Dissecting Elder Cook on Church History

[consiglieri]

Bill Reel and Radio Free Mormon's dissection of the Face-to-Face Devotional on Church History questions featuring Elder Cook is now up.

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/201 ... h-history/

It three hours and fifteen minutes long, but I think it goes by much faster than the normal meeting block on Sunday.

Enjoy!

All the Best!

--RFM

[jfro18]

Half way through it so far and loving it... highly recommend to all!

[Hagoth]

Great podcast!

[moksha]

Ever wish you could retroactively ask a question of these two historians during that presentation? Say for instance you had asked this question:

Are any of the answers in this new book worthwhile if the foundational story of the Church was bogus?

The answer to that question would keep me on the edge of my seat.

[Just This Guy]

That's a long one, so it will take me a while to get through it, but I am defiantly looking forward to what you have to say.

[rockslider]

Once again a home run podcast.

It was mentioned that Bill asked Steven four questions. Might I ask what those were?

[Kishkumen]

Another winner.

My only constructive critique - Bill Reel could be more concise in his words. I'm not great speaker myself, but overall Bill it a bit long-winded. Love ya, Bill.

It seems the new apologetic catchphrase is "the past is a different country, they do things differently there" is gaining more traction. As well as the general shift to the BoM as a revelation as much as a translation.

I especially thought it was interesting the comment/idea about this book, Saints, taking 6 years to write as well as 'many approvals'. Many approvals appear to be doublespeak. I have read some of the book, Saints. It is not a tough read. The language is fairly simple and I'm tired of hearing 'it reads like a novel...". What I believe is telling, is that it took them 6 years of wordsmithing to get the language just right so they could mention the tough bits without discussing the tough bits. They really are good at threading the needle of saying enough without saying too much.

[Kishkumen]

Once again a home run podcast.

It was mentioned that Bill asked Steven four questions. Might I ask what those were?

Was it 5 questions? Anyway, I'd love to know what those questions are, Bill.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Good stuff gents. I enjoyed it very much.

[Hagoth]

I really appreciate Bill pointing out the apologetic tactic of saying, "we don't have enough time to give the really good answer to this question, so let's just move on," while there is more than enough time to answer the fluff questions. I first became aware of this one while listening to the Swedish Rescue recording when they kept using that excuse but the attendees kept responding with, "no, we have plenty of time. This is why we're here, so please give us the answer," to which the speakers would again insist that there wasn't enough time and then move on to the next non-answer.

Elder Cook used another tactic that drives me crazy when he said, "we must acknowledge that there just aren't answers to some of these questions." The fact is that there are usually very good answers to the questions to which he's referring, but they are answers that can't be weaseled out of as easily as some others.

Also, I am often surprised at church historians who, having devoted their lives to understanding history, are quick to step over issues or make statements like when Kate Holbrook claimed that the honest and "whole" history of the church is told in the Saints books. But then I must remind myself how hard it is to find employment as a historian, and how much those opportunities are narrowed for Mormon historians. If you are not employed by the church or by one of its universities you are pretty much up the Susquehanna without a paddle, as D. Michael Quinn demonstrated when he was booted. These people must play by the rules if they want to put bread on the table. They will get dangerously close to what they're thinking at times but they cannot say it.

[Arcturus]

Also, I am often surprised at church historians who, having devoted their lives to understanding history, are quick to step over issues or make statements like when Kate Holbrook claimed that the honest and "whole" history of the church is told in the Saints books. But then I must remind myself how hard it is to find employment as a historian, and how much those opportunities are narrowed for Mormon historians. If you are not employed by the church or by one of its universities you are pretty much up the Susquehanna without a paddle, as D. Michael Quinn demonstrated when he was booted. These people must play by the rules if they want to put bread on the table. They will get dangerously close to what they're thinking at times but they cannot say it.

This is great insight Hagoth. I found myself getting very upset with the historians' answers but with this perspective, coupled with the cult-mentality, can't really blame them for communicating as they do.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Also, I am often surprised at church historians who, having devoted their lives to understanding history, are quick to step over issues or make statements like when Kate Holbrook claimed that the honest and "whole" history of the church is told in the Saints books. But then I must remind myself how hard it is to find employment as a historian, and how much those opportunities are narrowed for Mormon historians. If you are not employed by the church or by one of its universities you are pretty much up the Susquehanna without a paddle, as D. Michael Quinn demonstrated when he was booted. These people must play by the rules if they want to put bread on the table. They will get dangerously close to what they're thinking at times but they cannot say it.

This is great insight Hagoth. I found myself getting very upset with the historians' answers but with this perspective, coupled with the cult-mentality, can't really blame them for communicating as they do.

Speaking of communicating, did anyone else have slight irritation with the primary children voice inflections and pentameter that both Kate and Matt use when speaking? I get that the audience is the youth, but it was noticeable to me. Feels patronizing in some way.

[Arcturus]

Bill Reel and Radio Free Mormon's dissection of the Face-to-Face Devotional on Church History questions featuring Elder Cook is now up.

--RFM

Consiglieri - you and Bill play an audio tape featuring Elder Ballard at different parts of the podcast. Specifically, Ballard says something about Mormon history has never been covered up or withheld, and they know of some hard questions that they'll just plan to avoid in the upcoming event with Cook.

Can you or anyone else here direct me to where that full audio is? Is it a leak of some meeting at COB or a fireside presentation?

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Bill Reel and Radio Free Mormon's dissection of the Face-to-Face Devotional on Church History questions featuring Elder Cook is now up.

--RFM

Consiglieri - you and Bill play an audio tape featuring Elder Ballard at different parts of the podcast. Specifically, Ballard says something about Mormon history has never been covered up or withheld, and they know of some hard questions that they'll just plan to avoid in the upcoming event with Cook.

Can you or anyone else here direct me to where that full audio is? Is it a leak of some meeting at COB or a fireside presentation?

That was Elder Ballard and Oaks recent youth face to face prior to this one. Should be up on the church site somewhere.

[jfro18]

Speaking of communicating, did anyone else have slight irritation with the primary children voice inflections and pentameter that both Kate and Matt use when speaking? I get that the audience is the youth, but it was noticeable to me. Feels patronizing in some way.

As I listened to the Face to Face, you could tell that not only were they well prepared for each question (and in no way were taking them off the cuff), but that they were also trained in how to use ways of speaking to convey emotion as well.

I know people call that the Heartsell approach that the LDS uses, but it was absolutely apparent in this F2F event. They were talking like people who were trained actors trying to connect with the listeners in a way that let them "feel the spirit" and not question further.

It only feels patronizing when you realize what they're doing though, sadly.

[alas]

Speaking of communicating, did anyone else have slight irritation with the primary children voice inflections and pentameter that both Kate and Matt use when speaking? I get that the audience is the youth, but it was noticeable to me. Feels patronizing in some way.

As I listened to the Face to Face, you could tell that not only were they well prepared for each question (and in no way were taking them off the cuff), but that they were also trained in how to use ways of speaking to convey emotion as well.

I know people call that the Heartsell approach that the LDS uses, but it was absolutely apparent in this F2F event. They were talking like people who were trained actors trying to connect with the listeners in a way that let them "feel the spirit" and not question further.

It only feels patronizing when you realize what they're doing though, sadly.

I have often wondered about when historians or those explaining history, do they know that they are using emotion in a manipulative way. Do they know they go into pentameter? Do they know they sound condescending? Do they realize their voice goes into “church speak”. Or does it just crop up automatically as “church speak” because of the subject matter? Maybe kind of like Sen Hatch switched to “church speak” once when asked a political question by a woman he knew to be Mormon although they were in a very political situation. This was discussed on one of the feminist blogs, but I don’t remember details. It was just an automatic switch into a condescending sing song tone, like the men speaking in the women’s conference always use. If you flip around radio stations looking for Conference, you can always recognize the right station by the tone of voice. In changing channels on Conference Sunday, you come across talk shows, recognizable by tone, you run into the Evangical church speak, which is very different from Mormon church speak, but both are designed to manipulate emotions, and then you find the channel carrying conference and within seconds you can tell you found it by the voice tone. Lawyers are trained in how to use emotion as well as spin facts, without sounding condescending because you don’t want to insult the jury. But those not trained in some form of public speaking often fall into voice patterns and tone that come across as condescending———but Mormons are trained that this condescension is appropriate because GAs are spiritual authorities we are supposed to worship.

But do they KNOW they do it?

[wtfluff]

...the fluff questions...

Hey! What's wrong with my questions???


(Sorry, sometimes I can't help myself. )

[consiglieri]

Bill Reel and Radio Free Mormon's dissection of the Face-to-Face Devotional on Church History questions featuring Elder Cook is now up.

--RFM

Consiglieri - you and Bill play an audio tape featuring Elder Ballard at different parts of the podcast. Specifically, Ballard says something about Mormon history has never been covered up or withheld, and they know of some hard questions that they'll just plan to avoid in the upcoming event with Cook.

Can you or anyone else here direct me to where that full audio is? Is it a leak of some meeting at COB or a fireside presentation?

That was Elder Ballard and Oaks recent youth face to face prior to this one. Should be up on the church site somewhere.

The first quote about the church not hiding anything is from the devotional.

The second quote about the difficult questions are the ones they will avoid is from the promotional video for the same devotional. I don't know that the promotional video is still available.

[Corsair]

Once again a home run podcast.

It was mentioned that Bill asked Steven four questions. Might I ask what those were?

Was it 5 questions? Anyway, I'd love to know what those questions are, Bill.

The five questions are on Bill's podcast website

Questions to LDS Church Historian after he promised to be candid and forthright in answering any question asked of him and of which when asked he refused to respond.

1.) What is your opinion of whether President Nelson as a proclaimed prophet can reasonably do what ancient prophets have done. Can he part seas, cast curses on critics making them dumb or deaf or three day slumbers or call down fires from heaven? Or do you agree that somehow now that history is recordable and verifiable and shareable that such God magic miracles have ceased and probably never were?

2.) Do you personally think Joseph Smith wrongly manipulated girls like Lucy Walker, the partridge sisters, Fanny Alger into having relationships with him?

3.) Do you believe that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text about literal ancient historically accurate Nephites and Lamanites

4.) Do you think personally that the Church is wrong about Homosexuality? do you personally think by the nature of our policies and doctrines that our institutional church causes undue trauma on gay people?

5.) Lastly do you think Elder Ballard is being completely forthright and accurate when he said “We would have to say, as two Apostles who have covered the world and know the history of the Church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning, there has been no attempt on the part of the Church leaders to try to hide anything from anybody.”?

[Hagoth]

My favorite question was the one from the girl who asked how we can sacrifice even more, like the saints who built the Kirtland temple. Those are the hard-hitting questions that only and apostle can answer.

Low point: Elder Cook's extended laughter at the thought of the cast-aside first wife staying home and do all of the work while her husband took the younger, prettier second wife out to show off to his cronies. That really seemed to tickle his funny bone. I wonder if Mrs. Cook would find it as hilarious.