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

[wtfluff]

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:

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:

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:

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.

[rockslider]

A couple RFM must listens on this topic

The Great Mormon History Coverup
Hiding Church History
Denying Church History

[moksha]

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?"

[nibbler]

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.

[wtfluff]

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...

[BriansThoughtMirror]

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!

[jfro18]

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.

[Emower]

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.

[Red Ryder]

What if Jesus told them to change it?

[Mormorrisey]

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.

[Reuben]

What if Jesus told them to change it?

If Jesus told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?

[Red Ryder]

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.

[Hagoth]

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?

[Yobispo]

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.

[Archimedes]

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?

[Palerider]

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.