New First Presidency

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So again... our leaders are fallible but sharing an experience about one who allegedly made a mistake gets me accused of having "trashed the SP".  I can't have trashed him because all of us already accept the fact that mistakes are made, right?

I think my point has been illustrated once again.

You reject the notion that the penitent's sharing of his perceptions [however flavored by experience or bias or tendentiousness] against advice of the SP [and that advice is always given] makes 2nd or 3rd hand reports unreliable, as the SP will never share anything about the process where we can get at it.

What are we to think?

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You reject the notion that the penitent's sharing of his perceptions [however flavored by experience or bias or tendentiousness] against advice of the SP [and that advice is always given] makes 2nd or 3rd hand reports unreliable, as the SP will never share anything about the process where we can get at it.

What are we to think?

You can and should think whatever you want.  I was illustrating a point and while you have helped illustrate it, you should give the account whatever weight you personally feel it merits.  Since I know the individual and trust him (as he has no reason to fabricate any part of this), I believe what I have shared here to be wholly accurate.

 

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

That's the word!  Just couldn't grab on to it, not enough sleep and went with crosshatching as close enough.

Something in the coding does that, but I can't figure out how to show the code like we used to be able to so I can edit out the loose tag causing it.  And in the past even if I cut and paste again, it is embedded at my end of things so the only option is to scrap the whole post, leave it blank and do a new one...too lazy for that today.

So apologies, but please use link to read it if the strikethrough is too annoying.  Thanks....

I have a suggestion for this.

Two ways, one easy, the other easier once you set it up, but a little complicated to set up. The following assumes you're on a Windows machine.

1. Wash your text through Notepad to remove hidden tags.  Do it this way: (1) open Notepad. (2) paste text into it. (3) type ctrl-A to select all the text, and ctrl-C to copy the washed text to your clipboard. (4) go to where you want to paste your text and type ctrl-V to paste. Only the text will be pasted.  If there was a problem with your text like there was in your post, highlight the text that was pasted but contained the screwy stuff,  and re-paste the washed text over it while editing.  This should clean it up.

2. Use PureText.  This is an app which you install on your PC, and when you want to use it, it requires only two clicks to clean the text in your clipboard.  Go here to get it --> http://stevemiller.net/puretext/. It's not hard to install, but it's a little complicated to set it up so it starts up every time your PC starts. 

Edited January 19, 2018 by Stargazer

[Calm]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

I thought about mentioning this in my post too.  Thanks for adding that!

But, in discussions now I've seen many argue that these "theories" were never taught by the leaders.  So I'm not sure if this is really an admission of being wrong.  I see it as such, but I'm not sure others do.

Even the word used "disavows" is not an admittance of being wrong really:

 

Denying taught at all is ridiculous when we have quotes from some of them.

Denying they were teaching it as official doctrine, if someone wants to believe that, I have no problem with it, though I believe in most cases they saw themselves as doing so.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I have a suggestion for this.

Two ways, one easy, the other easier once you set it up, but a little complicated to set up. The following assumes you're on a Windows machine.

1. Wash your text through Notepad to remove hidden tags.  Do it this way: (1) open Notepad. (2) paste text into it. (3) type ctrl-A to select all the text, and ctrl-C to copy the washed text to your clipboard. (4) go to where you want to paste your text and type ctrl-V to paste. Only the text will be pasted.  If there was a problem with your text like there was in your post, highlight the text that was pasted but contained the screwy stuff,  and re-paste the washed text over it while editing.  This should clean it up.

2. Use PureText.  This is an app which you install on your PC, and when you want to use it, it requires only two clicks to clean the text in your clipboard.  Go here to get it --> http://stevemiller.net/puretext/. It's not hard to install, but it's a little complicated to set it up so it starts up every time your PC starts. 

Use Macs and IPads....Mainly iPad.  Is there a notepad on such?

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, why me said:

It is not so much that they bother me. But they do send a message to the younger crowd: no change. Joseph Smith was a quite a young leader when he led the church: full of energy and movement. It would be nice to see a younger face full of energy and movement.

What changes do you want that a young face would institute?  Guitar music in sacrament meeting?  A jazzed up hymnbook?  

I'm quite puzzled by this, really.  Unless you're on about ordaining women and gay temple sealings, and you think younger apostles would go for those?

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

The whole "ponderize" episode.

Elder Durrant issued a public apology as well:

http://universe.byu.edu/2015/10/07/general-authority-apologizes-for-ponderize-website/

He’s a general officer, not a General Authority, so he is Brother Durrant. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

What changes do you want that a young face would institute?  Guitar music in sacrament meeting?  A jazzed up hymnbook?  

I'm quite puzzled by this, really.  Unless you're on about ordaining women and gay temple sealings, and you think younger apostles would go for those?

One of the younger apostles, Elder Bednar, seems quite strict and unyielding to me. 

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He’s a general officer, not a General Authority, so he is Brother Durrant. 

Thanks, paused for a moment because it didn't sound right, but too lazy to check.

[Gray]

On 1/18/2018 at 2:04 PM, ksfisher said:

I must have misunderstood.  I thought that part of your post was commenting on Elder Hickley's talk.

Yes, you misunderstood.

[Teancum]

On 1/16/2018 at 11:22 AM, JLHPROF said:

It's not a demotion, but it is an overreach to think they are all perfectly united on every single decision.  Once the decision has been reached maybe, but there are definitely different approaches.
This First Presidency will undoubtedly be more orthodox and conservative in its approach than the previous.

How sad.

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Thanks, paused for a moment because it didn't sound right, but too lazy to check.

The Universe writer got it wrong too. 

[Gray]

23 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

No, it just challenges the interpretation of those reactions. It puts those who infer negative vibes on what they see as a demotion in the realm of mind readers who know better than the person making the remarks what said person is really felt.

No, it's not really relevant. It sounds like he's had some time to reflect and is choosing to have a positive outlook. That doesn't change his emotions at the time.

[Gray]

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I thought I was clear from the outset that your assessment of his demeanor was false, and exactly the opposite of mine.  You apparently saw what you wanted to see, and that is an entirely normal tendency -- the same "normal" thing you accept as perfectly O.K.  But it isn't O.K., and it indicates a failure on your part to engage the real world risk of believing that we can interpret facial expressions with such certainty.  That is a reckless fantasy.

I certainly didn't suggest 100% certainty. But expecting a reasonable degree of accuracy in such interpretations isn't unreasonable, barring some cognitive disability that prevents someone from reading facial expressions.

[Teancum]

On 1/16/2018 at 11:54 AM, Duncan said:

Pres. Romney was not re called when Pres. Benson came to the helm

Because Romney was physically not functioning and at the edge of death at the time.

Not so for Uchtdorf.

[Gray]

On 1/18/2018 at 2:17 PM, clarkgoble said:

Yes. Did you read it? Emphasis mine. And again, not the different senses of offense. Maxwell clearly doesn't mean it in the sense Uchtdorf meant it.

The cares and pleasures of the world, temptation, persecution, tribulation—all take their toll; so do being wronged, being ignored, and seeing hypocrisy in others.

[...]

Now, brethren, let us step back from the details of this demanding challenge and speak of overall realities and responsibilities for inactive and active men alike—in a perfect Church filled with imperfect individuals. Part of the manhood that goes with priesthood requires us to take account of such things as the following.

Let us acknowledge that the strait and narrow path, though clearly marked, is a path, not a freeway nor an escalator. Indeed, there are times when the only way the strait and narrow path can be followed is on one’s knees! And we are to help each other along the path, not give offense.

Whatever the dislocating offense which takes one from that path, once it occurs, unless such a one is humble, his search commences—but for vindication, not for reconciliation and communication. Brethren, it is so difficult to carry our cross and grudges, too.

Quickly forgotten by those who are offended is the fact that the Church is “for the perfecting of the saints” (Eph. 4:12); it is not a well-provisioned rest home for the already perfected.

Likewise, unremembered by some is the reality that in the kingdom we are each other’s clinical material; the Lord allows us to practice on each other, even in our imperfections. And each of us knows what it is like to be worked on by a “student” rather than a senior surgeon. Each of us, however unintentionally, has also inflicted some pain.

Often unallowed for, too, are the differing styles of leadership we experience in the kingdom. Paul was thoughtfully sensitive to the need not to offend weak members by eating meat (see 1 Cor. 8:13), while John the Baptist’s diet of locusts and wild honey may not have proven contagious—surely not with Jerusalem’s country club set.

It is our individual and constant responsibility to avoid “looking beyond the mark.” (Jacob 4:14.) My focus is my responsibility! What is most to be focused on—the fact that Peter walked briefly on the water or that he did not continue? Has any other mortal so walked, even that briefly?

Imperfect people are, in fact, called by our perfect Lord to assist in His work. The Lord declared to certain associates of Joseph Smith that He knew that they had observed Joseph’s minor imperfections. Even so, the Lord then testified that the revelations given through the Prophet were true! (See D&C 67:5, 9.)

Unsurprisingly, therefore, we do notice each other’s weaknesses. But we should not celebrate them. Let us be grateful for the small strides that we and others make, rather than rejoice in the shortfalls. And when mistakes occur, let them become instructive, not destructive.

I don't see how this talk is similar. All of the reasons he lists for leaving are in the category of "being offended" and all the mistakes are attributed to individual church members, not the church itself or its top leadership.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Because Romney was physically not functioning and at the edge of death at the time.

Not so for Uchtdorf.

After President Monson's death, my family was discussing the issue of whether both counselors would be recalled and, if not, how that would be unusual.  My brother-in-law interjected that he thought President Eyring might be replaced due to his age so that the 93-year old Prophet could have some "younger" support at his side.  Turns out that it went the opposite direction, replacing the 77 year old with an 85 year old.  But I am sure they will adjust responsibilities between the FP and Q12 accordingly.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

I certainly didn't suggest 100% certainty. But expecting a reasonable degree of accuracy in such interpretations isn't unreasonable, barring some cognitive disability that prevents someone from reading facial expressions.

You keep saying this, but research is lacking.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

I certainly didn't suggest 100% certainty. But expecting a reasonable degree of accuracy in such interpretations isn't unreasonable, barring some cognitive disability that prevents someone from reading facial expressions.

Well, yes, if you are only concerned with off-the-wall assessments.  That doesn't entail cognitive disability, but something more insidious -- differences of opinion such as we constantly see in politics.  There is no "reasonable degree of accuracy," but rather diametrically opposed views -- mutually exclusive views.  We can tell ourselves that we are right and the other guy is wrong, but it is still very subjective and risky.  In the end you will elevate your view and diminish other views.  Everyone does that.  However, without hard forensic evidence you actually have nothing to support your view.  And that's the truth.  It is part of the human condition.

[Scott Lloyd]

23 hours ago, rockpond said:

Unfortunately, I can't post what he wrote or quote from it because he took it down after his meeting with the SP.  I believe he said that he does not believe it is a historical record of an ancient people but he does believe it is scripture that brings him closer to Christ.

Either way, if he has a testimony of it as scripture, why should he be denied a temple recommend?  I wouldn't have denied someone a temple recommend over that back when I had authority to sign them.  Would you?

So it appears he is publicly promulgating false doctrine and contradicting a Church officer in doing so.  

Not my place to judge the blogger, perhaps, but certainly wouldn’t condemn the action of the stake president. 

Edited January 19, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[why me]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

What changes do you want that a young face would institute?  Guitar music in sacrament meeting?  A jazzed up hymnbook?  

I'm quite puzzled by this, really.  Unless you're on about ordaining women and gay temple sealings, and you think younger apostles would go for those?

Oh no. I just mean that it would make a nice change. I think that one reason why Dieter was so successful with the members was because of his age and ideas. He captured the younger crowd who waited anxiously for his talks. I think that he would have made a great prophet. But of course, it is not my call to make. We need to remember that Joseph was a young leader. He was a young man who revolutionized christianity and made an impact in many people's lives. It would be nice to have a younger man at the top and yet with experience to lead. I think that it would attract new members and bring those on the fence a place to rest.

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So it appears he is publicly promulgating false doctrine and contradicting a Church officer in doing so.  

Not my place to judge the blogger, perhaps, but certainly wouldn’t condemn the action of the stake president. 

No, he wasn't publicly promulgating false doctrine.

And is it not okay to contradict a Church officer, considering that they are fallible?  Can they not be contradicted?

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, he wasn't publicly promulgating false doctrine.

And is it not okay to contradict a Church officer, considering that they are fallible?  Can they not be contradicted?

Denying the veracity of the Book of Mormon as an authentic record is false doctrine. And no, contradicting the doctrinal position of the Church or one of its officers is not. OL. 

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Denying the veracity of the Book of Mormon as an authentic record is false doctrine. And no, contradicting the doctrinal position of the Church or one of its officers is not. OL. 

I disagree with your first point, the Book of Mormon is scripture, not a history book.

And regarding your second point, I guess that means that in practice, our leaders are infallible as they cannot be contradicted.  Thanks for the further illustration of the point I've been making.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, yes, if you are only concerned with off-the-wall assessments.  That doesn't entail cognitive disability, but something more insidious -- differences of opinion such as we constantly see in politics.  There is no "reasonable degree of accuracy," but rather diametrically opposed views -- mutually exclusive views.  We can tell ourselves that we are right and the other guy is wrong, but it is still very subjective and risky.  In the end you will elevate your view and diminish other views.  Everyone does that.  However, without hard forensic evidence you actually have nothing to support your view.  And that's the truth.  It is part of the human condition.

Hard, forensic evidence? We're talking about human emotion. When my son makes an angry face I don't make him submit to a battery of scientific tests. His message is instantly received and almost always interpreted accurately.