BCC Zeitcast 53: The BoH Meltdown
Note: This podcast episode was intended to be the second part (as you’ll notice in the introduction), but after recording with Rusty and Geoff J, I decided that it actually fit better as the third episode.
From: [Person] <[Person@email].com>
Date: Thursday, October 27, 2005
Subject: [Person] wants to talk to you using Google Talk
To: Jennifer Mailer <jenn.mailer@gmail.com>Jenn/Steve…. I grew infurated at the fakeness of your blog, called
you out, and you wrote me personal email full of lies. I thought about
being nice, but it comes down to this: You’re an asshole.I hope you lose your position in the bloggernacle completely.
It has been the custom up to this point to discuss certain elements of the BoH scandal first by looking at various posts, and then listening to the nitty-gritty details in recorded interviews. However, when considering the epic explosion that took place after the BoH blog was exposed as a fraud, the “text” in question becomes a bit unwieldy. While there are several posts (linked below) which were targeted at the controversy, the truth is, you cannot get a grasp of what was actually taking place without reading the comments from dozens of individuals on multiple posts throughout the bloggernacle.
Thus, while two posts at Times & Seasons–one from Nate Oman and one from Julie Smith–attracted the most attention and debate, the posts alone do not capture the emotion and anger that was spilling out because the comment threads really took on a life of their own. I hope that this interview with Geoff J helps shed some light on this subject, as he explains his odd role in the controversy–that of accomplice, accuser, defender, enemy, and friend.
Background Reading:
Required Reading:
- Nate Oman’s “Blogging and Lying“
Imagine that you and a couple of friends started a group blog — called it Heaven’s Banner — in which you all pretended to be fictional people having really bizarre conversations (OK, so perhaps this wouldn’t take too much pretending). You and your friends work to create a semblance of warped verisimilitude, and then watch the show. Here is an interesting question: Are you liars?
- Julie Smith’s “After the Fall“
I no longer trust those who either wrote for BoH or were aware of it but said nothing or were aware of it but lied about it. “But Julie,” you might say, “you must forgive them. They apologized. A few feel terribly about it.” And I respond, “I have forgiven them. But forgiveness and trust are two different things.” To use an overly-dramatic example, a mother might forgive a person who molests her child, but would be an idiot to allow that person to babysit. She doesn’t and shouldn’t trust him. Similarly, I no longer trust those of you who were in any way involved in the BoH fraud. This saddens me, because some of you I consider(ed?) friends.
- Steve Evan’s “My List of Personal Failures, Annotated“
2005 (age 33): After angering some and disappointing many, I decide to stop blogging on BCC. I fail to realize how much I will miss my friends. I miss the blog I helped to found. I read it every day, looking for familiar faces and old rivalries (Lyle! Dan Peterson! Ed Enochs!). I email my BCC mates behind the scenes, trying to stay in the loop despite taking myself out of the loop. I am afraid to return to blogging, but I miss my friends.
Supplemental Reading:
- Ned Flander’s “Ultimate Banner of Heaven Thread“
I think what bothers me most is that my sense of community has been violated. By Common Consent, Kulturblog, and Banner of Heaven were some of my favorite places to hang out. I was looking forward to meeting my fellow bloggers at Steve Evans’ Thanksgiving party. Suddenly, I don’t feel like doing any of these things, Steve’s half-hearted apologies aside. I’m the idiot because I actually thought I had a connection with these people.
I’m very pleased to announce the birth of the Mormon Archipelago. I imagine that you are asking yourself, “What in the heck is that?” In order to continually add value to your blogging experience, a group of high quality blogs have joined forces in a Commonwealth, as it were. If you want to shop at Wal-Mart or Target, that is fine (I enjoy it myself on ocassion), but sometimes you need something more intimate and refined.
- Geoff J’s “Please Pray for My Boy“
We found our sweet three year old son Quinn face down in the pool this afternoon. He is alive and stable now but there remains a very real risk of brain damage. You bloggernacle citizens are righteous people — I can tell. We are praying for a full recovery for Quinn. Can you please help? Prayer is a form of work but my family can’t do all this work alone.
——————
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.)
This answered some lingering questions for me; thanks. The out-of-nowhere appearance of BoH and its unknown permas would, I’d like to think, have tipped me off that something was wrong, but if MA was still so new it’s easier to understand BoH’s appearance more as a discovery than a suspiciously sudden creation.
I’ve always understood how its exposure would have upset people. I couldn’t read Geoff’s post about his son’s drowning just now without tears rolling down my cheeks. If I had trusted BoH to be real, and invested my trust and faith in some BoH story the way I did in Geoff’s post, and then not only found that BoH was fake but been made to wonder how many other posts on other blogs might be fake, it would have been devastating to me. It’s hard for me to understand readers or bloggers who think of the ‘nacle as just a bunch of strangers whose stories don’t matter — I can understand, perhaps, reading posts as analogous to reading newspaper articles, but I can’t imagine why anyone would read, much less take part in, the discussions following a post, if the other commenters were just strangers whose reality didn’t matter.
Anyway, I’m glad I wasn’t around in the days of BoH. I do wish I had better understood BoH and its aftermath while I was still blogging at T&S, though; that would have explained a lot of undercurrents still running in 2006.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — June 23, 2010 @ 7:24 pm
Amen, Ardis. I was around, but still a fledgling, so I read it all with a kind of detatched interest. This was a great cast, Scott. Nice job.
Comment by Tracy M — June 23, 2010 @ 7:28 pm
Steve you stopped posting at BCC? Wow. I’m not sure what it says about me that I thought you still posted there. Next you’ll be saying you don’t post at Kulturblog anymore.
Comment by Clark — June 23, 2010 @ 7:33 pm
Clark,
Steve stopped posting at BCC in November 2005 and returned in the spring of 2006.
Comment by Scott B. — June 23, 2010 @ 7:43 pm
Ardis–what you said about the still-existing undercurrents when you were at T&S is one of the points I have been trying to make with all of this: the BoH blog is still influencing things now, 5 years later.
Comment by Scott B. — June 23, 2010 @ 7:46 pm
Terrific editing job Scott. If people only know ho much you wisely left on the cutting room floor…
Just as a clarification on your links. Stapley’s announcement that you linked to was the original MA idea. That idea was for some solo Mormon blogs to somehow band together and link to each other in a co-op of sorts. The idea of the portal was separate from the original vision that Ronan had for the MA co-op and it was hashed out in our email list in Jan and Feb of that year. We actually launched the MA portal around the start of March 2005. See my post announcing the portal here.
Comment by Geoff J — June 23, 2010 @ 7:54 pm
T&S was the sun. Is it now a small star?
So, even cool people leave blogging and then come back. Good to know.
Comment by Chris H. — June 23, 2010 @ 7:56 pm
While I am not sure what to make of BofH, or whether I care, MA is where I hang out, so this aspect of blogging history interests me. Thanks Scott.
Comment by Chris H. — June 23, 2010 @ 7:59 pm
Glad Steve came back.
Geoff,
How often do you still get requests to join the MA? How has that process changed?
Comment by Chris H. — June 23, 2010 @ 8:01 pm
Commenting as I listen: I still feel that BCC is the popular/cool kids. As a nerd, I experience my blogging interactions very differently. Sometimes it is great fun, other times it reminds me of middle school hell.
Comment by Chris H. — June 23, 2010 @ 8:09 pm
Geoff,
I actually knew that you had an announcement post at NCT, but in my laziness I could not find it quickly. Thanks for the link now.
Comment by Scott B. — June 23, 2010 @ 8:18 pm
Chris,
I assure you that I am not cool. Of course, I assume that I got in by accident in any case.
Comment by John C. — June 23, 2010 @ 8:18 pm
Excellent music choice once again. Geoff makes the most coherent case I have heard for those that were hurt by BoH, and I think it was fitting that you ended with his statement. In the end, it may be that the hurt that was experienced by some is the most important thing to remember about this experiment.
Comment by MCQ — June 23, 2010 @ 8:30 pm
Speak for yourself Crawford. My mother emphasized to me multiple times as a child that I was cool.
Comment by Scott B. — June 23, 2010 @ 8:44 pm
Ardis–I started reading around the bloggernaccle about 6 months before MA debuted. I started at T&S because of a family connection and then branched out following people’s sidebar links. In that context, stumbling across BoH was not the least bit suspicious to me; after all, that is the same way I discovered BCC. There were and are loads of people who post and comment at BBC and not elsewhere, same with FMH (and T&S, of course–should I believe that Nate Oman does not exist because he does not comment widely?)–to find a unique community at BoH was not odd. Also, the IDEA that someone would construct a fake blog was not present as it is now, because of BoH. Without that history, I don’t think there would be much suspicion about new people–why would there be? I think we were all glad to find each other. I’m just saying: I am not so sure you would not have taken BoH in stride had you read it then.
Listening to this made me think about some people who were such a big part of the community then, and now aren’t, many at least in part because of the BoH blowout, I think. Bruce I, Ned, Rosalyndes’ participation was severely curbed, etc etc. And it is very true that Steve Evans is and was a huge force in the bloggernaccle.
I was hoping to find out who the mystery google talk was from, though.
Comment by ESO — June 23, 2010 @ 10:17 pm
John, I met you before you were cool. Thanks for remembering your old nerd friends.
Comment by Chris H. — June 23, 2010 @ 10:51 pm
Oh, Scott, your mom was right.
Comment by Chris H. — June 23, 2010 @ 10:54 pm
ESO,
I was not able to contact the mystery google talk email sender for permission, so I won’t reveal the name. If that changes, I will update the post.
Chris H,
Anyone who thinks that the BCC crowd is cool has not met enough of them, or has beer goggles on. Seriously–Biggest. Nerds. Ever. (Myself excluded, natch.)
Comment by Scott B. — June 23, 2010 @ 11:01 pm
ESO, I probably wouldn’t have caught on right away. I’d just like to *think* that I would have. Hindsight and ego and all that.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — June 23, 2010 @ 11:03 pm
Being the cool kids and being intrinsically cool are two very different things.
Comment by Chris H. — June 23, 2010 @ 11:18 pm
Being the cool kids in the nacle is like being the student body officers at the school for the retarded.
Yes. Yes you should.
Comment by MCQ — June 23, 2010 @ 11:36 pm
Geoff makes a strong case, and ultimately one that I found persuasive, hence my apology. I still believe that those who actually read BoH and followed it received the most harm, and those people are (for the most part) now entirely past it. I guess there is an argument that the mere presence of something like Banner changes the entire framework of the LDS blogging community, and so people will be generally less inclined to pray for someone’s kids or donate to charity or what have you.
You know, I am not much for feeling bad over theoretical harm.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 23, 2010 @ 11:54 pm
Chris, I’ve always thought of you as very “in-crowd”/cool-kid, but maybe that just means I’m a loser too. Also that I am constantly humbled by everyone at FPR, all of whom I regard as 100x more knowledgeable than myself about the scriptures, church history, etc. (if I weren’t so ignorant I might figure out that it’s closer to 1000x, but who’s counting)
Speaking of which, do you think you could get me Mogget’s autograph? (assuming she’s real)
Comment by sister blah 2 — June 24, 2010 @ 2:04 am
ESO, I can’t talk for the others, but I don’t think that the BoH incident really affected my participation in the Bloggernacle, except that it deprived me of Steve Evans posts to comment on. I was pretty upset at first, but Steve and Brian were extremely gracious in private emails and we patched things up rather quickly. It was also hard to justify my anger when I knew that had I been asked to be one of the cool kids, I wouldn’t have hesitated to say yes. (Now where’s that bucket of pig’s blood?)
The truth is that Steve really took an interest in new bloggers (like I was at the time) and was really encouraging. He added me to the BCC blogroll very early on and made me feel like part of the community even though my point-of-view was probably way too apostate for the rest of the bloggernacle. He helped mainstream me. I never did get that BCC guest blog stint I was always angling for, but Steve was really one of the people that made the bloggernacle seem like home (however temporarily it turned out to be).
It is also interesting the Geoff J mentions worrying about the “anti-missionary” effect of the Banner of Heaven. It’s true that listening to the podcast, I was mentally filling in my own thoughts about credulity being built into the Mormon experience, but I don’t think anyone was turned off the Mormon church by this incident. The hoax may have evoked unflattering parallels with Mormonism, but it was hardly the cause of anyone leaving.
Comment by NFlanders — June 24, 2010 @ 2:11 am
“It was also hard to justify my anger when I knew that had I been asked to be one of the cool kids, I wouldn’t have hesitated to say yes.”
I was also disappointed for a while that I wasn’t considered cool enough to join. (The more things change . . .)
In retrospect, I’m glad I wasn’t one of the BoH writer group. The six writers in the group were very effective at creating distinctive voices. It was a very good selection, and I wouldn’t have been a good fit.
Comment by Kaimi — June 24, 2010 @ 3:36 am
Ned–Fair enough. You know better than I why you have deprived us of your presence. I, for one, would LOVE to see you guest post at BCC, so I hope Steve gets around to it, you know, 5 years later.
Comment by ESO — June 24, 2010 @ 7:31 am
Ardis, what ESO wrote about new writers and sites popping up not being particularly suspicious was quite true, but you may have suspected Banner of Heaven all the same. The seams were showing from the beginning. (Earlier in this series, Brian Gibson and Steve Evans differed as to whether that was a good thing.) Looking at the Banner archive, I see that for the second post I commented on, a week after the thing started up, I felt the need to preface my remark, “This web site is coming to resemble a hoax, so I’ll play along.”
A lot is being said and written about the deception involved in drawing attention to Banner of Heaven, but not so much about any problems regarding the writing that deception was in service of. If it was all just a well-written joke, then in the end we’ve all had a good laugh, and we’re all fine, right? This comes out with the idea that only Banner readers had any standing to take exception to the project.
A big portion of the Banner project, though, was mockery of various sorts of writers and Latter-day Saints. As I wrote when the thing ended, “Thinking back to May and June, a reason I was initially interested in Banner was that it appeared to significantly broaden the demographics of those participating in the Mormon web logs. So many Saints work in trades and live in small towns, but not on the internet. Even when it had demonstrated itself a hoax, I hoped it was the work of people I’d never heard of because there’s a big Mormon world out there. It turns out though that the bloggernacle really is an insular ghetto for a relative handful of professionals who sit by computers most of the day.”
How funny that a blog writer would be a construction manager instead of a lawyer, or that a writer would live in a small Idaho town instead of an East Coast metropolis. How ridiculous for a woman in her mid-20s to give some priority to finding a husband, or for a Mormon to educate himself with books and tapes from Deseret Book. Such people do exist, we know from sad, too frequent experience, but if we mock them sufficiently, our own little domains will remain free of such. Geoff Johnston speaks of the Banner fallout turning into a question of Times and Seasons’s aloofness, and there is a connection there, but it is wider than that. Banner of Heaven also was the product of a different sort of aloofness found in bloggernacle mainstays like the Mormon Archipelago and By Common Consent.
Comment by John Mansfield — June 24, 2010 @ 9:39 am
“Speaking of which, do you think you could get me Mogget’s autograph? (assuming she’s real)”
sb2,
Sorry, Mogget, who is very real, does not do autographs (or blog posts) anymore.
I never said that we FPR folks were not wicked brilliant.
Comment by Chris H. — June 24, 2010 @ 10:30 am
John, that’s your characterization, but I don’t agree. Mockery was certainly part of the equation on some level, but mockery of mindsets and attitudes, not demographics or place in society. In my case, I never viewed (or portrayed, for that matter) Jenn’s search for a husband to be an object of mockery. I played up some comedic elements of the LDS singles scene, and certainly wasn’t charitable with some of Jenn’s attitudes on blessings, callings, etc., but that’s about it. Frankly your final paragraph just isn’t warranted by what was written at Banner.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 24, 2010 @ 10:33 am
What’s especially funny about Mansfield’s comment is that By Common COnsent now numbers among it permabloggers 1)a construction manager, and 2)a resident of Dugway, Utah.
Comment by Mark Brown — June 24, 2010 @ 10:49 am
Great podcast guys.
Comment by Jacob J — June 24, 2010 @ 11:38 am
Mark, that is funny. In my own defense, though, I’ll run off what I can remember of the professions of BCC’s 23 authors.
Aaron B.: lawyer. Brad Kramer: academic sociologist. Cynthia L.: unknown. J. Nelson-Seawright: academic sociologist. J. Stapley: entrepreneur chemist. John C.: academic of some sort. John Hamer: graphic artist (?). Karen H.: unknown. Kathryn Lynard Soper: writer and editor. Kevin Barney: lawyer. Kristine Haglund: editor. Mark Brown: unknown. M. Norbert Kilmer: teacher. Natalie B.: unknown. Rebecca J.: unknown. Ronan JH: antiquities scholar and teacher. Russell Arben Fox: academic teaching political science. Sam MB: historian. Scott B.: economist. Steve Evans: lawyer. Steven P.: academic biologist. Sunny Smart: unknown. Tracy M.: artist.
I expected the unknowns to be of the same pattern as the knowns. Why are you hiding your construction managers under a bushel? I guess it would seem too much like bragging.
Comment by John Mansfield — June 24, 2010 @ 12:06 pm
Scott,
Um, yeah, seeing that you’re digging this corpse from the grave…
Comment by Dan — June 24, 2010 @ 12:17 pm
John Mansfield,
Complaining about the demographics of people who participate in the bloggernacle seems odd to me. None of us can control who decides to start participating in the ‘nacle. These things just organically happen.
Comment by Geoff J — June 24, 2010 @ 12:28 pm
Let me be the first to point out that the demographics of BCC closely resemble the demographics of the quorum of the twelve and the quorums of seventy.
Comment by Mark Brown — June 24, 2010 @ 12:32 pm
Dan,
Heh. Actually, one of the reasons I’m digging it out of its grave is that it was not given a proper burial, and consequently still influences things, unbeknownst to all of the newbies like myself. I’m hoping to exercise the demons, so to speak.
Comment by Scott B. — June 24, 2010 @ 12:52 pm
what kind of fitness plan do you intend to give those demons? Don’t do Bally’s. It’s a three year contract you can’t get out of…
Comment by Dan — June 24, 2010 @ 1:09 pm
er, exorcise.
Comment by Scott B. — June 24, 2010 @ 1:24 pm
I agree with Mansfield that it is regrettable in some ways that there aren’t a wider range of mormon demographics represented in the nacle heavyweights. For example, international and especially non-English first language participants are a glaring hole.
But I also think it is a kind of Bensonesque reverse pride that says that farmers have qualitatively different faith journeys from big city lawyers. When I read steve’s jenn, I see someone who is exploring his own faith journey through a different voice. Rusty said “nobody in NYC is that naïve.” Well I think sometimes, in some ways, Steve was. Re-read his Coats of Skins post at BCC and see how he struggled with his poor fit in the city. Jenn struggled to come to terms with blessings and dreams denied, her goal of the perfect eternal mormon family with kids seemingly slipping away. Steve was at the time of BoH facing the same challenge albeit in different form.
Comment by sister blah 2 — June 24, 2010 @ 1:38 pm
Geoff J., there is a lot to what you say. Interest in writing or ability is not uniformly distributed. We may want to read from a broader world of writers, but the broader world doesn’t particularly feel inclined to indulge us. When Banner of Heaven ended, I didn’t think it had done much to create this situation, just highlight the way things are.
Looking back now, though, I think the Banner characters were like the crucified ape illusions in “Beneath the Planet of the Apes” that the Forbidden Zone mutants projected to keep the apes from encroaching their subway platforms. Yep, just like “Beneath the Planet of the Apes.” Has not Brian Gibson told us that he wanted to blow the whole thing up at the end?
Comment by John Mansfield — June 24, 2010 @ 1:54 pm
I hope you plan a separate post spelling out those influences you see BoH still exercising on the Bloggernacle, Scott. There are obviously insider jokes about “shelving” and “obeying Aaron,” of course, but I wonder what else you see.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — June 24, 2010 @ 1:55 pm
Ardis,
That is my intention, but it is certainly going to be my opinion of things, which may not be agreed upon by everyone, including those who were behind the BoH hoax. Regardless, it’s a difficult task because I believe the effects are not immediately apparent; they manifest themselves through relationships and treatment of different personalities and people in the bloggernacle.
I’ll do my best, though!
Comment by Scott B. — June 24, 2010 @ 2:14 pm
brilliant, Ardis.
Comment by Dan — June 24, 2010 @ 2:44 pm
How can BoH not have continuing influence over the nacle? It was a watershed event, whether you look at it positively or negatively. Even bringing it up in conversation is polarizing and controversial to this day. It’s our Gettysburg.
Comment by MCQ — June 24, 2010 @ 2:49 pm
John Mansfield,
I’m the person who lives in Dugway, FWIW. Also, I’ve gone from itinerant academic to itinerant librarian. Feel free to update my resume.
Comment by John C. — June 24, 2010 @ 2:52 pm
I admit to being confused about who BCC’s construction manager is. I thought I knew the profession of everyone, but evidently not.
Comment by Scott B. — June 24, 2010 @ 3:00 pm
ESO, Ned has already spoken for himself, and I can’t speak for Bryce I, but I think I can speak for Rosalynde. I’m 99% certain that her fall off in blogging is unrelated to Banner of Heaven.
Ardis, you admit the retrospective has shed new light on T&S circa 2006, so there’s been at least some historical value to Scott’s investigation already. Having said, that I’m anxious to see how he ties it all together.
Sister blah 2, I think you put a fascinating spin on Jenn’s story. I think there’s probably a little more autobiography in a lot of the stories than any of us would care to admit, or were even aware of.
Comment by Brian G. — June 24, 2010 @ 3:34 pm
Brian G,
So, this would imply that you were either re-baptized while still a member, or you were abducted by aliens, or both. Right? Spill it.
Comment by Scott B. — June 24, 2010 @ 3:41 pm
“The Shelver” became “The Construction Manager” after graduating from college.
Comment by MCQ — June 24, 2010 @ 3:41 pm
ESO (and others), I am utterly baffled by all of this talk about Rosalynde not blogging. She is one of the very few people at T&S who still appears to be regularly blogging, and doesn’t appear to ever have taken more than a month or two off.
Comment by Scott B. — June 24, 2010 @ 3:44 pm
Brian G., I’ve always wondered if Sep’s background included membership in an LDS-sponsored fraternity at a large private university. You know, all those root beer chugging contests and all that cheating using fraternity stockpiles of past institute class exams could have sent Sep back to the back country.
Comment by Mike M. — June 24, 2010 @ 3:52 pm
Scott, Rosalynde was the one who contacted me in the summer or fall of 2006 and invited me to guest post at T&S, and then she promptly dropped out of sight. I think in the year and a half I was with T&S she posted twice (one of which was only a throwaway “what is the worst Halloween candy?”), and I don’t remember her posting more than once or twice a year, until very recently when she’s put up a few links to news stories. She almost never comments on anybody else’s posts, and certainly not at anybody else’s blog. I haven’t got any sense whatsoever of who she is as a person or a blogger — she’s a complete and total stranger to me, and I say that after supposedly having blogged with her for a year and a half. I know more about her from your BoH series than I do from reading anything she’s written.
I think that’s what people mean when they refer to her not blogging.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — June 24, 2010 @ 3:59 pm
Ardis,
I’m sorry, but the list of posts Rosalynde has written (linked above), completely disagrees with you. She has posted almost every month since the fall of 2005 through the present, and often more than once per month (including a post on the Wilford Woodruff manual the day after the Halloween candy post you mentioned). Very, very few of these were simple announcements, but a couple were. However, even among those, they were not often simple announcements, but actual coverage.
As far as her disappearing “personally”–like as a commenter or a person everyone could get to know–you may well be right. I don’t know about that at all.
Comment by Scott B. — June 24, 2010 @ 4:22 pm
Brian G., One more thing. Septimus is clearly a secret name given during an LDS-sponsored fraternity’s initiation ritual. “Sept” fpr September, the month classes start and initiations take place. “i” for I promise to obey the Law of the Pack, a promise held over from secret Cub Scout initiations of earlier years. And “mus” is short for must, i.e., for I must rememer to get married before graduating. The H in SeptimusH threw me, but I see now that was to throw those in the know off the track.
The important question now is what is your punishment for violating fraternity secrecy. I suggest you serve on a student ward’s activities committee for two years as penance. Nothing but setting up and taking down chairs for you.
Comment by Mike M. — June 24, 2010 @ 4:24 pm
Mike M., I think it was a vicious foozball game that drove Sep into seclusion. Or maybe a dance-shy economist.
Comment by Brian G. — June 24, 2010 @ 4:27 pm
Ardis, I think there’s no question Rosalynde isn’t as active a blogger as she once was. I just doubt Banner of Heaven is the reason.
I have enough to feel guilty about without having the disappearance of such a legendary blogger laid at my feet.
Comment by Brian G. — June 24, 2010 @ 4:33 pm
Brian G., Aren’t economists getting blamed for enough these days?
Comment by Mike M. — June 24, 2010 @ 4:37 pm
Scott B., I haven’t ever been abducted, or rebaptized, but I have drank a lot of cool-aid…and listened to a lot of Johnny Cash and Ramones…oh, and my grandpa’s name was Dale.
Comment by Brian G. — June 24, 2010 @ 4:41 pm
Okay, Scott, documentation disproves my memory, but I still have no sense of Rosalynde as a person — here I am, talking about her as if she were a ghost, because I really don’t know her or have any sense of anything she has written. She doesn’t interact with anybody. I don’t understand the “legendary” label because she has been invisible all the time I’ve been around.
And Brian, I have no reason to think that has anything to do with BoH.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — June 24, 2010 @ 5:17 pm
BTW, I don’t buy the cool kids picking on the nerds analogies. I just don’t.
First, of all, if you’re a Mormon blogger you are a nerd. Period. Are their cool nerds and nerd nerds? Maybe, but again, the facts: besides Steve, (and DKL who was far from popular) the rest of us were very unconnected and unknown to the bloggernacle. Look at the 9 Moons thread. Everyone was guessing that the writers were the “cool kids,” but it wasn’t true. A few of the “cool kids” were too cool for us. We tried.
If we’re going to make comparisons to high school social structures than I see BoH as more like The Breakfast Club. Steve was Emilio Estevez and DKL was Judd Nelson, of course, and T&S was the mean Principal Vernon.
Comment by Brian G. — June 24, 2010 @ 6:00 pm
“If we’re going to make comparisons to high school social structures than I see BoH as more like The Breakfast Club. Steve was Emilio Estevez and DKL was Judd Nelson, of course, and T&S was the mean Principal Vernon.”
Awesome.
I think it is more like middle school than high school.
Anyways, it is all perception…much like high school.
Comment by Chris H. — June 24, 2010 @ 6:12 pm
The conversation about cool kids, etc. is just plain boring. It’s got nothing to do with coolness or anything similar. It’s about a group of friends that have known each other and interacted with each other for years. Of course people coming into things will feel some sense of being an outsider. Guess what — get over it. That’s sort of how society works in virtually all sectors of life. If you feel like you’ve been rejected by the cool kids club, gosh I’m sorry but it’s not like all of us started school at the same time and we used to be best friends in elementary and then puberty hit and we pretended not to know who you were in the cafeteria line. No. It’s as simple as being a newcomer in any old situation. If things bother you this much in a meaningless internet circumstance, I shudder to think what a real-world sense of exclusion would do.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 24, 2010 @ 6:42 pm
” Guess what — get over it. ”
Over it.
Comment by Chris H. — June 24, 2010 @ 6:55 pm
Anyone who has ever met Steve Evans in real life will know that if you’re relying on him to welcome you into the cool kids club, you will wait a long time, because he doesn’t even know where the clubhouse is. (And I say this with deep affection, of course).
Comment by Kristine — June 24, 2010 @ 7:13 pm
It’s sort of like marriage and gays. This club is important enough that we’ll dedicate significant time to policing it’s boundaries, and we’ll only let in a particular insider subset.
But when called on it — hey, what club? We’re not insiders! We’re just a bunch of ordinary people who want to keep ourselves away from folks like you. And if there is a club, it must not be an important one. We insiders just said so!
Comment by Kaimi — June 24, 2010 @ 8:39 pm
Err, its, not it’s. I know that.
Comment by Kaimi — June 24, 2010 @ 8:46 pm
Fake-blogging isn’t controversial enough? Now we have to bring up gay marriage. What the Kaimi?!
Comment by Brian G. — June 24, 2010 @ 9:00 pm
Ardis–your impression of Rosalyndes ‘internet involvement is the same as mine.
Scott–while I was surprised at how much Rosalynde has posted recently, if you check 2007 and 2008, you will see that she did, in fact, become mighty scarce.
Brian G–no blame. I am sure Rosalynde would accept the repercussions of any of her actions. In this case, we are only suggesting that she found better things to do with her time than blogging, which is hardly something to be ashamed of.
My general impression is that the Frandsen sisters were personally dismayed at having been involved in an enterprise that might have caused some people pain. You can argue that BoH caused no one real harm, but if you know the Frandsens, you know that even that is not good enough for them. And I think the additional idea that she had entangled her little sister in it bothered Rosalynde. That said, I could be wrong. If either Rosalynde or Naomi would like to correct me, I’d be glad to believe them.
Comment by ESO — June 24, 2010 @ 10:07 pm
Well, I guess if we’re dragging random controversial topics into this thread, I’ll go ahead and point out that there is one big huge difference that Mark overlooks in his comment:
Comment by sister blah 2 — June 24, 2010 @ 10:09 pm
sb2,
It actually more closely represents the make up of the 12 and the Seventy in the Church I am starting. Well, actually, we do not yet have 12. Would you be interested.
Comment by Chris H. — June 24, 2010 @ 10:15 pm
LOL, SB2!
I realized my error as soon as I pressed enter and I’ve been waiting to see how long it would take somebody to mention it.
Here is the corrrect version:
Let me be the first to point out that the career breakdown o fTHE MEN at BCC closely resembles the career breakdown of the quorum of the twelve and the quorums of seventy.
Comment by Mark Brown — June 24, 2010 @ 10:17 pm
So, is SB2 an outlier because there are no computer science folks in the GA ranks?
Comment by Chris H. — June 24, 2010 @ 10:19 pm
Yes–as soon as there is a computer scientist in the 12, women will get the Priesthood. I’m pretty sure.
Comment by ESO — June 24, 2010 @ 10:22 pm
I liked it the first way better.
Comment by Tracy M — June 24, 2010 @ 10:25 pm
(I got the women part already)
If sb2 was added to the 12, I would reconsider my recent decision to stop watching conference.
Comment by Chris H. — June 24, 2010 @ 10:26 pm
Well, this all makes me quite sad. I knew that there would be some fighting during this series, but didn’t really expect it to be about this.
Sorry, all.
Comment by Scott B. — June 24, 2010 @ 10:32 pm
This is fighting?
Scott, I think this is a pretty normal discussion, and it’s one that has already been had a million different times. Don’t sweat it.
Comment by MCQ — June 24, 2010 @ 10:38 pm
What MCQ said. This is nothin’.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 24, 2010 @ 10:46 pm
Do you think if I were asked to speak in conference, that I would be required to wear makeup and nylons? I don’t do nylons. And I’m completely unskilled at applying makeup so it often ends up looking skankier than I had intended. Especially eye makeup. I’ve basically given up on eye makeup. So, I’d have to tell them that it’s either no makeup or skank makeup. I’m guessing they’ll go with no makeup. They could hire a professional to do my makeup, but not on Sunday. I guess that leaves Saturday conference as a possibility.
Comment by sister blah 2 — June 24, 2010 @ 11:37 pm
If they have security working on Sunday, I do not see why not makeup Professional (which they may already have for TV purposes).
Comment by Chris H. — June 24, 2010 @ 11:42 pm
You can get some good tips on eye make-up here, Cynthia.
Comment by Kaimi — June 25, 2010 @ 12:00 am
You mean, you intended some of the skankiness, but not all of it?
Comment by MCQ — June 25, 2010 @ 1:05 am
Haha, touché!
Comment by sister blah 2 — June 25, 2010 @ 1:12 am
What a bizarre comment in this circumstance. For a “boring” topic, there seems to be a fair amount of hostility here. No one was upset that you didn’t want to play X-Box and drink Capri Suns after school. You played an elaborate hoax on people! It was funny, but you seem to want to legislate ex post facto people’s reactions to it.
Get over it! It’s just the internet! We’re not friends in real life! This is the very attitude that was so grating at first, but is probably somewhat justified at this point (though it’s probably in bad taste to bring it up). Five years ago, I was against dragging you through the virtual town square and pelting you with tomatoes. I still am. But I think you may still bear the bruise of some of that rotten fruit.
Comment by NFlanders — June 25, 2010 @ 4:31 am
Steve,
I keep thinking you’re getting your own post or podcast to explain a bit, but there seems to be somewhat of a disconnect somewhere. You claim that this was no big deal and yet you gave yourself a one year (six-month?) ban from blogging as penance? So which is it? If you don’t/didn’t think it was that big of a deal why punish yourself in such a manner? It doesn’t seem to fit with what you’re saying here and elsewhere.
Comment by Tim J — June 25, 2010 @ 7:30 am
Tim, please show me where I say it was no big deal, and then I’ll address the disconnect.
Ned, my earlier comment speaks towards Chris’ particular BCC neurosis, and not the circumstances surrounding Banner. I don’t begrudge people for their hurt feelings if they felt deceived and hurt because of BoH — sorry for the confusion there.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 25, 2010 @ 10:25 am
Ned Flanders, Tim J, etc…
There is a lot more going on in this thread than just BoH. Let’s all relax and drink a Capri Sun, as Ned suggests.
Comment by Scott B. — June 25, 2010 @ 10:28 am
Tim J,
Steve’s turn at the microphone was recorded recently, and will be posted fairly soon. I think all involved will find it very interesting, informative, and (likely) different than expected.
Comment by Scott B. — June 25, 2010 @ 10:32 am
Fair enough. Just so you know, I never took offense by what happened and don’t really think it’s a big deal. I’ll just wait for the podcast.
Comment by Tim J — June 25, 2010 @ 10:39 am
More psychosis than neurosis becasue neurosis usually does not involve anti-social behavior..
Sorry for crashing the BofH party. I apologize for insulting or annoying anyone here or elsewhere.
Comment by Chris H. — June 25, 2010 @ 10:40 am
Does Steve cry in the next podcast? Because if not, I, personally, will not be satisfied.
Comment by Jacob J — June 25, 2010 @ 9:35 pm
Jacob J,
Of course he doesn’t cry. As I already told Tim J above, this will be DIFFERENT than most people expect. Making Steve cry uncle would just be par for the course.
Comment by Scott B. — June 25, 2010 @ 10:04 pm
Err, sorry. I misinterpreted Steve’s comment. If we do have Capri Suns, someone will have to insert the straw for me–it always comes out the back side when I do it.
Well, Jenn did say she was attracted to Eyring when he cried. Crying is not a sign of weakness in the BoHuniverse; it’s a sign of sexual prowess.
Comment by NFlanders — June 25, 2010 @ 10:30 pm
Then Steve will definitely not cry.
Comment by MCQ — June 26, 2010 @ 1:05 am
Amazingly enough, Steve quite literally claims to have extraordinary sexual prowess in the podcast.
I am not making that up.
Comment by Scott B. — June 26, 2010 @ 1:34 am
This makes me cry. Also, baby Jesus.
Comment by NFlanders — June 26, 2010 @ 1:58 am
I was going to wait to comment here until I’d had a chance to listen to the podcast, but this is a great thread. And I’m happy to play Judd Nelson to Steve’s Emilio Estevez.
Comment by DKL — June 26, 2010 @ 6:37 pm
I finally got to listen to the podcast. It was great. I had no idea that Geoff J knew from the start because of MA. Or at least I didn’t remember that detail.
I also went back and read Julie M Smith’s post at T&S and the comments. Five years later I stand by my comments. I would probably stand by the ones that Julie deleted as well if I could remember them.
I think that a lot of people only knew about BoH because of the T&S posts and that those posts were incredibly influential in shaping wider opinion of the scandal. The fact that they were written by people that were for the most part unfamiliar with the BoH community such as it was is unfortunate.
Comment by a random John — June 28, 2010 @ 1:34 pm