challenge. To incentivize it even more, I will still give him the dollar if he admits that he can’t do it. That way, he only doesn’t get the dollar if he continues to deny reality.
Comment by TT — July 1, 2010 @ 1:17 pm
MCQ, the dollar was going to come out of annegb’s $10. The other $9 was going to go for a new whip for her to continue to beat that dead horse — but it looks like you might need to borrow that whip first.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — July 1, 2010 @ 1:23 pm
The Sci-Fi Channel is GUILTY of having DESTROYED Battlestar Galactica. Ronald Moore is a vile miscreant whose CRIMES will not be unremembered. The VILE reconstruction of this series should END his sorry CAREER. I will not be SILENCED!
Comment by Languatron — July 1, 2010 @ 1:23 pm
Ha, no nothing to do with me, Ardis, just trying to mediate.
Comment by MCQ — July 1, 2010 @ 1:38 pm
No, TT, how is it that you would reject the Misha Yadayim as clear historical evidence of controversy over canonicity, when it clearly does precisely that? It documents a major dispute. If it were not for R. Akiva at that moment, the Song of Songs would have dropped out of the canon. So how is that ignorance and arrogance on my part? I present clear and incontrovertible evidence and you ignore it, calling me crazy, ignorant and arrogant. Thats crap, TT.
Here is a quote from myjewishlearning.com
The view Akiva forwarded was not held by the others at the time of the debate, later, because of his persuasion, they adopted his position. In other words, the historical evidence is the text was controversial and there were significant number of Rabbis who rejected it as Scripture. How is this ignorance on my part, where have I failed to provide the demanded evidence, TT? I havent.
OK, so I havent put up 5 sources that satisfy your demands, I have put up only one that meets your requirements. How does that make my assertion crazy and lacking real evidence? Sorry, TT, there is real, solid historical evidence that Rabbi’s way back in the Second Century thought the Song of Solomon was not Scripture. No ignorance or arrogance here. If you dont like my modern sources, fine. But your accusations against my person are baseless.
Ardis, sorry, I didnt realize you had a gun to your head, being forced to read every comment.
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — July 1, 2010 @ 1:49 pm
MCQ,
LOL!
Comment by a random John — July 1, 2010 @ 2:11 pm
Kurt,
how is it that you would reject the Misha Yadayim as clear historical evidence of controversy over canonicity
I didn’t reject it. I repeatedly gave you credit for it. What I suggested is that the M. Yad 3:5 is not about canonicity, but about relative holiness, a debate among a relatively small set of Rabbis whose 2nd century influence in the wider realm of Judaism is highly suspect. Further, the text suggests that the overwhelming majority decision was not only that SoS was sacred, but that it was the most sacred text (which, as I have said before, is precisely the point that I was making that SoS has enjoyed extremely high prestige in the history of Christianity and Judaism).
So, you have one source that suggests that a few Rabbis debated about the relative sacredness of SoS. That’s great! You still have a long way to go to substantiate that the text has “ALWAYS been controversial.” Any evidence from the 1800 years between Akiva and Joseph Smith that this text was considered suspect?
I’ll also repeat what I said in the previous thread. Let’s say that you’re right. Let’s say that you can provide 5 sources, or even more. What is the logic of your position? That since some Christians and Jews have doubted it should be considered scripture that we must therefore ignore it? What about other disputed texts like James or Revelation that have received much more skepticism in the history of Christianity? Further, even if you prove that some Christians and Jews disgregarded SoS, my point that most Christians and Jews considered it to be the most important text doesn’t change. I’m not making a universal claim that must be instantiated at all times and all places, like you. So, even if you win the bet, it doesn’t do much for your argument at all that we should ignore the SoS.
Comment by TT — July 1, 2010 @ 2:12 pm
Snarkimus, clearly you do not have an adequate picture of the front desk staff at the Church History Library.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — July 1, 2010 @ 2:28 pm
Whenever I see the people use the Word of God as a starting point for strife and contention, it makes me want to smash them (the scriptures, I mean).
TT & Kurt, what God teaches in the scriptures is that we must either show unconditional love or suffer Eternal torment. Therefore, stop arguing or be damned.
Comment by DKL — July 1, 2010 @ 2:35 pm
The irony…
Comment by Dan — July 1, 2010 @ 2:46 pm
I have no idea what the hell is going on here, but when I see the likes of TT, Ardis E.P., DKL, Snarkimus Prime, et alii popping up on the recent comment column on the Mo-Archipelago, I have to take a look-see! I feel like a hyena scenting carrion. More blood-letting, please! I just love a series of posts about regrets for things said in the past which sets off a new line of discussion to be regretted in the future.
Comment by oudenos — July 1, 2010 @ 2:54 pm
Hey, everybody, there’s oudenos! Dogpile!!
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — July 1, 2010 @ 3:11 pm
Ardis,
A hyena pile! A hyena heap!
Comment by oudenos — July 1, 2010 @ 3:32 pm
oudenos, I regret having offended you by my unimaginative imagery. I am certain that when enough time has passed for Scott to do a retrospective of this thread, you, too, will regret having taken offense. We can then discuss the situation, apologize, blame DKL, and become best friends.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — July 1, 2010 @ 3:41 pm
Or, we can skip right to the part where we blame DKL.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — July 1, 2010 @ 3:42 pm
Weird, man. Just weird.
Comment by Greg Call — July 1, 2010 @ 4:03 pm
Wow, a Greg Call sighting!
Comment by Kaimi — July 1, 2010 @ 4:24 pm
Not one to be easily deterred, I marched right over to Smith’s house to tell him just how I felt. And who was there with him, you ask? Jerald and Sandra, that’s who. They were having fondue, I tell you. Fondue!
Comment by Lou — July 1, 2010 @ 4:30 pm
I’m just checking to see if my email archive of the T&S backlist has any market value yet. You didn’t help my cause by blabbing, Kaimi.
Comment by Greg Call — July 1, 2010 @ 5:47 pm
TT, first off, thanks for dropping your obscenely condescending tone, its just a bore. With respect to the point at hand, R. Akiva ben Yosef was no mean Rabbi (he is largely considered to be one of the principal founders of Rabbinical Judaism, right up there with Gamaliel, Akiva’s halakic exegesis formed the foundation of the Mishnah, he is no small-time sideline rabbi, he is a major player calling the shots), and for him to weigh in on the argument and sway the others to his point of view in an argument over whether the text was Scripture or not means that had he not done that it would not be in the present canon. He is known to have been actively involved in the canonicity debates and argued against some of the Apocrypha and Ecclesiaticus and in favor of SofS and Esther. In other words, this was no small handful of rabbis, it was the main Jewish leaders of the time calling the shots in what ultimately determined what our canon of Hebrew texts is today. This was not an argument over degrees of inspiration in the text, it was an argument over inclusion in the canon, and Akiva was the one who persuaded all the others to keep it in. The history is clear on that. If he had not championed it, it would not be in the canon today.
As far as the history of SofS, its pretty clear that everyone, and I mean everyone sees it as allegorical gobbledygook. Nobody, but nobody reads it literally, because its pagan trash that alludes to Artemis, and taken literally it is void of anything prophetic or even remotely inspirational. How is that a persuasive position to argue from? It gets quoted a lot by a bunch of people who take it entirely out of context and read it not for what it is, but for what it may elude to. Sorry, not impressive. You have a couple of thousand years of tradition that the text is, in and of itself, of no intrinsic value. Its only value is when you take it out of context and liken it to the metaphorical relationship between the Lord and Israel. Wow. I am bowled over by the power of that argument.
Congratulations, TT, I have provided 5 unique sources that all say the SofS is SOS (Sorry, JA Benson, cannot spell that one out for you, since this is a Mormon blog), but only one is old enough for you to consider it a “primary source”. You can keep your dollar to buy yourself a book about R. Akiva and read up on him.
Ardis, if I ever get my dollar out of TT, I will put it down as the foundational dollar for the “Buy Ardis a Kevlar Helmet Fund” so you can exercise your free agency at work.
DKL, I need to repent and follow your example of humility and contrition.
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — July 1, 2010 @ 10:22 pm
Kurt–I’d still be happy to blog with you, I just don’t want to contribute to your stress level (as perceived by me). I am well aware I don’t really know you.
Comment by ESO — July 1, 2010 @ 10:42 pm
Kurt: DKL, I need to repent and follow your example of humility and contrition
I dare you to even try!
Comment by DKL — July 2, 2010 @ 2:05 am
Kurt,
You have provided one real example where the relative authority of SoS is contested. This is not unimportant, but it is far less evidence that you think it is of a widespread suspicion of SoS.
I think that your assessment of the broad influence of the tannaim in Judaism across the Greco-Roman and Persian world is extremely over inflated. These figures were certainly influential with each other, as obviously saw themselves as extremely important, but their contemporaneous influence beyond their immediate sphere was quite small, even non-existent. No doubt they would become immensely important by the 4th-6th century as Rabbinic Judaism increasingly edged out other forms of Judaism, but it is only pious imagination that attributes this broad authority to them in the 2nd c. This rabbinocentrism has fallen out of favor with all but a few Israeli scholars invested in a particular kind of Zionist nation identity in which these Jewish sages occupied “the land” in a utopian period similar to the biblical age. Seth Schwartz from the Jewish Theological Seminar writes that “most Jews of the rabbinic period practiced a profoundly Hellenized, mystical, platonic version of Judaism that received its literary formulation in the works of Philo of Alexandria” (Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 BCE to 640 CE, p7).
As for the value of the SoS, whether or not it is gobbledygook, pagan trash, void of anything remotely inspirational, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. This opinion cannot be logically derived from the supposedly contested history of SoS in Jewish and Christian tradition, however. If your literalist hermeneutics force you to read the text through the lens of modernity alone, I fear that your ability to take any of the scriptures seriously is in grave jeopardy. The literalist hermeneutics of historical criticism have been unkind to the authority of more than the SoS, I’m sorry to say. Hence the occasion for the original post, “Are we stuck with the literalist hermeneutics of modernity, or does the allegorical method have some value?” Like you I am highly skeptical of allegorical readings, particularly those that aren’t self aware of the arbitrary nature. Unlike you, I’m not sure that historical positivism is an interpretative cure-all. Further, regardless of what we might consider the “real” meaning of SoS, I’m not sure that it means that we should simply ignore the spiritual insights that have come from a close reading of that text in Jewish and Christian history. I get that you think little of those traditions, which I think is too bad, but I’d at least like to explore what they have to say.
Comment by TT — July 2, 2010 @ 9:12 am
This whole thread is made of awesome, but I think my favorite part is where Kurt complains about TT’s “obscenely condescending tone.”
Comment by Kaimi — July 2, 2010 @ 1:03 pm
TT, you make my point when state Rabbinic Judaism edge all the others out. Thats the only thing that matters. These are the people that determined the canon of the Hebrew Bible we presently have, what happened contemporaneously to them among their Hellenized brothers is irrelevant, because they dont exist anymore. The point is that if it werent for R. Akiva, SoS very likely wouldnt be in our present day canon.
I see studying SoS as a complete waste of time. I have better things to do than wade through salacious crap, no matter how long the tradition. There are so many traditions to ignore, this is just another one. Its like youre telling me there is value in reading ancient Greek pr0n because the tradition is so rich and meaningful. Yuk.
Kaimi, my favorite part is you beating the Languatron dead horse again.
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — July 2, 2010 @ 10:55 pm
” Its like youre telling me there is value in reading ancient Greek pr0n because the tradition is so rich and meaningful. Yuk.”
I do not see why Aristophanes has to be dragged into this fight.
We all know that TT, like Socrates, is just trying to get us all to commit incest.
Comment by Chris H. — July 3, 2010 @ 12:17 am
I read that FPR thread two years ago, and in reading this thread here I’m surprised that SP/Kurt hasn’t since improved his argument.
Comment by RG — July 3, 2010 @ 7:52 am
RG,
I agree completely.
Kurt,
The point is that if it werent for R. Akiva, SoS very likely wouldnt be in our present day canon
This is such an unbelievably huge overstatement Kurt. For hundreds of years before R. Akiva, Jews had been reading it. For at least a century Christians had been reading as part of their canon as well. It was part of the LXX and was found among the DSS, showing that it had huge circulation and authority among Jews of all different kinds. It had been circulating widely as “canonical” long before R. Akiva, and was considered authoritative by people who’d never heard of him. Now, there was this little sect of “Rabbis” who were having their own internal conversations and practicing a strange form of Judaism that was quite different from how other Jews around the empire understood their religion. Some of them may have questioned the relative authority of this text for reasons that we don’t know. If one of them had said that it wasn’t authoritative, I doubt any other Jews would have seriously listened.
Further, I think you are taking the historicity of this episode a little too seriously. These are staged debates, not historical transcripts of actual events. Besides, the entire rhetorical force of the passage is to put beyond doubt that the SoS is a sacred book. There is no reason to believe from this passage that the SoS hung in the balance at all, or that the opposition to it was anything more than an extremely minority view.
Now, you pose an interesting counterfactual. What if the Yavnean Rabbis had decided that it wasn’t canonical? Would other Jews have accepted this decision once Rabbinical Judaism started to become more normative in the 4th-6th c.? It is of course impossible to say, yet I would suggest that had the Rabbis put forth a canon that was different from what the rest of Jews took as sacred, it might have impacted their ability to become authoritative. But these are all counterfactuals. Would Christians have abandoned the SoS because Rabbinical Jews had done so in the 2nd c? Even as a counterfactual, this answer is almost definitely no.
Kurt, if you think studying the SoS is a huge waste of time, why is it that you choose to waste so much time arguing about why you shouldn’t study it? The time issue can be said as an argument against pretty much anything since it is always a case that there is something “better” that one can be doing at any given moment. Perhaps we can find a better criteria for what is important, like, texts that have had a huge impact on the direction of Jewis and Christian thought? That is not the only criteria for choosing how to spend one’s time reading, but it has one that I have found useful.
I’m personally sad to see that you consider one of the most important texts in Western civilization just another text to ignore, but ignorance is bliss as they say, so I’m happy for you in that respect.
Comment by TT — July 3, 2010 @ 9:35 am
RG,
Improve the argument? Why bother? There is nothing to improve on. The text, in an of itself, has no intrinsic value. Value has to be imposed upon it by the imagination of the reader. Thousands of years of “scholarship” have produced nothing useful in this text to suggest it is anything but trite fiction with considerable pagan influence that must be read acontextually in order to come to significance to the Judeo-Christian mind. What has changed with respect to the study of this text? Nothing. How is common sense to be improved? It cannot.
TT,
The text being available at Qumran and elsewhere doesnt make it it part of the canon. There are plenty of apocryphal and Qumran texts that are non-canonical. Circulating widely as canonical long before Akiva? Absolutely not the case, otherwise there would have been no argument. Huge impact on Jewish and Christian thought? What rubbish! The Jewish and Christian thought has to be imposed on the SoS from genuine prophetic sources. There is nothing in the J-C tradition that has its origin solely from this text. If the SoS didnt ever exist, there isnt anything that would be missing from the J-C tradition.
Why do I bother to argue? Because people like you lead others astray with your smooth words.
I personally find it absurd educated people are so willing to suspend common sense for tradition. Thousands of years of consistently mistaken tradition serves no other purpose than being a cautionary tale of hubris. R. Akiva made a mistake, the rabbis who argued against him were right.
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — July 6, 2010 @ 8:01 am
Kurt,
I’m not invested in this, but in my opinion the problem isn’t so much with your conclusion; it’s in how you substantiate your conclusion. The Song, in your view, isn’t worth reading. Why? Because it’s marginally canonical in terms of the history of the Bible/Judaism/Christianity. Well… that argument has been obliterated. Everyone I know who has seen the FPR thread as well as this one (which granted isn’t a lot of people) recognizes you’ve lost that battle. Stop arguing for your conclusion on these grounds. In your response to me you bring up another point–in order to give the text meaning one must read it acontextually. This might be another way to argue your point, but you would have to prove why acontextual readings cannot be meaningful.
Comment by RG — July 6, 2010 @ 10:30 am
RG,
I havent re-read the FPR thread, dont plan on it, but I recall arguing against the SoS based on its content and the subjectivity of the reading of that content. I believe BiV proffered some reading on the carrying of the king’s palanquin that had nothing to do at all with the carrying of the king’s palanquin. If people can make up any reading at all, and it be totally unrelated to the text, then what is the point of even reading the text? Just go make something up. I believe I also pointed out that TT was highly selective in whether he chose to use either a literal or figurative POV depending on whatever agenda he was trying to forward, which he has/had a habit of doing. Perhaps I spanned a number of threads there at FPR. The point was the text was intrinsically worthless and people’s readings were meaningless because they were just making stuff up that had nothing to do with the text. And, TT’s approach was inconsistent.
TT challenged me to provide evidence the text’s canonicity is controversial, which I originally asserted, insisting that I could not provide five unique sources. I provided five. He insisted they be primary source. I provided one very clear case of that showing that way back in the day the proto-rabbis argued over the text being Scripture or not. Since then, TT has tried to say its not what it looks like. Bull.
I am not saying acontextual readings cannot be meaningful, I am not interested in another tangent. I am saying the Song of Solomon is a case of putting lipstick on a pig. It is obviously a pig. Nobody disputes its a pig. People putting lipstick on that pig for thousands of years doesnt make it not a pig.
How about an appeal to common sense? Seriously. Everyone’s approach to this text is absolutely and completely different than any other canonical text. It is different because you cannot read it for what it actually literally says and have it mean anything substantive in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Only when imposing some totally subjective, completely unrelated reading to it does something magically come out of it which was not previously there. That is nonsense. You can engage in the same exercise with any other non-Biblical text as well. So how is SoS any different from those? There is no substantive difference. Make it up as you go. If I went and read Psalms and then came up with a reading that had nothing to do with the text, wouldnt you call foul on that? Yup, in a heartbeat, TT would be all over me. But, hey, its SoS, so suspend all good judgment and common sense and go hog wild with slapping more lipstick on that pig.
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — July 6, 2010 @ 1:00 pm
Kurt,
I’m still not sure that you read the post at FPR in the first place because you have consistently misunderstood what I was interested in and what I have suggested is the value of SoS. When I have attempted to clarify it for you, you have seen it as me being “highly selective” (that’s supposed to be cheap shot, right?) in what readings I consider valuable and “inconsistent” since your imagination about what I am saying has never matched up with the reality. What has for me been one of the most unfortunate aspects of our communications has always been that you have taken your disagreements with me as evidence that I have a serious character flaw.
First of all, I too repeatedly expressed skepticism about allegorical readings of the text. I have serious problems when these are done without self-awareness. Though I strongly disagree with your hyperbolic characterization of the SoS as “pornography,” “poop,” or any of the other absurd things that you have said about what is otherwise a very straight forward love poem, you and I have never disagreed about what is likely the original context of the work.
What we have disagreed about is whether or not the original context is determinitive of meaning, and whether or not the tradition of interpretation of SoS is valuable. What I think you have never really understood about what I have been saying is that in spite of what the origins of the SoS may be, the history of Judaism and Christianity is not completely full of dolts who cannot read and who have none of Kurt’s self-admired “common sense,” but rather full of careful and creative thinkers who saw something in this text in spite of the “common sense” reading.
To be more specific, because of the SoS, Judiasm and Christianity have a long tradition of thinking about the relatinoship between the erotic and the divine. My insight was something like: “hey, our tradition has a lot to say about the relationship between the erotic and the divine too! What can we learn from the SoS TRADITION (not just the “original context”) that theorizes and theologizes about the erotic and the divine to help us think through some of the key issues?” This is the question that I posed. Your attacks of the SoS are wholly irrelevant to this issue and demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what is at stake.
I am not saying acontextual readings cannot be meaningful
Well, that’s good, but seriously, you could have fooled me, especially since your following sentence suggests that in fact you believe the original context to be the only valid meaning for SoS. If not, then it turns our we do agree after all. Because, I was going to say that your insistence that the SoS has no meaning other than what the “original” meaning was is an exteremly problematic position to hold. As much as you may abhor allegorical readings, the problem is that we are stuck with them. Paul explicitly treats the story of Abraham allegorically in ways that are completely “acontextual.” Another example is the story of Moses raising the serpent. In neither case could one seriously believe that these stories original meant what later Christians said they meant. Yet, your position about the SoS would force us to conclude that the canonical allegorical interpretations of Paul and John (not to mention essentially every use of the OT in the NT texts) are simply rubbish. Since I am in fact a pious believer, I reject this kind of positivism that you have tried to enforce not because I am putting “lipstick on a pig,” but because I believe that there is something of value in the tradition and that great minds, like R. Akiva, and pretty much everyone else, have thought worth taking seriously. You do not, and for that I am sad.
On a final note, I am pleased to have a competent referee in in RG so that I can stop arguing about the supposed challenges to the canonicity issue. You have raised a single example, which I have conceded. I have never said that the text was never challenged ever, only that you have vastly exaggerated the history of this challenge. I have attempted to contextualize that single example for what it was, a minority position among some otherwise obscure Jews in the 2nd c. who happen to become important three hundred years later, while you have attempted to maximize its significance with, what’s that called, oh yeah, bull.
On FPR, I have always given you the last word, not only out of a mixture of courtesy and frustration, but also so that you would have every change not to damn yourself with your own words. I extend the same to you now. Adieu.
Comment by TT — July 7, 2010 @ 1:30 pm
Kurt,
There is nothing in the J-C tradition that has its origin solely from this text. If the SoS didnt ever exist, there isnt anything that would be missing from the J-C tradition.
Sorry, one last thing since I didn’t see this comment before I wrote my previous one. In a way, I have addressed this time and again, but I just want to once more address this counterfactual. It is, of course, quite the assertion that the most important text in Judaism and Christianity for hundreds of years, called the “Holy of Holies” in the Mishnah, having more sermons on it in the medieval period than any other, has had zero impact on the Jewish Christian tradition. Of course, one could post that counterfactual about any canonical text (Mark? 2 Thess? Titus? Obidiah? D&C 5?). I suppose that I have one more reason to be thankful that you are not in change of determining the canon of Western history since you obviously determine what is important based on what you understand the gospel to be. While my ‘smooth words” may lead people to take seriously a tradition about the erotic and the divine which in many ways parallels our own, at least they won’t be lead to believe the kind of ridiculous things you say, like the statement above.
Since, as far as I know, the entire tradition of the erotic-divine relationship that not only informs mysticism, trinitarianism, monasticism, and lest we forget, the quotations from the SoS in the D&C(!), I find such a counterfactual to be wholly without warrant. Furthermore, since your objection to the value of the SoS has been that it introduces the erotic into the sacred, how is it that now you claim that nothing would change if it weren’t there? Is there someplace other than the SoS (and the revelations of JS) where you see this contribution being made that we can look to?
Comment by TT — July 7, 2010 @ 2:04 pm
This entire retrospective series seems a bit like VH1 looking all the way back to 2005 — remember how it was back then? Who would have thought that such navel-gazing would re-open a feud so deep as to conjure R. Akiva of blessed memory? Classic.
And, lest I be counted out of the dogpile:
(221) There is nothing to improve on. The text, in an of itself, has no intrinsic value. Value has to be imposed upon it by the imagination of the reader.
Kurt, all value is imposed on all text by the imagination of the reader. Isaiah 7 in Matthew, anyone?
Comment by jupiterschild — July 7, 2010 @ 10:58 pm
TT, I have never considered our disagreements to be evidence of your character flaws. I have considered your behavior to be evidence of your character flaws. I recall you posting once there on FPR on how you hated obnoxious bullies, dont recall the exact worksing you used, on the Bloggernacle, and when people, myself included, pointed out to you that you are one of them, you shrank and said you had some introspection to do. I also consider your persistent interest in prurient Scripture-related topics to be odd. I seem to recall getting into an argument with you some years back about whether or not Paul was against homosexuality, and you insisted he wasnt, and I insisted he was. You took you usual tact, the same you have employed here, until someone, I believe it was HP/John C, stepped in and silenced you. I have to wonder at your motivation when you take such an impassioned position and are so vehement about such esoteric subjects like these.
I completely reject the erotic-divine tradition, which owes its existence to SoS, as nothing but trash. The fact that you cannot do this sort of thing from any Scriptural resource doesnt show its intrinsic value, it shows how set apart from the Scriptures it really is. The imagery within the Scriptures for the relationship of the Lord to Israel is that of faithful husband. Whenever the Scriptures present prurient imagery it is always in a negative context of literal adultery or figuratively used as imagery representing idolatry by infidelity to Him. If you want to take that as a springboard to run amok, then SoS is your jumping off point. If you want to smear more lipstick on that pig, knock yourself out.
My original assertion was the SoS was always controversial, and I have presented clear evidence, both ancient and modern, to support that claim. It is clear at the time the Khetuvim were being canonized there was a debate over whether SoS was to be included, and Akiba is accredited with saving the text. From that point on the debate ended, and it was included. Thank you Akiba. If he hadnt done that, I believe it probably would have dropped out of the canon, just like all the rest of the other non-canonical material that was included in the Septuagint, of which there was quite a bit. Perhaps it would have ended up in the Apocrypha, perhaps not. If you or RG dont want to agree with my conclusions, I really couldnt care less.
You are heaping so much into this argument it is obvious that for you it is a matter of who is right and not what is right. If I damn myself by rejecting SoS and your self-promoting sophistry, then I find myself in good company.
jupiterschild,
If smallaxe comes too, the reunion will be complete. You people do this so predictably, it just boring. Comparing Matthew’s use of Isaiah, a blatantly and explicitly messianic text, to the wacky readings BiV was forwarding on SoS, which TT extolled, is just loopy and presents you as little more than a troll.
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — July 8, 2010 @ 10:52 am
I said I’d give you the last word, and I will remain completely silent on all other issues, but you raise a new, unsubstantiated claim about our past as evidence of my “prurient interests.”
I seem to recall getting into an argument with you some years back about whether or not Paul was against homosexuality, and you insisted he wasnt, and I insisted he was. You took you usual tact, the same you have employed here, until someone, I believe it was HP/John C, stepped in and silenced you.
I believe you are referring to a post by LXXLuthor, who says “Kurt is right” about homosexuality being condemned in the Bible. But, by comment 9, he agrees with me. http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2007/06/can-someone-help-me-understand/
Comment by TT — July 8, 2010 @ 11:09 am
You go on at length in both threads saying that OT prohibitions of homosexuality arent relevant to us today, and NT prohibitions of homosexuality arent really prohibitions at all, because, well, they are too culturally different from our modern times, all the while ignoring Jesus’ NT blanket rejection of any and all sexual immorality. How is that not evidence of your prurient interests? Whether he agrees with you or not by comment 9 is irrelevant (as an aside, I dont see him agreeing with you in the sense that he has changed his position away from agreeing with me, that I am right when “Paul hates it and explicitly condemns it “) to whether your interests are prurient or not. They obviously are. I believe you also got snarked a few times on TrashCalls for other prurient posts there at FPR, but the site is locked down now, so I cannot check it.
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — July 8, 2010 @ 12:35 pm
Arj: “I also have a hard time buying the mother hen protecting “community” argument when T&S was constantly showing disdain for community both in terms of other blogs (notable exception? M*) and commenters on their own blog. Later this has evolved into disdain for their own bloggers!” I completely agree.
Criticizing T & C is sort of like criticizing the church, there’s an element of fear, like what’ll they do to you? “They” being a relative term since I don’t even know who blogs there anymore.
Comment by annegb — July 8, 2010 @ 12:38 pm
Ardis:
I always thought you were going to be a perma-blogger and dumped us because a better offer came along. Lost respect for you there. I never heard that “helping a new blog get started” or “basically I’m a saint who gets made fun of for blogging at MM” story. Well, I’ve heard the “basically I’m. a saint and you suck story.” Not to start another fight where you have your say, stick out your lower lip and cover you ears to my response. But still. Not buying this.
Comment by annegb — July 8, 2010 @ 1:01 pm
“prurient interests,” “little more than a troll,” “dogpile”
Y’all rang?
It was if these these three phrases combined to summon my presence from across the webiverse.
More prurience, please!
Comment by oudenos — July 8, 2010 @ 1:05 pm
annegb, DKL was the one who invited me to blog and with whom I dealt, not you. If he cares to speak up and tell the true, great. If not, bite me.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — July 8, 2010 @ 1:13 pm
Kaimi., are you responsible for the examples you cite of Times and Season’s inclusive attitude? I never got that I’m better than you vibe from you and I’ve appreciated your participation on our blog. But you’re the exception rather than the rule. The criticisms of Times and Seasons have been so consistent that surely you must acknowledge some validity. Mcq has a point. There’s a look down one’s nose attitude to the perma-bloggers there. I’ve certainly experienced it, being the vulgar uneducated tactless interloper that I was from day one.
Comment by annegb — July 8, 2010 @ 1:18 pm
Back at ya–”she who must not be named, but always praised”
Comment by annegb — July 8, 2010 @ 1:22 pm
Ardis,
Behaving like me…can get you in trouble. That said…fight on.
Comment by Chris H. — July 8, 2010 @ 1:23 pm
I miss the snarker, Kurt. It’s important that we not take ourselves too seriously. Because we–or more whatever is another word for important or seriously so I’m not repetitive—innocents who stumble in here—might live our lives based on what is said in the Bloggernacle. And while much is said that I learn and grow from, at the end of the day, we’re all supremely flawed human beings, after all. Or we wouldn’t have the time or inclination to spend all this time blogging.
Comment by annegb — July 8, 2010 @ 1:34 pm
You’re chiding *me,* Chris? But it’s fine with you that an ignorant old woman calls me a liar?
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — July 8, 2010 @ 1:37 pm
I never called that dried up old maid a liar. I said I never heard that story. Semantics, really, I suppose.
Comment by annegb — July 8, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
Hi all,
I have no interest as serving as referee or taking the time to go back to read the FPR thread. This thread is too long and off topic as it already is; but I did want to point out:
1) The historical argument against the Song is bad. This isn’t about “agreement”; it’s about the rules of reason. All that can be proven is that one rabbi and his community were skeptical about including it in the canon. Even if this was a pivotal moment for the inclusion of the text, it doesn’t mean that the text was marginalized for most of Christian/Jewish history.
2) Anyone employing the term “erotic”, which I understand is being used in a technical sense, will be hard pressed to win over LDSs. The term just has too many pejorative connotations in everyday parlance.
Comment by RG — July 8, 2010 @ 1:47 pm
Sounds like you need to find an AA meeting quick, annegb. Try not to kill anybody else on your way there.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — July 8, 2010 @ 1:52 pm
Ardis,
No,no,no. I meant to be encouraging you. Being like me is a good thing but comes with risks. Hence,,,the “fight on” part. I would jump in that fight, but I do not know what is going on. That said…a perma spot at T&S would be a “better offer.” While that was not your reason for going there, it would be legit in my book.
Comment by Chris H. — July 8, 2010 @ 2:05 pm
That does, you mean hag, I’m coming over to your house (after drinking a bottle of good wine for courage) and tearing your bloomers off the clotheline and letting my dogs play with them.
Although….if I apologize and blame everything on DKL, can we be best friends? Or will I still be just another body buried in your basement while you eat your boiled beef supper with your mother?
Comment by annegb — July 8, 2010 @ 2:20 pm
Chris, take note that this is a thread on the Banner of Heaven. Personas in comments may not reflect real life. I mean, so far annegb hasn’t made a single ugly racist remark about Hispanics so you know her remarks are not an accurate representation of the darkness of her tortured soul.
annegb, I’m an orphan. How kind of you to remind me of that fact. As for best friends, I’m sure you already have a toilet bowl full.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — July 8, 2010 @ 2:27 pm
Yes, it is I, who yet again in the “darkness of my tortured soul” has managed to bring out the best in our orphan heroine, the lovely and wistful Ardis, who except for the necessity of her perfect example to the rest of God’s children, would have been translated long ago. (Twisting my long black mustache and snickering my evil snicker) Woe is you.
Comment by annegb — July 8, 2010 @ 2:56 pm
We have reached the point where annegb has endorsed my exalted role in the world while admitting her own nothingness. My job is done, and as far as I’m concerned our early afternoon tea party has ended. annegb, of course, being oblivious to social cues, may choose to continue talking to herself. Pay no mind, folks. I know I won’t.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — July 8, 2010 @ 3:17 pm
Nor will I. I’m done paying me mind. Ardis, your head is just too easy, to play with. God is getting me as we speak. Until tomorrow, my love.
Comment by annegb — July 8, 2010 @ 3:28 pm
This may be the worst thread ever.
Comment by Tom — July 8, 2010 @ 4:26 pm
Don’t take any of it seriously, Tom — it’s just performance art in the spirit of BoH.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — July 8, 2010 @ 4:54 pm
Still . . .
Comment by Tom — July 8, 2010 @ 4:59 pm
You people do this so predictably, it just boring. Comparing Matthew’s use of Isaiah, a blatantly and explicitly messianic text,
Find me 5 occurrences of the term “Messiah” in Isaiah, and I’ll give you a dollar!*
to the wacky readings BiV was forwarding on SoS, which TT extolled, is just loopy and presents you as little more than a troll.
A gnome, maybe? Or perhaps a boring if harmless troll, prone to long-winded digressions into scriptural arcanities? Tell me Kurt, WHO AM I?
*Occurrences must be in the primary Isaiah text, not the secondary McConkie material.
Comment by jupiterschild — July 8, 2010 @ 5:03 pm
Having met jupiterschild (I am one of the few people to call him that in real life), I would say that he is more an elf. Not a Keeblers elf, but an Orlando Bloom in LOTR elf. Though with a beard and a red hat, maybe the gnome idea could work.
Comment by Chris H. — July 8, 2010 @ 5:43 pm
A red sun rises. Blood has been spilt this night.
Comment by jupiterschild — July 8, 2010 @ 10:29 pm
RG (240), that one rabbi is not some no-name. He is R. Akiva ben Joseph, a pivotal character in the development of the Mishnah as we know it today. He is pivotal in the acceptance of the SoS as “not what Kurt insists it is” which position was clearly prevailing among the other rabbis of his group at the time, until he persuaded them otherwise. His group was not the only group of Jews, but it was the group of Jews that ultimately became Judaism as we know it today. He is the one who ended the controversy in Judaism over this text. How is that not an important event in the history of the SoS?
I never said “the text was marginalized for most of Christian/Jewish history”. This is a distortion of my position. I said the text has always been controversial, and it has. In both ancient and modern settings people reject its inspiration.
jupiterschild,
I don’t want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — July 9, 2010 @ 8:04 am
Snarkimus Prime,
I really don’t want to get dragged into this, but take a look at your last comment. You have never proven that the text has “always been controversial”. You’ve proven that at one moment, within a small community, the text was controversial. This is the very problem I was trying to point out as far as your argument is concerned.
My sense is that you’re too invested in arguing with TT to see why this argument is bad, which is why I was hoping that if an uninterested party chimed in it would help. Now I fear that I’m being dragged into it too…. My apologies, I should have kept quiet.
Comment by RG — July 9, 2010 @ 11:12 am
Could we get T-shits printed with this message? I’d like to send them to a few people on this thread.
Comment by MCQ — July 9, 2010 @ 12:37 pm
RG,
You are correct that I have not proven that ever since the text gained any kind of notoriety at all that it has constantly been steeped in controversy. But, that requirement is kind of absurd. If that were the standard, then nothing could be considered “controversial.”
If you want to nitpick me over my use of “always”, then that is a boring semantic argument. What would you prefer, that it was “anciently and modernly controversial, but in the Middle Ages both Jewish and Christian mystics largely had fun wildly speculating over its meaning?” I am fine with that. I have never argued the text was unpopular. What phraseology would you propose? If Akiva had not favored the text, it seems likely, or at the very least possible, the SoS would not be in our Bible today. Will you at least admit that?
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — July 9, 2010 @ 12:38 pm
Your argument has always been poorly phrased.
Comment by RG — July 9, 2010 @ 9:56 pm
I think me and Ardis’ fight is more interesting than all this Song of Solomon biblical history philosophy debate that appears to be linked to homosexuality.
Oh and for the record, I, too, am an orphan. I could be considered a princess in some circles if I had Ardis’ golden butt delusion. But because I’m incredibly humble and reluctant to make other people feel uncomfortable in the face of my greatness and glory, I refrain from pointing out my nobility.
This is the difference between Ardis and me: if she needed a kidney, although I feel she’s reeking of hubris and a childish need to have better toys than the skinny girls, I would give it to her. She wouldn’t take it. Now my liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti……..
Me, I wouldn’t take anybody’s kidney. I’d be shouting my hillels.
May the fleas of a thousand camels infest the hairy armpits of women who make a commitment to a blog and leave for the most stuck up (although I sincerely love a lot of the bloggers who now or used to blog there, sort of like others and feel rejected by the vast majority–it’s the blog that should be the official blog of the church)blog in the bloggernacle.
I heard that Joseph Smith said Song of Solomon was worthless and I agree. But I feel that way about most of the Psalms, too. I read about David celebrating the Lord in praise and think “if you only knew you were so screwed when you wrote that.”
Comment by annegb — July 11, 2010 @ 9:36 pm
I misremembered. It was Matt Bowman I chiefly dealt with in arranging to blog with Mormon Mentality; DKL helped me with a lot of technical details when I was completely unfamiliar with the software.
It may be too much to hope for that annegb should ever let anything drop, even when she is as much in the wrong as she is proven to be by the documentation below, but we can all hope. This is my last word on this, and to her. Some relevant emails from my archives:
Subject: Re: Blogging
Date: 9/30/2006
To: matthewbbowman@….com
Matt —
I remember meeting you — it’s nice to hear from you again.
I’ve delayed answering because I was kind of in limbo with another blogging invitation and wasn’t sure whether I would be available or not. They’ve all finally made up their minds. I’m going to be a guest blogger for the next little while, first with one blog and then with a second. with a tentative plan to go permanent with one of them a little later.
Because of that, I can’t accept your offer for a large commitment with Mormon Mentality, although I am flattered that you noticed my comments and invited me to join. If it would suit your style, though, and be useful in helping get things up and running, I would be happy to have you consider an occasional piece, probably historical, once or twice a month. Would that be of any use?
Thanks, Matt, for considering me. I’m very new to the blogs and still feeling my way around.
Best —
Ardis
Dear Ardis:
We have met before, I think, at MHA in Casper. I’m Matt Bowman, a grad student in US history at Georgetown. I’m involved with a new group blog, Mormon Mentality. You can see what it looks like here: http://beta.mormonmentality.org/. As you can see, there’s several Bloggernacle regulars already on board – annegb, john f., DKL, etc. We’ve all admired your regular comments in the ‘nacle (as well as your work in the Trib and at MHA) and would be thrilled if you’d consider signing onto Mormon Mentality as a permablogger. We unfortunately can’t offer health or dental benefits, but if your column isn’t already providing you enough space to write about Mormonism, we can certainly offer that.
We’d be delighted to have you. Let me know what you think.
-Matt
>>>>>
Subject: My plans
Date: 10/22/2006
To: permabloggers@….org
Everybody —
Full disclosure: I’ve been invited to join T&S permanently, and have accepted. There won’t be any announcement of that for a while at least, in order not to hurt the feelings of other recent guests who haven’t been invited to join. Please don’t mention it on either blog — I’ll just be drifting along, continuing to post there until people forget I’m new.
If you’re willing, I’d like to remain connected with MM by posting only an occasional historical essay as I originally told Matthew would likely be the extent of my MM participation. Such pieces would probably be written when I want to be a little snarkier than T&S likes. If my being over there is a problem for any of you, though, I’ll certainly understand if you prefer to drop me. Either way, MM’s plans and ambitions remain completely confidential.
If you want to talk about it behind my back, that’s fine — just drop me from the email list for a little while.
Ardis
>>>
Subject: Re: [mm permabloggers] My plans
Date: 10/25/2006
To: matthewbbowman@….com
Matt, I completely understand, which is why I told you about it as soon as it happened, rather than waiting until it eventually was announced or assumed. Good luck.
Ardis
Hi, Ardis – It appears as though the general will of the board is that it would be best for us to sever ties, given your status as another board’s permablogger. Slightly territorial, I suppose, but that’s the way these things seem to go. In any case, I want to express gratitude for the things you did with MM, wish you luck with T&S, and let you know that we hope to see you around the blog in the future.
Thanks again -
Matt
>>>
Subject: Re: things and such
Date: 10/25/2006
To: dlandrith@l…t.com
Thanks, Dave. I completely understand MM’s decision, although I was a little disappointed. D’you know, within a couple of days of hanging around the bloggernacle, I recognized that your comments could have the bite that might easily drive me away, but the opposite happened. You responded positively to a comment of mine and I decided blogging might be worth the risk after all. And because you understand the technology, you probably won’t appreciate how much of a difficult thing I learned from working through your behind-the-scenes instructions on MM. Thank you!
Ardis
>>>>>
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — July 11, 2010 @ 10:52 pm
Ardis,
I’ve looked up the original MM emails. It seems that neither of us is remembering well.
Matt Bowman invited you. You immediately mentioned guest blogging at two other blogs with a tentative invitation to perma blog at one of them. But you accepted, offering to write once or twice a month.
That happened sept 28-30 of 2006. Then oct 22 you emailed the list with the news that you had accepted an invite from t&s, and mentioned that you would like to continue to post at MM with the frequency that you had originally committed to.
I don’t have a record of a response to your email. I feel very badly about that. I do not know if Matt or DKL responded and made arrangements with you.
I will also note that while looking through emails I saw several pleasant and supportive exchanges between you and annegb. I am saddened by this most recent flare up above and the others that I’ve witnessed. Maybe both of you could go back and browse those early emails and the budding friendship and commonality in them. While this feud is occasionally entertaining to those of us watching I for one wouldn’t miss it if it were put to rest.
Comment by a random John — July 11, 2010 @ 11:09 pm
Ardis,
I type much too slowly on my phone! Those are the emails I was talking about and you have an even more complete record than I do. Thanks for posting the complete exchange.
Comment by a random John — July 11, 2010 @ 11:14 pm
I don’t remember ever hearing about the other offers when Ardis came on. I’d never heard of her but I did enjoy her posts. My bad feelings stem chiefly from ugly emails she sent me regarding an issue I won’t bring up since I promised her I’d drop it. She chewed me out then put her hands over her ears and yelled (in essence)”La-La-La-La-La” loudly.
Ardis doesn’t have friends, she has yes men who completely worship her and agree with her. And flatter her, I guess, as evidenced by her deciding David wasn’t so bad after all when he gave an “positive” response. The only person allowed to “bite” on the bloggernacle is her. Ardis is right. I’m a junkyard dog. It’s official, and there are people high up in the federal government who agree with her. But I believe my feelings about Ardis Parshall are just good common sense. And just for you, ARJ, I’m shutting up.
Comment by annegb — July 11, 2010 @ 11:27 pm
Thanks, arJ.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — July 12, 2010 @ 12:09 am
Don’t push your luck, Ardis.
Comment by annegb — July 12, 2010 @ 12:41 am
RG,
Forgive me for not always taking TT, FPR or the Bloggernackles seriously when discussing the erotic-divine. Next time I will run my arguments passed you for editing, to make sure they are poorly phrased, so as to give you the opportunity to whine about semantics without ever addressing the point at hand.
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — July 12, 2010 @ 6:20 am
I think this is one of the most hilarious threads ever. In a really dysfunctional, crazy-people Seinfield way.
Comment by annegb — July 12, 2010 @ 9:36 am
Are Kurt and TT gay? I had no idea.
Comment by MCQ — July 12, 2010 @ 1:29 pm
arlene,
No, Seinfeld people’s dysfunctional lives were actually fun to watch. This here was painful.
Comment by Dan — July 12, 2010 @ 9:23 pm
I don’t know either of them but their argument seemed to be, in part, about whether Paul said homosexuality was wrong. Maybe that was a sub-argument.
Dan, the situations portrayed on Seinfield or Everybody Loves Raymond weren’t half as funny when they actually happened. Ray Romano said so and I believe it. Although I think everything’s funny, pretty much, especially in retrospect.
Did you read the whole thing?
Comment by annegb — July 12, 2010 @ 9:48 pm
“No, Seinfeld people’s dysfunctional lives were actually fun to watch. This here was painful.”
Isn’t that what made Seinfeld funny…their painful postmodern existence.
Either way, this was awesome.
Comment by Chris H. — July 12, 2010 @ 10:13 pm
Well Scott, you’ll probably never see this comment, it’s so far after the fact, but “best intro ever” is accurate. Every Zeitcast from this point on has become that much bigger a production. Loved listening to Steve as well.
Comment by Martin — July 15, 2010 @ 4:03 pm
MCQ,
Will you be delivering them to doorsteps in a flaming paper bag?
Martin (272),
Thanks. I believe I probably screwed the podcast over permanently, because I doubt I can top that intro-outro combination.
Comment by Scott B. — July 17, 2010 @ 3:33 pm
Chupacabra!
View more news videos at: http://www.nbcdfw.com/video.
Comment by Justin — July 23, 2010 @ 8:31 am
Take two:
Chupacabra!
Comment by Justin — July 23, 2010 @ 8:35 am