BoH: a random John 5 Years Later
Next we hear from a random John, one of the most prolific participants at Banner of Heaven and a permablogger at MormonMentality.org.
If you are reading this post and have not internalized the many meanings of this cartoon you are in danger. That is because you are on the internet without understanding something very basic about it and you’re certain to run into trouble. Stop reading now and go meditate on the truths contained in this simple drawing and don’t come back to the internet until you understand.
Now that the prerequisites are out of the way, a bit of context:
I played a small part in the Banner of Heaven saga. According to the sidebar widget that measured such things, I was the second most active commenter on the site after annegb. Perhaps that makes me a dupe. Unlike a lucky few I was not in on the secret, so my participation was not ploy, and once I became convinced that the blog wasn’t what it seemed to I did my best to reveal it as a fraud.
Looking back there were lots of hints. The blog sprang into existence fully formed in an entirely unnatural way. The normal pattern is for a person to begin by lurking on a few of the blogs, then cautiously comment a few times, and then perhaps find a few like minded folk with whom to start their own blog. Yet BoH simply happened one day, with only one or two of its participants ever having commented elsewhere. At the time I attributed this to some sort of disdain for the wider bloggernacle community rather than a conspiracy. Add to that the fact that the name was so inappropriate given the recent Krakauer book that they had to be ignorant fools to have chosen it. So I didn’t think much of the blog at first.
Then I started reading what was being posted. The blog had some things going for it that many other blogs seemed to lack. I’m not just talking about crazy people. There are lots of crazy Mormon bloggers. Here the crazies weren’t just discussing things in the abstract. Here we were reading at the intersection of real life challenges and the church. The stakes were unusually high. Additionally, the blog was interactive. On many of the big blogs I’d make comments or ask questions time and time again only to have them ignored. It was as if the bloggers were pontificating from on high and then leaving. My contribution wasn’t worthy of their attention even though I had taken the time to read what they had written and react. At BoH you were sure to get a response, and an engaging one at that.
I think these two characteristics of seemingly real challenges and interactivity are what made the blog as compelling as it was and also what caused a lot of the emotions as it came crashing down. I don’t think that the creators had any idea that these two factors together would cause people to open up the way they did. Commenters reading about situations similar to their own would open up and share their own experiences, knowing that someone would read and respond. They weren’t simply throwing their pain out into the void, hoping some high and mighty blogger would deign to respond.
This brings us to what I think is the crux of the matter when it comes to Banner of Heaven. Does the fact that the bloggers and their dilemmas were a fiction mean that their responses to people sharing real problems were also false? Was the joke on those of us who were duped? Were we played for fools?
I can only answer these questions by telling you my own experiences. Others will come to their own conclusions and have every right to them.
Since Banner of Heaven began I’ve sat down and met one on one with three of the permabloggers. I’ve received what I believe to be sincere apologies for incidents that I didn’t even think merited mentioning, and we’ve moved on and become friends. I don’t think they ever anticipated what a potent mix their little experiment would be. I don’t see how they could have given that the elements that made it potent had been essentially missing from the bloggernacle. Was it malicious? On that question I defer as usual to Hanlon’s razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Good has come of this. In one case a co-worker of mine came to me with a potentially difficult business problem and I was able to send him to one of the Banner of Heaven people, who solved it for him. In another case a member of my ward was looking for work in the same field as one of these much maligned bloggers. I arranged a meeting between the two and it resulted in my friend getting hired. Finally, just this year I lived up to my obligations to Miranda, buying her a Coke in a glass bottle from Liberty Heights Fresh, when she finally came down for a visit to Salt Lake City. And really, what is better than an cane sugar sweetened soft drink in a glass bottle?
Five years ago I wanted to bring BoH down not because I thought they were evil but because it was a mystery to be solved, and I wanted answers. Had I been wiser and understood better the dynamics of what was going on I might have taken a different route. Once the firestorm erupted I was offended not by those commenters that thought themselves victims but by those who hadn’t participated at all but sat on high pronouncing their harsh judgements of it all. This fanning of the flames was ill-informed, unnecessary, and produced much more heat than light. Those who hadn’t even participated shouting down some that had in fact been “duped” but disagreed with the fury was what was ugly in my mind.
So was the whole thing insincere? If you shared something personal on BoH was the response you got a hurtful fiction?
Again, on the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog. I’d be willing to extend this to other facets of life. In church, nobody knows you’re a dog. Look at the way we discuss things each week in our church meetings. With rare exceptions we’re all playing characters at church, acting within pretty limited parameters. There is a culture of superficiality at our meetings. We are there discussing what should be most vital but we do it in ways that are route and filtered. So if you share at church is the response you get insincere because it happens in a setting in which we’re all playing characters?
Who is ever their real self on the internet? We’re all playing characters to one degree or another. I can assure you that some of the most hated personalities of the bloggernacle are completely different people in person. Are they insincere when they’re jerks online? When they’re kind? Is a BoH character insincere when they respond with sympathy to a story they never asked you to tell?
______________________________________
Up next: An interview with Steve Evans
Thank you for the post, arJ. I have some comments on this post, but will wait until after the WC match ends…
Comment by Scott B. — June 26, 2010 @ 3:54 pm
who is real anyways? We all project in order to play a part on stage.
Comment by Dan — June 26, 2010 @ 4:32 pm
All the world’s indeed a stage,
And we are merely players,
performers and portrayers,
each another’s audience,
outside the guilded cage.
I think I like arj’s expressions as much or more than anyone else’s.
Comment by Eric Nielson — June 26, 2010 @ 4:53 pm
Agreed, Eric.
arJ,
This is an extremely well-written and thoughtful post. I think I actually regret posting this now, as it should have been the final word.
Comment by Scott B. — June 26, 2010 @ 5:20 pm
That’s an amazing post, John. You hit the nail on the head in several areas. Your cartoon is perfect, as is your corollary that at church nobody knows you’re a dog.
One great thing that came of Banner of Heaven is that I’ve grown to consider you a friend. And thanks for the cane-sweetened, glass-bottled Coke. Amazing!
Comment by DKL — June 26, 2010 @ 6:34 pm
“Hanlon’s razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”
This is worthy of being embroidered on a pillow.
I’m a bit surprised that I haven’t seen more posts in the bloggernacle exploring that culture of superficiality at church.
Comment by Mommie Dearest — June 26, 2010 @ 7:39 pm
I’m a bit surprised that I haven’t seen more posts in the bloggernacle exploring that culture of superficiality at church.
Is the “culture of superficiality” at church any greater than the “culture of superficiality” we display with acquaintances at work or at school or in the neighborhood? I doubt it. Part of being social creatures is learning how to filter ourselves in ways that specific situations dictate.
Comment by Geoff J — June 26, 2010 @ 9:08 pm
arj- I disagree. At church, everyone knows I’m a dog. And the delightful part of it all is that I know they are all dogs too. Now maybe I am naive, as I also generally like to think people are sincere on the interwebs as well, but the fact of the matter is while there are some “sneaky” people at church/at work/on the web, I don’t think we can say it’s ok just because everyone is doing it.
Also, when/if one pretends to not be a dog at church, one doesn’t pretend to be Septimus [Heap] or Jenn Mailer or Aaron Cox. If anything, I was glad when BOH was exposed because it was disturbing to think such members of the church existed. Much better that they are characters.
Comment by Matt W. — June 26, 2010 @ 10:23 pm
Geoff J: Is the “culture of superficiality” at church any greater than the “culture of superficiality” we display with acquaintances at work or at school or in the neighborhood? I doubt it. Part of being social creatures is learning how to filter ourselves in ways that specific situations dictate.
This is BS. Mormonism is a culture of conformity. The world expects folks to have some modicum of authenticity, which Mormons lack altogether. Mit “The Robot” Romney has all the weaknesses endemic to the superficiality of Mormon culture.
I can’t tell you how tired I am of hearing people apologize for the cult-like tendencies of Mormons by pretending that Mormons are just like everyone else. You’re smarter than that, Geoff.
Comment by DKL — June 26, 2010 @ 10:51 pm
Wow, ARJ, well done. Honestly, I’m blown away by the insight.
Comment by annegb — June 26, 2010 @ 10:56 pm
Pffft! Speak for yourself DKL. You may lack authenticity in your behavior in Mormon settings but I don’t. (Though I would be surprised if you really were egregiously unauthentic at church…)
Every culture has its own sets of expectations and people learn how to conform to those behavioral expectations if they want to thrive in that culture.
I will grant that Mormon cultural norms are more buttoned down than most modern subcultures though.
Comment by Geoff J — June 26, 2010 @ 11:23 pm
Geoff J, I’ll shoot you the talk I gave for Mothers Day, and you can tell me whether I’m egregiously authentic or inauthentic.
Comment by DKL — June 26, 2010 @ 11:45 pm
Are you saying it is ok that they were dogs because everyone is a dog, even in person?
I admit I don’t ask everyone in my ward to babysit or go into business with them, but when I go to church and hang out with these people, I assume they are being sincere.
To paraphrase When Harry Met Sally, “Are you saying I’m playing a character online and at church without my knowledge?”
Comment by jks — June 27, 2010 @ 1:03 am
jks,
I am reminded of the final summary that the critic in Ratatouille gives of Chef Gousteau’s line “Anyone can cook.” He said that it is not to suggest that anyone can be a great cook, but that a great cook can come from anywhere.
In this same way, I think the idea that rings true from me is not so much that everyone is a dog, but anyone could be a dog. Stretched to its extremes, it may result in cynicism toward our fellow ward members, coworkers, and neighbors, but while we certainly hope for and desire sincerity in our interactions, I think that it’s unrealistic to expect that everyone is treating us sincerely. As badly as I want to say that I’m sincere in all of my conversations and dealings with on Sundays, the fact is, I’m just not. I should be, but I’m not there yet.
Comment by Scott B. — June 27, 2010 @ 1:40 am
Shakespeare aside, I disagree with this, and I think it’s a crock.
Sure, there’s a fair amount of superficiality at church, but how could there not be, we’re there for a fairly short time.
I’m not playing any parts, here or at church, and most people i know aren’t either. I’ve met a fair amount of people from the nacle, and they’re pretty much how I knew they would be.
I think the BoH writers were sincere, in that they reacted sincerely to the situations they created and that their commenters created in the comments. We don’t need silly existential poses to justify what the writers of BoH were doing.
Comment by MCQ — June 27, 2010 @ 1:51 am
Other than that, however, I agree with most of what arJ says.
Comment by MCQ — June 27, 2010 @ 1:54 am
Not talking here about physical appearance, which is sometimes quite surprising. Kevin Barney, for example, is huge. No one that smart should be that big. He can kick your ass while quoting Ecclesiastes in Greek. It’s ridiculous.
Comment by MCQ — June 27, 2010 @ 1:58 am
I’m with MCQ- I’ve met a LOT of ‘nacle people in real life, and they’ve been unilaterally as I experienced them online. All been good. And, while everyone has their boundaries, I think I’m pretty much the same too. At this point, with five + years of writing, and my real name on my posts and comments, how could anyone keep up a charade? Cracks would appear in even the most carefully cultivated facade.
I don’t think Steve or DKL-or anyone involved for that matter- was writing from a point of pure fabrication. Steve is clearly not a young single woman looking to get married, but he was expressing facets of his own in writing about her. Ditto DKL, as he said in the podcast.
Regarding conformity: Yeah, it’s a problem as a population. Me make ourselves look like idiots when we proclaim we are just like anyone else. The emperor has no clothes. But I’m not sure how that applies to sincerity and authenticity over time on the blogs.
Comment by Tracy M — June 27, 2010 @ 2:07 am
I like Scotts 14. Any of us could be dogs online or in real life. That does not mean all of us are though.
I get flat-out confused and surprised by people all the time. Even people I think I know pretty well. I also wonder how many of us even know ourselves. I think we are all works in process.
I was just getting started on the nacle when the controversy came about. I didn’t know the background so I stayed out of it. But I usually assume that these online ‘characters’ I come across might be experimenting with points of view, or practicing debate tactics, or playing devil’s advocate.
The thing that I think made BoH different is that it was so personal in it’s content.
Comment by Eric Nielson — June 27, 2010 @ 6:42 am
It’s very true that anyone could be a dog. It’s true that w all have weaknesses that we try not to share in any public setting. School is a place of conformity-at least as much as church-we are even “helpfully” arranged with 29 other people our exact age to fit in better…and bells and whistles to help us know when to move, eat and think…and textbooks to tell us what to think…that doesn’t sound as different from church as it could..perhaps that is why the sacrament is the mot important part of our meeting…it’s quiet…we partake of the same expereince but what really happens internally is personal.
I frequently wonder how well I know anyone. We talk as a family on the way home from vacations or adventures and the experience each of us has had it so wildly different-we each perceive things through our own lenses and feelings. So much happens internally and mentally.
I do think the character we want to portray at church or think we should portray is telling about us as well…even on a date when we are on our best behavior…what is our concept of that behavior? What do we understand about the other person and society to think we should act like?
What we type or blog..we can censor and edit…but what do we leave? What we leave in is as telling as what we leave out.
Comment by britt k — June 27, 2010 @ 8:13 am
arJ is a class act.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 27, 2010 @ 1:00 pm
Well, I think I got an answer to why there aren’t more posts exploring issues of superficiality in Mormon culture–it pushes a lot of peoples buttons.
I feel a little bad for redirecting the focus from people commenting on the element of grace that is present in every paragraph of this post. ARJ shows us beautifully how people can be sincere even while being “inauthentic” and gets right to the heart of the matter at issue, which is the intent behind “inauthentic” behavior; is there malice in it…or not.
Comment by Mommie Dearest — June 27, 2010 @ 1:13 pm
Mommie Dearest: I think I got an answer to why there aren’t more posts exploring issues of superficiality in Mormon culture–it pushes a lot of peoples buttons
I think you still have it wrong.
It isn’t discussed because your central assumption is incorrect. Mormon culture is not superficial in any of the ways that matter. In fact our church relationships can often be among the deepest in our lives. When real emergencies or tragedies come up who is most likely to be there — classmates/work associates or ward members? Mourning with those that mourn and comforting those that stand in need of comfort is the opposite of having a superficial relationship. In the most dire times of my life it has always been ward members I could count on most (along with family).
Comment by Geoff J — June 27, 2010 @ 1:43 pm
Geoff J you are truly blessed.
Comment by Mommie Dearest — June 27, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
I’ll add the following about dogs and church. I live in what seems like a typical Wasatch Front ward. Fifty percent of the households in my neighborhood are active members. Within a four house radius of my home the following has happened in the past three years:
Two suicides.
A man molesting two boys.
An assault.
An arrest for dealing drugs.
I could go on and list more minor events. All perpetrators and victims were active members of my ward that I am on a first name basis with. In only one case did I have any inkling that there was a potential problem. If I were to extend my list to the whole ward it would grow even longer and include an attempted murder.
Here’s the thing, some of these people have brought us dinner when we’ve been in need of service and have supported others who have gone through great difficulty.
So yes, we’re all dogs to one degree or another and we’re all heroes at other times.
I stand by my assertion that in our public meetings at church there is generally a culture of superficiality. None of the events I mentioned above have been discussed in any way in public meetings. Maybe it is just me, but I find it very odd to be sitting in a meeting in which there are a bunch of people who’ve been directly affected by these events but they are never mentioned, even indirectly. We talk as if they’ve never occurred, giving the expected answers again and again, without examining whether the answers address the problems being faced.
So while I can see what Geoff J is saying, and have experienced that, I also think there is a flip side is real and merits discussion.
I appreciate all your responses and I’ll try to respond to individual comments tomorrow.
Comment by a random John — June 27, 2010 @ 11:12 pm
arJ, beautifully said.
Comment by Ben Pratt — June 27, 2010 @ 11:16 pm
arJ,
I never thought that famous cartoon necessarily meant we are all proverbial dogs. Rather I take it to mean you never know who you are talking to on the internet. On the anonymous internet people can pretend to be anything they want. Sure there is some pretending in real life too but it is harder to pull off for long. In real life our true colors usually shine through soon enough.
As for complaining about LDS meetings, that is a dead horse that we all love to beat. But complaining about our public meetings is different than claiming that there is a “culture of superficiality” in Mormonism in general. We are Mormon 168 hours per week and have all that time to not be superficial. The Sunday block on takes up 3 hours per week.
Comment by Geoff J — June 28, 2010 @ 12:00 am
I always read it the same as Geoff J- just that you never know who you’re talking to. It never occurred to me to read is as pejorative.
Comment by Tracy M — June 28, 2010 @ 12:23 am
I think that’s more than odd, arJ. I find it unacceptable and shameful. I have been in many wards in my life, many on the Wasatch front, and I cannot imagine those things happening without significant counseling and discussion between and among members of the ward and their leaders.
As an example, we had one death in the ward recently, and it was accidental, but it was the subject of several meetings both intentionally and unintentionally, because it just kept coming up and being discussed, including the way the family was dealing with the death. I don’t think difficult subjects should be swept under the rug at church and it’s my experience that usually they are not.
Comment by MCQ — June 28, 2010 @ 12:36 am
Geoff J, listening to Mormons insist that they’re not superficial is like listening to nerds insist that they’re not uncool. Mormonism attenuates its members’ proper sense of virtue in interpersonal relationships, which is why (in spite of clean living) it’s not difficult to view Mormons as generally immoral, as many Americans do.
Besides, when the chips are down, Mormons are only on your side when you haven’t done anything that could reflect poorly on your worthiness. If you ever published something that pissed off a GA and got you a church court, you’d be on your own. Shoot, I know people who are reluctant to tell the ward that they lost their job, for fear of the judgment that will follow — a double whammy: an inauthentic response to inauthenticity.
You’re right, if you have a birth or a death in the family, Mormons really shine.
I love the church and I love my fellow Mormons and the opportunities for service that my fellowship with them affords me. But that doesn’t make them perfect, any more than it makes me perfect.
Comment by DKL — June 28, 2010 @ 12:54 am
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that Mormons are perfect (come on, talk about a straw man) just that they’re no more inauthentic than anyone else.
I primarily object to this:
Mostly because I don’t know what it means, but partly because it seems to suggest a view of Mormons that I have never run into. Perhaps you have experience with people suggesting that Mormons are immoral, but I don’t. If I did, I doubt it would be for the nonsensical reason that you suggest.
I do know some members who have been through a church court. While they were abandoned by some, I have been impressed with the high number of those who rallied around them to help them return to the fold and to just be there for them. I know many who have lost jobs and received help as well. Those who refuse to tell their ward members about losing their job are probably not acting out of fear of judgment but rather out of being too proud to accept help.
Comment by MCQ — June 28, 2010 @ 4:11 am
Yes, DKL, all Mormons and Mormonism is superficial and cult-like, except you. You are genuine. Especially when pretending to be a young woman living in Idaho in your own private Punch and Judy show. Sorry, DKL, but your attacks on inauthentic people ring hollow in my ears when you yourself are obviously an ardent advocate of self-promoting fakery. I cannot help but read your comments here as a product of cognitive dissonance.
Giving some non-traditional talk on Mother’s Day doesnt make you authentic. What makes people authentic Mormons is when they actually do what Jesus taught, not talk trash over the pulpit, whether that trash be orthodox or iconoclastic. When it comes to actually walking the walk, I have a tough time believing you are any better than the people you castigate for being fakes.
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — June 28, 2010 @ 7:58 am
a random John has nicely captured what was best about Banner of Heaven. This series would have been missing something important without his words.
When Banner ended, I wrote something that received an angry response from DKL. A couple days later he apologized, even complimenting my comments, and I accepted the nice apology. In the meantime, though, I wondered whether I had received undeserved chastisement that I needed to shrug off, or had I been out of line with what I had written? I wanted a third-party opinion, so I wrote to a random John. Throughout its run, he had commented at Banner of Heaven with such good-humored enjoyment that his was an eye I thought could judge my comments fairly. His response didn’t directly address anything I had written, but more the general matter that passions were a little heated at the moment, it shouldn’t be taken too seriously, and it would all blow over.
Comment by John Mansfield — June 28, 2010 @ 7:59 am
Dan, Eric Nielsen, and Scott B.,
I appreciate your kind words. I wasn’t entirely happy about the way this post turned out. I thought I could have made it more cohesive and complete. Your compliments mean a lot.
Comment by a random John — June 28, 2010 @ 11:02 am
DKL,
I appreciate your friendship as well. One aspect of this whole thing that hasn’t been mentioned at all (perhaps because very few people know it) is that Mormon Mentality is in large part a by product of Banner of Heaven and involves many of the same players. Our goal in creating MM was to have the same level of interactivity and responsiveness as BoH without the fiction. I think we’ve done a pretty good job of that, thought keeping it up for years is harder than the months that BoH took.
Comment by a random John — June 28, 2010 @ 11:06 am
Mommie Dearest,
The best embroidered pillow I’ve ever seen was “Happiness is being married to your best friend.” This was in a home where the husband was throwing a party with his girlfriend while his wife was out of town. Given my prior comment I should mention that none of the people involved were LDS.
I’ve made passing mention of being filtered in Church meetings before. I don’t remember any posts exploring it in depth. I am a bit surprised that it has stirred up controversy here.
Comment by a random John — June 28, 2010 @ 11:14 am
Geoff J and DKL,
I’ll respond to both of you together for now on the topic of superficiality. I tried to be careful in my post to say exactly what I meant. I didn’t say that all Mormons are superficial, nor do I think that. In fact I think that one on one much of the filtering stops and you have some chance of hearing what people really think, though often they’ve never considered any alternatives to what they hear in Sunday School.
I do think that our meetings are for the most part incredibly filtered. I know that I am filtered all the time. When I speak I mean what I say but I often simply shut up since I’d mostly just be talking to myself anyhow. Partly this is politeness but I think it goes beyond that. Frankly I’ve had much deeper conversations and relationships with co-workers and dorm-mates than with people in my wards.
Comment by a random John — June 28, 2010 @ 11:30 am
Matt W.,
Yes, but do they know exactly what type of dog you are?
I don’t think that what I wrote was an excuse for what happened. I certainly don’t recall having ever said that it was a good idea. There might have been a conversation or two back in the day in which I wished that I had come up with the concept, but that is as close as you’ll get to an endorsement of the whole thing from me.
I agree that there is a difference between actively playing a character you are not and passively letting everyone assume that you are something you are not. That said, I think that the comparison is worth consideration. You are of course free to disagree.
As for whether the characters are any stranger than actual members of the Church I have to disagree. What was strange was the concentration of strangeness and the frequency of notable events in their supposed lives.
There have been several Aaron Cox types that have shown up from time to time in the bloggernacle and in LDS history. You don’t have to look too far to find them. Usually though they are not members of group blogs.
Comment by a random John — June 28, 2010 @ 11:39 am
Regarding #38, anyone recall Mark Butler at M* ?
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — June 28, 2010 @ 11:44 am
jks,
I am not saying it is ok. I am saying that in my mind they weren’t as insincere as some claim
Here’s a hypothetical for you. If you contacted one of the BoH characters you had become friends with (they all had actively used email accounts) and revealed to them that you were in some sort of peril do you think their response would have been 100% insincere?
Comment by a random John — June 28, 2010 @ 11:44 am
Scott B.,
I love Ratatouille!
I think that we’re all a little bit the dog on occasions. But I agree that for the most part the point is that a few people are not what they seem to be at all, or they use the internet to reinvent themselves.
Comment by a random John — June 28, 2010 @ 11:51 am
MCQ,
As usual you are welcome to think it is a crock and silly. Again, I’m not trying to make excuses for anybody or justify anything. I’m trying to examine my own experience and relate it to the wider world a bit.
I can say that in my experience I’ve run into a plenty of people that are playing parts big-time at church in a way that is much more insincere than what happened at BoH. If you haven’t run into that then my comparison won’t have much meaning for you.
Comment by a random John — June 28, 2010 @ 11:58 am
Tracy M,
I think that you’ve been an excellent example of sincerity and openness during your time in the bloggernacle. At least I think so.
I haven’t taken the time to get together with Rusty and figure out if you are real.
But I think your story is an example of the fact that we are a community of sorts and that we can support one another.
Comment by a random John — June 28, 2010 @ 12:01 pm
Eric Nielson,
We are indeed all works in progress, and we can take some pretty sharp turns if we want to.
Perhaps the term “dog” is too pejorative, which is unfortunate. One take on the cartoon is that we have such careful control over what we share and do not share on the internet that we can easily shape our online personas to our liking.
Comment by a random John — June 28, 2010 @ 12:06 pm
britt k,
I like your example of the sacrament. That is a time of intense, sincere introspection. Yet it is entirely private. Well either that or it is a time of especially frustrating monkey wrestling.
We are all trying to work on ourselves and we often project who we aspire to be. I don’t think there is anything terribly wrong with that most of the time.
Comment by a random John — June 28, 2010 @ 12:10 pm
J. Stapley,
Well, at least you think I am. Who knows, right?
Comment by a random John — June 28, 2010 @ 12:11 pm
Snarkimus Prime,
Mormonism is certainly a religion of walking the walk. I think BoH was an interesting through which to see how people walk the walk after feelings have been hurt.
Comment by a random John — June 28, 2010 @ 12:13 pm
John Mansfield,
I had forgotten that exchange entirely. Thank you for reminding me of it. I looked it up and I think it is interesting in light of what Scott B has done here. Frankly I never thought that anyone would bother to probe this whole thing including the founding documents and backroom email chatter. It has been interesting.
Looking anew at your email of five years ago to me I’m really struck by your introspection. In my mind introspection is a much more difficult process than we admit. Being willing to look over what you’ve done and look for things to change is a sign of true humility and a desire to better oneself in a meaningful way.
Comment by a random John — June 28, 2010 @ 12:21 pm
Geoff J, (27)
I think the cartoon has a lot of layers to it, the first of which is the one you cite.
Again I was careful to limit my comments to our meetings. If I haven’t been clear before let me be clear now: I think our meetings are highly filtered. I haven’t intended to make a statement about broader Mormon culture. I do think that the superficiality of our meetings filters into our culture, but our culture outside of meetings is very different. If you want to go to war over this issue I suggest that you do so with DKL, because I don’t think that you and I have much to argue about. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
Comment by a random John — June 28, 2010 @ 12:26 pm
MCQ (29),
My experience is that tragic things get discussed when nobody is at fault. It becomes much more difficult when the person that is at fault or their family is present.
I don’t want to go into details, but some recent events have been so upsetting that I’ve lost a good deal of sleep over them. I’m left wondering how well I know anybody. I know that I sound overly dramatic, but maybe that gives some useful background. I actually wrote this post a few weeks ago, before I knew anything about the most disturbing example.
Comment by a random John — June 28, 2010 @ 12:37 pm
arj- well we can agree you are a classy guy to even respond to me and leave it at that, I guess.
snarkimus prime- Mark Butler still comments at NCT and is not as bad as you make him out to be. I think he just had a bad start
Comment by Matt W. — June 28, 2010 @ 12:37 pm
Snarkimus Prime (39),
I stand corrected. Sometimes the Aaron Cox types do become permabloggers at big group blogs.
Comment by a random John — June 28, 2010 @ 12:38 pm
“Frankly I’ve had much deeper conversations and relationships with co-workers and dorm-mates than with people in my wards.”
ARJ, doesn’t that support what Geoff J said from the beginning? How many hours do you spend a week with co-workers? 20-40 would be average, 50 or more wouldn’t be uncommon. And dorm-mates? For Pete’s sake, you’re living with them!
Compare that with the average member of your ward. You might greet them before Sacrament meeting, you might exchange a few words in SS, RS or Priesthood. Then you scramble to find your kids and go home. How can that compare with your two examples for quantity or quality of time?
Comment by KLC — June 28, 2010 @ 1:01 pm
KLC,
I was responding to this from Geoff J:
Is the “culture of superficiality” at church any greater than the “culture of superficiality” we display with acquaintances at work or at school or in the neighborhood? I doubt it. Part of being social creatures is learning how to filter ourselves in ways that specific situations dictate.
I thought that I was refuting that statement of his rather than agreeing with it.
I do agree with you that time is an important component, but that doesn’t explain all of it.
Comment by a random John — June 28, 2010 @ 1:27 pm
Matt W (51), Mark was a perma at M* and things got pretty out of hand. He ended up leaving/being shown the door and all of his posts were deleted because they were increasingly odd, to put it kindly. When the whole thing happened, there were a number of people, most notably danithew, who were concerned that Mark Butler was a hoax, so he contacted him privately and they talked for awhile and he was deemed to be real and sincere in his views and efforts, just off the beaten track.
Comment by Snarkimus Prime — June 28, 2010 @ 1:27 pm
Isn’t this compounded a bit though if you live and work in Utah? I’m not trying to make any comparison between Utah Mormons and “the Mission Field” but doesn’t living and working in Utah require one to be “Mormon” all the time? I think this would exacerbate the superficiality.
Comment by Tim J — June 28, 2010 @ 1:31 pm
Tim J,
In my mind being Mormon is what has required me to be Mormon all the time. YMMV.
Comment by a random John — June 28, 2010 @ 1:37 pm
Indeed, but not what I meant.
Comment by Tim J — June 28, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
DKL (#30): Geoff J, listening to Mormons insist that they’re not superficial is like listening to nerds insist that they’re not uncool. Mormonism attenuates its members’ proper sense of virtue in interpersonal relationships, which is why (in spite of clean living) it’s not difficult to view Mormons as generally immoral, as many Americans do.
Har!
I’m glad I belong to a different Mormon church than you do DKL. The Mormon church you belong to sound like it really sucks.
Comment by Geoff J — June 28, 2010 @ 2:33 pm
Great post, arj.
Comment by Brian G. — June 29, 2010 @ 10:52 pm