CWK #31: Just about the sex? Mormon polygamy.

[Dr. Shades]

Then why did you chuckle at it?

I have already explained that. Work it out for yourself.

Here's how you explained it:

Do you not see that, like the witnesses, Clayton was under the influence of a powerful leader? Do you not see that he was highly motivated by his own skin in the game to present things in a particular light?

Then you followed that up with:

I think the chances are that Clayton's story is accurate.

. . . meaning that DESPITE being under the influence of a powerful leader and being highly motivated by his own skin in the game to present things in a particular light, chances are that his story is accurate ANYWAY.

Accuracy isn't chuckle-inducing, in my experience. So I am still unable to "work it out for myself" why you did so. I hereby request your assistance in understanding why it was in this case.

[Kishkumen]

I have already explained that. Work it out for yourself.

Here's how you explained it:

Do you not see that, like the witnesses, Clayton was under the influence of a powerful leader? Do you not see that he was highly motivated by his own skin in the game to present things in a particular light?

Then you followed that up with:

I think the chances are that Clayton's story is accurate.

. . . meaning that DESPITE being under the influence of a powerful leader and being highly motivated by his own skin in the game to present things in a particular light, chances are that his story is accurate ANYWAY.

Accuracy isn't chuckle-inducing, in my experience. So I am still unable to "work it out for myself" why you did so. I hereby request your assistance in understanding why it was in this case.

Look, I am a historian. So, a lot of these conversations are frustrating and bemusing to me. I love how people throw text on the wall, point to it, and say, "See! It's obvious, no?" Markk's discussion of polygamy, and the conclusions he draws, are simplistic in the extreme. And that is not so hard to figure out. My reactions here are both my honest reactions to the silliness of this and sometimes attempts to show the inadequacy of this entire enterprise.

And, I think I have indicated this already, as best I can, when I have a handful of people asking me questions at the same time, sometimes with a measure of hostility, and with little attempt to actually figure things out. Of course, it may be the case that there are people who simply can't. It is also true that some people feel entitled to answers that they are not entitled to.

My channel is not my personal confessional, and when I discuss it, I will not go into personal testimony mode. I don't even believe in personal testimony mode at all, i.e., I don't see the value in it, so why I should answer such questions about "what I really think" in this case is mysterious to me. If I discuss the channel here, I do so on the terms of the channel, which is to be neutral for the purposes of "geeking out" about Mormonism.

I can understand why that is frustrating in a place where people want to affirm their conclusion that Mormonism is bad, but I am sticking to my guns. No one will manipulate me into turning the channel into something it was not designed to be.

[Failed Prophecy]

Look, I am a historian. So, a lot of these conversations are frustrating and bemusing to me.

Then as a historian you should be able to make this stuff crystal clear. I've never been confused for even a moment when watching Dan Vogel's videos on Mormonism. He's a historian and can talk with us plebs. Why can't you?

[Kishkumen]

Then as a historian you should be able to make this stuff crystal clear. I've never been confused for even a moment when watching Dan Vogel's videos on Mormonism. He's a historian and can talk with us plebs. Why can't you?

Dan Vogel is a historian of Mormonism, and he spends the lion’s share of his time practicing that craft. He is engaged in a conflict in which his goal is to build a meticulous argument against Mormonism for a very well defined purpose. I don’t fit any of those descriptions. I am not a Mormon historian. I do not spend the lion’s share of my time practicing Mormon history. I am not engaging in this to be in conflict with anyone, and I am not building a meticulous case against Mormonism for a very well defined purpose. Therefore, you will not see me doing what Dan Vogel is doing.

Not everyone is Dan Vogel or needs to be Dan Vogel. We are happy to have Dan Vogel, but I think your comparison of me with him is really, frankly, stupid.

“Why can’t you be Bob? I love the way he roasts pork! You roasted beef, and I didn’t like it. Why can’t you be like Bob and roast a good pork?”

[I Have Questions]

Dan Vogel is a historian of Mormonism, and he spends the lion’s share of his time practicing that craft. He is engaged in a conflict in which his goal is to build a meticulous argument against Mormonism for a very well defined purpose.

I am unfamiliar with Dan Vogel’s backstory. If this isn’t too much of a diversion please can you tell me, as best you know it, what conflict Dan is engaged in and why? And what his clearly defined purpose is? (I’ve tried searching online but can’t find anything that tells me those things).

[Kishkumen]

I am unfamiliar with Dan Vogel’s backstory. If this isn’t too much of a diversion please can you tell me, as best you know it, what conflict Dan is engaged in and why? And what his clearly defined purpose is? (I’ve tried searching online but can’t find anything that tells me those things).

Dan can speak for himself. I am comfortable pointing out that we have different sets of expertise and different goals. Coffee with Kish is not a show that seeks to point out flaws in LDS narratives. I don’t feel obliged to be like Dan when nobody does it better than the man himself.

[Failed Prophecy]

I am not a Mormon historian. I do not spend the lion’s share of my time practicing Mormon history.

Good to hear. Then you are speaking out of your ass, just like the rest of us. Why would you think being an historian should cause bemusement or frustration, at least any more than the rest of us have in dealing with you?

Not everyone is Dan Vogel or needs to be Dan Vogel. We are happy to have Dan Vogel, but I think your comparison of me with him is really, frankly, stupid.

Quite true. Vogel is capable of clarity and precision. You are not.

[I Have Questions]

I am unfamiliar with Dan Vogel’s backstory. If this isn’t too much of a diversion please can you tell me, as best you know it, what conflict Dan is engaged in and why? And what his clearly defined purpose is? (I’ve tried searching online but can’t find anything that tells me those things).

Dan can speak for himself. I am comfortable pointing out that we have different sets of expertise and different goals. Coffee with Kish is not a show that seeks to point out flaws in LDS narratives. I don’t feel obliged to be like Dan when nobody does it better than the man himself.

No problem. Could you point me in the right direction so that I can read up on Dan’s “back story” or where he explains his motivations?

[Moksha]

We are happy to have Dan Vogel, but I think your comparison of me with him is really, frankly, stupid.

Be true to yourself as the Bard said.

[Dr. Shades]

. . . meaning that DESPITE being under the influence of a powerful leader and being highly motivated by his own skin in the game to present things in a particular light, chances are that [Clayton's] story is accurate ANYWAY.

Accuracy isn't chuckle-inducing, in my experience. So I am still unable to "work it out for myself" why you did so. I hereby request your assistance in understanding why it was in this case.

Look, I am a historian. So, a lot of these conversations are frustrating and bemusing to me. I love how people throw text on the wall, point to it, and say, "See! It's obvious, no?" Markk's discussion of polygamy, and the conclusions he draws, are simplistic in the extreme. And that is not so hard to figure out. My reactions here are both my honest reactions to the silliness of this and sometimes attempts to show the inadequacy of this entire enterprise.

And, I think I have indicated this already, as best I can, when I have a handful of people asking me questions at the same time, sometimes with a measure of hostility, and with little attempt to actually figure things out. Of course, it may be the case that there are people who simply can't. It is also true that some people feel entitled to answers that they are not entitled to.

My channel is not my personal confessional, and when I discuss it, I will not go into personal testimony mode. I don't even believe in personal testimony mode at all, i.e., I don't see the value in it, so why I should answer such questions about "what I really think" in this case is mysterious to me. If I discuss the channel here, I do so on the terms of the channel, which is to be neutral for the purposes of "geeking out" about Mormonism.

I can understand why that is frustrating in a place where people want to affirm their conclusion that Mormonism is bad, but I am sticking to my guns. No one will manipulate me into turning the channel into something it was not designed to be.

Thanks, but that doesn't meet my request.

Allow me to rephrase: Why did you chuckle at a statement that you believe is accurate?