Elder Cook Face-To-Face on church history: Freudian Slip Erasure

Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
Post Reply
User avatar
wtfluff
Posts: 3630
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:20 pm
Location: Worshiping Gravity / Pulling Taffy

Elder Cook Face-To-Face on church history: Freudian Slip Erasure

Post by wtfluff » Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:55 pm

This documentation in it's own thread was requested by Arcturus from the following thread:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3334


On 9/9/2018 Elder Cook did a "Face-To-Face" presentation (with other "historians") to young adults where questions were "answered" about church history. The presentation took place in Nauvoo; Towards the end of the presentation Elder Cook is explaining how he and his wife visited some church history sites on the way to Nauvoo, and says the follwing: "Carthage, where the saviour was martyred." Not everyone noticed Cook's Freudian slip, so I found the original YouTube video of the Face-To-Face, and posted a link to the time in the video with the statement:
wtfluff wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 11:03 am
deacon blues wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:45 am
I missed that. When did the Freudian slip occur?
Try this:

https://youtu.be/K_ste5qjZPQ?t=6199

(Hasn't been edited out... Yet. )

On 9/11/2018, it was noticed that the original YouTube video of the Face-To-Face had been removed. I poked around a bit and found a new edited version of the video. I posted a link to the time in the new video of Cook's slip edited out, along with a link to reddit where someone had posted a snipped of the original statement:
wtfluff wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:38 am
My goodness. I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry that LDS/Mormon-Inc. is so predictable.

The video has been moved, and it has been edited:

https://youtu.be/kpLN6AomRQY?t=3471

Give me a few minutes and I'll find a link to the original.

Edit, here's the original:

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... rtyred_in/

I'm sure others have copies of the full original....

Arcturus' request for this thread here:
Arcturus wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:59 pm
wtfluff - can you make an OP with these links for easier access in the future?

There you go. The LDS/Mormon Church Corporation doesn't try to hide it's history, except when it does, blatantly, and predictably.
Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. -Frater Ravus

IDKSAF -RubinHighlander

You can surrender without a prayer...

User avatar
rockslider
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:34 pm
Location: Heber

Re: Elder Cook Face-To-Face on church history: Freudian Slip Erasure

Post by rockslider » Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:11 pm


User avatar
moksha
Posts: 5050
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: Elder Cook Face-To-Face on church history: Freudian Slip Erasure

Post by moksha » Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:31 pm

I think that part about the Savior being martyred in Carthage by Elder Cook was understandable. All Mormons worth their Morton salt know that the real action involving Joseph Smith occurred in the Gethsemane Busch Gardens right outside of Carthage and that part about Joseph carrying his cross on the Via Della Philadelphia was just an afterthought, except for the final words, "Father forgive them... it is finished... is there no help for the widow's son?"
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

User avatar
nibbler
Posts: 904
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:12 pm

Re: Elder Cook Face-To-Face on church history: Freudian Slip Erasure

Post by nibbler » Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:09 am

It was a simple gaffe. One that needed no correction. Everyone misspeaks unintentionally and everyone knew what he meant.

I just find it ironic that they went back and quietly edited the footage... for an event that started off with a question about how some youth feel like the church hides things from them.

The gaffe was so inconsequential that it hardly matters that they edited it out and it's so inconsequential that it wouldn't ping on my "hiding things" radar but, borrowing from the answer to the question about the church hiding things, the context comes into play. That context being: trust us, we don't hide things.

I used the word inconsequential a few times. The gaffe is nothing, the edit is not a big deal, but one has to wonder. If the correlation department or whoever felt the need to make the edit for whatever reason (doctrinal purity, saving face, etc.) for something so minor what would they do with information that gave a leader or the church a much more serious black eye? It reminds me of politics - if you "lie" about the small, inconsequential things, you're going to lie about big important things.

But I openly admit that my perspective comes from a place of lost trust. I imagine this is nothing to the overwhelming majority. The people that have already lost trust will go, "Yeah, figures." The people that are in sync with the follow the prophet drum beat will criticize anyone that criticizes. The world completes another rotation.
We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.
– Anais Nin

User avatar
wtfluff
Posts: 3630
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:20 pm
Location: Worshiping Gravity / Pulling Taffy

Re: Elder Cook Face-To-Face on church history: Freudian Slip Erasure

Post by wtfluff » Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:13 am

Agreed Nibbler.

I did not see anything in the DAMU that lead me to believe that any of the non-believer thought that Cook's slip-up was anything more than that. Not a big deal.

Yet the LDS/Mormon Corporation thought it was a big enough deal to attempt to hide it. I guess it was actually a big deal to someone...
Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. -Frater Ravus

IDKSAF -RubinHighlander

You can surrender without a prayer...

User avatar
BriansThoughtMirror
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:37 pm

Re: Elder Cook Face-To-Face on church history: Freudian Slip Erasure

Post by BriansThoughtMirror » Wed Sep 12, 2018 11:26 am

Yeah, it was an embarrassing slip up, but I agree it's not a big deal. Certainly Cook would want it clarified. It's just standard church procedure to be quiet about corrections. Probably the only people who will care or mention it are disaffected, and to believers, they'll seem like they just want to attack the church with anything they can find. I'd just let this one go.

Now, Packer saying the Family Proclamation was revelation, or that God would never make anyone gay- those, I think, reveal something he really believed, and which the church did not want to commit to. That's of historical and doctrinal interest, for sure!
We can't let the memory hole claim those!

It is interesting to see, though! Thanks for finding the original!
Reflections From Brian's Brain
https://briansthoughtmirror.wordpress.com/

User avatar
jfro18
Posts: 2064
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:41 pm

Re: Elder Cook Face-To-Face on church history: Freudian Slip Erasure

Post by jfro18 » Wed Sep 12, 2018 11:36 am

To me this is a funny slip-up and nothing more.

Look - if you're going to engage a friend or family member about problems with the church, there are hundreds of valid and unanswerable issues to go with... why would you even offer this as a true problem with the church?

It's funny, it underscores the leader worship in the church, but you're going to instantly turn anyone off by going after this if they're open to a conversation about the problems with the church.

Just my two cents, of course.

User avatar
Emower
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:35 pm
Location: Carson City

Re: Elder Cook Face-To-Face on church history: Freudian Slip Erasure

Post by Emower » Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:15 pm

nibbler wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:09 am
It was a simple gaffe. One that needed no correction. Everyone misspeaks unintentionally and everyone knew what he meant.

I just find it ironic that they went back and quietly edited the footage... for an event that started off with a question about how some youth feel like the church hides things from them.

The gaffe was so inconsequential that it hardly matters that they edited it out and it's so inconsequential that it wouldn't ping on my "hiding things" radar but, borrowing from the answer to the question about the church hiding things, the context comes into play. That context being: trust us, we don't hide things.

I used the word inconsequential a few times. The gaffe is nothing, the edit is not a big deal, but one has to wonder. If the correlation department or whoever felt the need to make the edit for whatever reason (doctrinal purity, saving face, etc.) for something so minor what would they do with information that gave a leader or the church a much more serious black eye? It reminds me of politics - if you "lie" about the small, inconsequential things, you're going to lie about big important things.

But I openly admit that my perspective comes from a place of lost trust. I imagine this is nothing to the overwhelming majority. The people that have already lost trust will go, "Yeah, figures." The people that are in sync with the follow the prophet drum beat will criticize anyone that criticizes. The world completes another rotation.
Spot on. It would be a non-issue, and one that nobody including cook would need to get worked up over. But the actions post-misspeak are as telling as anything.

User avatar
Red Ryder
Posts: 4144
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:14 pm

Re: Elder Cook Face-To-Face on church history: Freudian Slip Erasure

Post by Red Ryder » Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:35 pm

What if Jesus told them to change it?
“It always devolves to Pantaloons. Always.” ~ Fluffy

“I switched baristas” ~ Lady Gaga

“Those who do not move do not notice their chains.” ~Rosa Luxemburg

User avatar
Mormorrisey
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:54 pm

Re: Elder Cook Face-To-Face on church history: Freudian Slip Erasure

Post by Mormorrisey » Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:07 pm

nibbler wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:09 am
It was a simple gaffe. One that needed no correction. Everyone misspeaks unintentionally and everyone knew what he meant.

I just find it ironic that they went back and quietly edited the footage... for an event that started off with a question about how some youth feel like the church hides things from them.

The gaffe was so inconsequential that it hardly matters that they edited it out and it's so inconsequential that it wouldn't ping on my "hiding things" radar but, borrowing from the answer to the question about the church hiding things, the context comes into play. That context being: trust us, we don't hide things.

I used the word inconsequential a few times. The gaffe is nothing, the edit is not a big deal, but one has to wonder. If the correlation department or whoever felt the need to make the edit for whatever reason (doctrinal purity, saving face, etc.) for something so minor what would they do with information that gave a leader or the church a much more serious black eye? It reminds me of politics - if you "lie" about the small, inconsequential things, you're going to lie about big important things.

But I openly admit that my perspective comes from a place of lost trust. I imagine this is nothing to the overwhelming majority. The people that have already lost trust will go, "Yeah, figures." The people that are in sync with the follow the prophet drum beat will criticize anyone that criticizes. The world completes another rotation.
Absolutely. Well said.
"And I don't need you...or, your homespun philosophies."
"And when you try to break my spirit, it won't work, because there's nothing left to break."

Reuben
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:01 pm

Re: Elder Cook Face-To-Face on church history: Freudian Slip Erasure

Post by Reuben » Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:15 pm

Red Ryder wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:35 pm
What if Jesus told them to change it?
If Jesus told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?
Learn to doubt the stories you tell about yourselves and your adversaries.

User avatar
Red Ryder
Posts: 4144
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:14 pm

Re: Elder Cook Face-To-Face on church history: Freudian Slip Erasure

Post by Red Ryder » Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:14 pm

Reuben wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:15 pm
Red Ryder wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:35 pm
What if Jesus told them to change it?
If Jesus told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?
Oh no because first off I don't claim to speak to Jesus, nor on behalf of Jesus, or represent myself as a special witness of Jesus. I guess that disqualifies me as an apostle of Lord Jesus.

I spent too many years trying to have some form of personal relationship with Jesus to the extent I even wore special underwear. I'll I got out of that was a really bad rash.

So if Jesus told me to jump, I'd tell him to cover his face with his hands and pretend to jump but something tells me he would see I didn't jump.
“It always devolves to Pantaloons. Always.” ~ Fluffy

“I switched baristas” ~ Lady Gaga

“Those who do not move do not notice their chains.” ~Rosa Luxemburg

User avatar
Hagoth
Posts: 7076
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Elder Cook Face-To-Face on church history: Freudian Slip Erasure

Post by Hagoth » Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:19 pm

Reuben wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:15 pm
Red Ryder wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:35 pm
What if Jesus told them to change it?
If Jesus told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?
Would there be a set of very deep footprints in he sand where he caught me?
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain

Jesus: "The Kingdom of God is within you." The Buddha: "Be your own light."

User avatar
Yobispo
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:35 pm

Re: Elder Cook Face-To-Face on church history: Freudian Slip Erasure

Post by Yobispo » Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:53 am

nibbler wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:09 am
It was a simple gaffe. One that needed no correction. Everyone misspeaks unintentionally and everyone knew what he meant.

I just find it ironic that they went back and quietly edited the footage... for an event that started off with a question about how some youth feel like the church hides things from them.

The gaffe was so inconsequential that it hardly matters that they edited it out and it's so inconsequential that it wouldn't ping on my "hiding things" radar but, borrowing from the answer to the question about the church hiding things, the context comes into play. That context being: trust us, we don't hide things.

I used the word inconsequential a few times. The gaffe is nothing, the edit is not a big deal, but one has to wonder. If the correlation department or whoever felt the need to make the edit for whatever reason (doctrinal purity, saving face, etc.) for something so minor what would they do with information that gave a leader or the church a much more serious black eye? It reminds me of politics - if you "lie" about the small, inconsequential things, you're going to lie about big important things.

But I openly admit that my perspective comes from a place of lost trust. I imagine this is nothing to the overwhelming majority. The people that have already lost trust will go, "Yeah, figures." The people that are in sync with the follow the prophet drum beat will criticize anyone that criticizes. The world completes another rotation.
This is why I come back. You guys are smart.

User avatar
Archimedes
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:22 am

Re: Elder Cook Face-To-Face on church history: Freudian Slip Erasure

Post by Archimedes » Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:21 pm

Reuben wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:15 pm
Red Ryder wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:35 pm
What if Jesus told them to change it?
If Jesus told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?
If Jesus told you to slice your only son's throat, would you do it?
"She never loved you; she loved the church, her one true love. She used you to marry the church by proxy."

-- unknown reddit poster

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 2237
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Elder Cook Face-To-Face on church history: Freudian Slip Erasure

Post by Palerider » Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:52 pm

Archimedes wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:21 pm
Reuben wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:15 pm
Red Ryder wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:35 pm
What if Jesus told them to change it?
If Jesus told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?
If Jesus told you to slice your only son's throat, would you do it?
Actually if one aspect of the story is used as factual, so must the rest be at the very least, given consideration.

The level of the request must be matched by the level of the revelation.

So if I were approximately 100 years old and my wife was in her 90's, both of us as good as dead. I haven't had any excitement "down there" in decades. My wife passed through menopause 40 years ago and then God speaks to me (literally, not the Joseph Smith imaginary way) and says, "Your wife is going to concieve and have a child", even though this woman has been barren her entire life....and that absolutely impossible thing actually comes to pass, then I might consider that, as Paul says, "God would also have the power to raise Issac up from the dead." (Paraphrasing)

One can't help but think of Lazarus being raised after three days in the grave. But I realize some here would doubt that also.

The child Issac's entire existence is a miracle wrought soley by God. A critical part of the lesson for Abraham was that there be no possible doubt regarding the totality of his and his wife's absolute sterility. Therefore there could also be no doubt regarding the veracity and power of the God who spoke to him. Issac's impossible and miraculous BIRTH is the key to deciphering God's request for his sacrifice. And God's explanation that rather than take Issac, He would provide His own sacrifice is the insightful key to His benevolent mercy and love toward Abraham and all those who are the miraculous children of Abraham.

I realize that's a stretch for most here, but looking at it from a larger Biblical point of view it does make more sense in its context.

Sorry, didn't mean to thread jack.
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests