What is the “Bloggernacle”?
It is terribly uncool to invite weighty discussions of internet nomenclature. Who’d be a navelgazer when we could be out training for a marathon, offering micro-loans, keeping bees, or “doing our hometeaching”?
It’s also a dangerous discussion, one certain to inflame passions and hurt egos. Attempts have already been made, feelings bruised. But definitions do matter, and for that, The Bloggernacle Times is going to forego Mormon Nice. Here’s why:
In many senses the Bloggernacle remains a fragile thing, one heresy trial from implosion and a saturation of family blogs away from irrelevance. The open forum once envisioned by Bushman is difficult to navigate in a religion which heralds freedom and the intellect but has not always had an easy relationship with the same. Certainly there are some Mormons who will never step outside of the bounds of Intellectual Reserve or Deseret Book. The Bloggernacle was never for them but it is for a decent number of Mormons curious to explore all facets of Mormonism in independent venues, happy to confront doubt and disagreement but not happy to revel in it. The Bloggernacle needs to be a safe and welcoming place for such people, which is why it is important that the Bloggernacle “brand” polices its own borders.
So, what is the Bloggernacle? This is not a question of size but of style. In other words, while it is true that many more blogs now inhabit this space, their basic “feel” has not changed since circa 2003. In that sense — and here we offer no apology — the Bloggernacle qua Bloggernacle is centered on Times and Seasons and By Common Consent. These blogs represent the core of what the Bloggernacle was originally defined to be; any Mormon blogger who has not read and mentally engaged with these blogs is not part of the Bloggernacle. Call it the “Who is Nate Oman?” test.
Note: this is not to say that T&S and BCC are the Bloggernacle, nor that they are even its best blogs, but that they symbolize the core values of the Bloggernacle phenomenon. And what are these values? Open intellectual enquiry tempered by faith and hope; and a willingness to acknowledge the human hand in Mormonism without denying the holy. No attempt is made to welcome those not interested in upholding these values. Bloggernacle blogs ruthlessly wave sticks at apostasy-accusing Mormons and their trollish DAMU counterparts.
Of course, any definition will ultimately provoke disagreement, so perhaps we should not attempt continental-style codification but rely instead on the Anglo values of tradition and common sense. Those active Mormon bloggers who have been around since the beginning will easily recognize Bloggernacle from non. It is — more or less — what you find at the Mormon Archipelago. The MA in all its oligarchic glory can smell “family blog” and “DAMU” (= not Bloggernacle) a mile away. Typically they get it right. (Again, this is not to disparage either community but let it be understood: they are not bloges blogernacules.)
Throughout 2010 the rebooted Bloggernacle Times will feature the best posts, blogs, and bloggers of the Bloggernacle as chosen by a representative group of Bloggernacle elite bloggers. We will not post very often but enough to herald and attempt to better define this wonderful communuity. No doubt this venture will irritate the heck out of a lot of you. Nevertheless, we hope you will join us.
Look forward to it. Welcome back.
Comment by Eric Nielson — February 5, 2010 @ 7:05 am
Great idea to use BT to build bloggernacle community.
Welcome back.
Comment by Edje Jeter — February 5, 2010 @ 7:31 am
I mean, great idea _to bring back_ the BT and its aims.
Comment by Edje Jeter — February 5, 2010 @ 7:34 am
I give up. [smiles affirmingly] [remains silent]
Comment by Edje Jeter — February 5, 2010 @ 7:36 am
I started frequenting the bloggernacle back in late ’06/early ’07, right as the BT was starting to wind down. I look forward to its resurrection.
Also, regarding the “Who is Nate Oman?” test. Well, he’s my HT companion, so we’re able to navel-gaze as we do our home-teaching. Best of both worlds.
Comment by Christopher — February 5, 2010 @ 8:55 am
Call it the “Who is Nate Oman?” test.
Awesome.
Comment by Eric Russell — February 5, 2010 @ 9:16 am
Christopher, not sure we needed to hear about your gazing at Nate’s navel on your HT visits . . . .
Comment by Randy B. — February 5, 2010 @ 9:26 am
Defining a community is a core part of attempting to create and nourish it.
Wish you the best and welcome back.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — February 5, 2010 @ 9:28 am
The skirmishes have been wearying, and I’ve wondered what would become of the ‘nacle. This is a good oman.
Comment by Kathryn Soper — February 5, 2010 @ 10:01 am
Hoorah!
Comment by mmiles — February 5, 2010 @ 10:11 am
It’s even a good omen.
Three cheers for community building. The Bloggernacle is a big tent that sometimes needs to have its stakes pounded in again and its ropes tightened before it all blows down in the next hard wind.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — February 5, 2010 @ 10:14 am
So, are T&S and BCC the BCS conferences of the bloggernacle? Of course, with BCC being the SEC and T&S being the Big East.
Comment by Chris Henrichsen — February 5, 2010 @ 10:31 am
Huzzah! A good Omen indeed- AND I know the Omans. I must have been very righteous. :0)
Comment by Tracy M — February 5, 2010 @ 10:57 am
It’s alive!
Comment by ESO — February 5, 2010 @ 11:12 am
I’m so happy you’re back. I always like the BT, and I was sad when you disbanded. I think it’s a really healthy thing you’re doing. Thank you!
Comment by meems — February 5, 2010 @ 12:27 pm
As one of the writers who is linked with a blog (MM) that is sometimes considered to be on the fringe of the b’nacle I can only say that I am excited about what this might mean.
I, personally, would like to be considered part of the bloggernacle because I enjoy the community and the ideas, however I can see why sometimes people feel hurt when they are told they are not (really) part of the group.
But thank you making an attempt to strengthen the community (however it gets defined) that is always a noble thing to do.
Comment by Rico — February 5, 2010 @ 12:54 pm
In the past, BT included many interesting posts on current events or news stories whose source had no relation (under anyone’s definition) to the bloggernacle. Is that at an end?
If not, and you plan to reference non-bloggernacle items, why make so much of your particular (some might even say peculiar) definition of the bloggernacle? It would strike me as a bit odd if you wouldn’t think twice about linking to, say, an insightful post on GetReligion.org or an article at the Washington Post, but had some policy or bias against discussing or linking to an equally compelling post or podcast on a Mormon blog that doesn’t pass the Nate Oman test. Why not just let content be your guide? Making the sorts of distinctions you have strike me as entirely unnecessary.
All that aside, welcome back. May you live up to your former glory.
Comment by Randy B. — February 5, 2010 @ 1:21 pm
Hooray for the reboot! I missed the first version, so this makes me very happy indeed.
Comment by Scott B. — February 5, 2010 @ 1:28 pm
Awesome. Just what the nacle needed. Thanks for doing this.
Comment by MCQ — February 5, 2010 @ 1:51 pm
It’s probably too obvious to point out that the “Nate Oman test” smacks of intellectual onanism. I feel like we constantly hear from the grizzled blogtriachs about a Golden Age when everyone on the Bloggernacle knew each other — and love and peace and harmony reigned because there were neither Nephites nor Lamanites nor any other manner of -ites.
All Golden Age Myths are myths. Nostalgia fogs and distorts memory naturally. And, whereas the former, tiny community certainly had the capacity to be a close community, it consequently lacked the scope and reach that the bloggernacle today possesses —- defined (or, rather, defying definition and delimitation) — in its vast, inclusive, and boundless reaches.
Comment by John Hamer — February 5, 2010 @ 1:53 pm
Chris H.,
It’s very simple etymology:
BCc + t&S = BCS Never noticed that one, didja?
We dominate the rankings, even when we don’t deserve it. We take home all of the money, and we occasionally let other folks play for a few pennies in the Insignificant Bowl.
The good news is that Congress is prepared to interrupt its work saving the country’s economy, to make sure that this system gets fixed.
Comment by Kaimi — February 5, 2010 @ 3:14 pm
I tend to use the MA exclusively for my Mormon blog surfing for the reasons listed in the OP. Quality, community, and yes, boundaries.
These things don’t just happen– the bloggernacle as defined above is what it is because of the efforts of a core handful of bloggers who have proved over the years (at least to me) that they are intelligent, insightful, dedicated, faithful, and people I can trust.
Nothing personal to those who lie outside of the boundaries of the MA– I’m just not interested in general in what y’all have going on. But I wish you well.
Comment by C Jones — February 5, 2010 @ 3:20 pm
By the way, as the person who started the conversation that resulted in the word bloggernacle — and as the co-founder of both T&S and BCC — I think that a good argument can be made that the bloggernacle is me. Nate is all well and good, but come on, he plays chess. (Though I suppose it could have been worse, cough, SteveEvans, cough).
Comment by Kaimi — February 5, 2010 @ 3:26 pm
The only issue I see with this is that will BT may wish to reassert it’s authority over what is and is not the Bloggernacle, I think it is too late. I think Emily Jensen, due to the size of here audience greatly overshadowing the size of our audience, owns the term. If she calls something “Bloggernacle” in her back bench article, I think we don’t have any legal right to make it otherwise.
Comment by Matt W. — February 5, 2010 @ 3:31 pm
Interesting point Matt.
How big are you assuming the audience for Emily’s site is?
Comment by Geoff J — February 5, 2010 @ 3:38 pm
A very good reason to keep it at Nate:
http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2004/07/i-iami-orthodoxy/
Comment by Kaimi — February 5, 2010 @ 3:42 pm
I think you’re right Matt — broad use of the term “Bloggernacle” by the Mormon Times has redefined it. Can’t change that now. So using the term in either the new, broad meaning or the older and narrower meaning tends to confuse some people. We can either fall back on using a description (such as my definition, “personal weblogs that host discussions of Mormon-related topics from a relatively faithful perspective”) or come up with a new term. Personally, I try to avoid using the term whenever possible.
Comment by Dave — February 5, 2010 @ 3:45 pm
Hamer,
I’m not so sure it’s a nostalgia for the Bloggernacle of ’03 but a wish to use the word in ways that would make sense both then *and* now.
As for the suggestion that the bird has flown — I’m not so sure. I see little evidence that casual Mormon blogs see themselves as “Bloggernacle,” but the word still has clear resonance for the denizens of the Mormon chattering classes. That can and should remain the case. So I say hooray for BT 3.0.
Comment by Ronan — February 5, 2010 @ 3:59 pm
How big of an influence does Mormon Times have? This is the first time that I have ever heard of Emily Jensen.
“…broad use of the term “Bloggernacle” by the Mormon Times has redefined it. Can’t change that now.”
Oh, whatever. It is the Mormon Times, not the New York Times.
Comment by Chris Henrichsen — February 5, 2010 @ 4:45 pm
. . . and, of course, a good resolution to all the Niblet quibbling.
Way to flex some muscle and assert some righteous dominion, BT. Glad you’re back. Your long-vacant homepage was so depressing.
Comment by Hunter — February 5, 2010 @ 4:51 pm
Glad to see this.
Comment by Jared t — February 5, 2010 @ 5:08 pm
Speaking of Emily Jensen, I’ve recently thought about pulling an Ellen and campaigning to be featured her “Today in the Bloggernacle”–just for the heck of it. It could be fun. It got Ellen on the cover of “O” magazine. It could work for me. But then again, I really don’t care THAT much. (Do you hear me, Emily Jensen? I don’t care if I’m not important enough to get noticed by you!)
In all seriousness, hurray for the Bloggernacle Times–I’m a fan.
PS: Emily, I love that curly auburn hair!
Comment by Clean Cut — February 5, 2010 @ 5:10 pm
Emily, if you’re reading, I hope I didn’t just ruin my chances of ever being listed on the Bloggernacle Back Bench. And for the record, I look good dressed up in Christmas lights.
Comment by Clean Cut — February 5, 2010 @ 5:24 pm
If you haven’t heard of Emily’s column, you’re missing out. She does a great job of highlighting posts from throughout the bloggernacle (relatively widely defined) and bringing in a wider audience. Emily’s a smart, thoughtful, friendly and fun person IRL. She’s worked with the JSPP project (her husband Rob was the main editor of R2 and occasionally drops in to the nacle too) and Emily’s done other work in Mormon studies as well.
And Clean Cut, we who have met her can attest that her auburn curls are even more adorable IRL.
Comment by Kaimi — February 5, 2010 @ 5:31 pm
At last I have been rewarded for my laziness in cleaning out my RSS feeds.
Welcome back.
Comment by Jared* — February 5, 2010 @ 6:20 pm
Hmm, I can already see the law review article “Avoiding Genericide: Google, Xerox and Bloggernacle.” As of today I haven’t seen the term in the dictionary and so far Edward hasn’t told Bella to “bloggernacle it” so you can be thankful for that.
Comment by aquinas — February 5, 2010 @ 6:30 pm
But FMH is a big blog too!
Jus’ teasin’ …
Comment by danithew — February 5, 2010 @ 6:31 pm
Reading all of this, it’s hard to imagine what my life be like without the bloggernacle. (Whatever it is.)
It would be boring, that’s for sure.
Are you going to feature nominations for favorite comment? If so, I nominate Kathy’s “a good oman.”
Comment by m&m — February 5, 2010 @ 6:46 pm
Well, Bloggernacle is obvious a play on the words Blog and Tabernacle. The Tabernacle is no longer used for general church meeting like Conference. It is old, still beautiful, but to small for an ever growing church. So now we have the Conference Center. To go along with that we need a new bigger Bloggerenacle that fits everybody under the umbrella. Maybe something like the Bloggercenter?
Comment by Danny C — February 5, 2010 @ 7:45 pm
LOL. Thanks for the shout out, danithew!
Comment by ECS — February 5, 2010 @ 10:24 pm
It’s not a community until t-shirts are to be had.
Comment by Peter LLC — February 6, 2010 @ 2:52 am
Hoorah for BT 2.0! I enjoyed the clear-eyed, well-articulated take on what makes a Bloggernacle-ite, and I look forward to the future offerings.
Comment by Idahospud — February 6, 2010 @ 8:37 am
The way EmJen adopted the term Bloggernacle for the Mormon Times was part of the problem: to my knowledge she hadn’t particularly been active in commenting around bloggernacle blogs or running her own bloggernacle blog before she suddenly adopted the term for that use. I agree with Kaimi that her round-ups are great, so don’t get me wrong. What I am trying to say with this is that she might not have exploded the term as much as she did if she had been a regular participant before appropriating the term for the Mormon Times.
Comment by john f. — February 6, 2010 @ 9:43 am
Chris H:
Alexa Site ranking for Mormontimes.com: 13,959
Alexa Site ranking for ldsblogs.org 549,279
While I can’t say that that massively larger audience all reads Emily, I can say she definitely has more opportunities, showing up on their front page every week and being featured in Deseret News.
Sorry for all the typos in that last comment by me. Read it as if you were drunk.
Comment by Matt W. — February 6, 2010 @ 10:21 am
I’m a fan of the Bloggernacle Back Bench (except for the fact that the RSS feed makes you click twice so the Deseret News main site can juice it’s page views — which is not Emily’s fault at all), and in particular I like that she links to posts that I’m not likely to run across (I use a combo of RSS subscriptions and daily visits to the Archipelago to get my Mormon blogging fix).
I also appreciate the traffic her column drives to AMV.
For 2009 it was the 10th top referrer of visits to AMV. Times & Seasons referred more than twice as many visitors. And the Mormon Archipelago referred six times as many. Now, of course, those comparisons aren’t apples to apples because T&S may have linked more times throughout the course of the year and probably includes people clicking over from Kent’s author bio, and MA links to every AMV post. And then there’s the fact that the nature of AMV’s post are probably such that T&S readers are more likely to click over than Mormon Times readers.
But still, if the Mormon Times has a huge number of readers, one that dwarfs the big Bloggernacle blogs, I’m not seeing it in my stats.
And for those keeping score, BCC referred almost half as many visitors to AMV as the Mormon Times and was the 17th top referrer. Come on guys — where’s the love?
For 2008, I only have stats for the latter half of the year, but BCC was the 6th top referrer, Mormon Times was the 10th and Times & Seasons was the 7th.
Comment by Wm Morris — February 6, 2010 @ 10:23 am
It’s because we don’t have a blogroll anymore. The MA is our blogroll.
Comment by Tracy M — February 6, 2010 @ 2:39 pm
Matt W,
Alexa rankings are total crap and not worth even looking at in my opinion. Raw traffic figures would be more useful if we had those to compare. Plus I think a simple google seach on the term bloggernacle is more telling than Alexa.
Comment by Geoff J — February 6, 2010 @ 6:33 pm
Geoff:
Google Search…
Comment by Matt W. — February 6, 2010 @ 10:39 pm
Here’s my definition of “The bloggernacle”: It’s where Jesus would blog if He were alive today.
Comment by DKL — February 6, 2010 @ 11:45 pm
What about this?
MoTimes vs. BCC
I’m not sure what kinds of conclusions ought to be drawn from this type of comparison.
Comment by JT — February 6, 2010 @ 11:52 pm
Oh YEAH.
Comment by Tracy M — February 7, 2010 @ 1:12 am
What we really want to know, DKL, is which blog commenters Jesus would punch.
Comment by Kaimi — February 7, 2010 @ 3:14 am
Question. If the Spanish-language Wikipedia is called Wikipedia en español (or, possibly the alternative website named Enciclopedia Libre; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Wikipedia), what is the “elitist”-portion of the Spanish-language LDS bloggosphere called, if anything?
Comment by TheNewJerseyNutjob — February 7, 2010 @ 7:57 am
Blogosphere, one el
Comment by TheNewJerseyNutjob — February 7, 2010 @ 7:58 am
I mean: gee
Comment by TheNewJerseyNutjob — February 7, 2010 @ 7:59 am
¿«blogosfera mormónica»?
Comment by TheNewJerseyNutjob — February 7, 2010 @ 8:30 am
Contrary to what I have said elsewhere, I actually think that you have a stronger argument. True, definitions matter but not very much.
What really matters is the reality that is underlying the word. You are saying that the Bloggernacle is distinctive in terms of style, not of size. That’s a curious juxtaposition. Size and style are rarely opposites.
Of course, there are the exceptions of understatement and exaggerations, which can be powerful rhetorical tools, which also commit you to a style.
Really, the opposite of style is substance. It seems to me that the Bloggernacle is as much about substance as style. Of course, there is a lot of diversity and there are real differences between the members of the bloggernacle.
Still, like bodies in the solar system, all the blogs of the nacle rotate around the same center of gravity. If that metaphor is correct then the bloggernacle is not only defined by style but also by substance.
(Clearly, a Jehovah’s Witnesss who has no relationship with Mormonism does not belong to the Bloggernacle, no matter what her style may be).
I cannot quite put my finger on what the center of gravity is but I am sure that a quantitative content analysis of blog posts would identify a core that is somehow related to all things Mormon.
Or to keep it simple, some of you might be more perceptive than me could just show the center of gravity of the ‘nacle solar system.
Comment by Hellmut — February 7, 2010 @ 4:00 pm
On second thought, let me take a stab at it.
The ‘nacle consists of blogs and posts by Internet Mormons who give the brethren’s claims of divine authority various degrees of deference. Internet Mormons who give no deference to the brethren’s divine authority do not belong to the ‘nacle.
Comment by Hellmut — February 7, 2010 @ 4:03 pm
When EmJen links to a Keepa post, I see a doubling of traffic that day, and usually the effect hangs on to a much lesser degree for a few days. What’s more, people who jump over to Keepa from MoTimes often explore my site, logging several page views past the link that brought them there. I wish I had some way to measure whether any, or how many, of them came back often enough to make it a habit.
While I very much agree with the definition of the Bloggernacle in the OP, I’m not too bothered by EmJen’s use of it. The individual posts she links to are almost always something that you wouldn’t be surprised to find on a ‘nacle blog, even if the overall style of the blog itself is family or mommy or whatever (and before any mommy screams about that, I’m not evaluating any other type of blog as bigger or smaller or better or worse, only *different* from the Bloggernacle-style blog).
I suppose I see EmJen’s column as an auxiliary to the Bloggernacle, although not in the arms of the Bloggernacle itself.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — February 7, 2010 @ 4:05 pm
.
This is an interesting idea, but I’m curious what criteria you will use to determine which posts merit republishing.
Comment by Th. — February 7, 2010 @ 11:13 pm
Ardis: I could get behind that — EmJen’s column is of the Bloggernacle but not in the Bloggernacle.
At any rate, I have nothing against EmJen’s Back Bench thing as I mentioned before. My point was that the use of the term Bloggernacle for it, I would think, was perhaps the moment that the term “Bloggernacle” was made to breach the banks set out in the MA, if such a moment can be pinpointed.
Comment by john f. — February 8, 2010 @ 7:05 am