New First Presidency

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You keep saying this, but research is lacking.

Do you have some research that says people can't discern emotion based on facial expression?

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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

There's an app for iPad that is called that: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/notepad/id495125972?mt=8

TextEdit is included with OS X on the Mac

The Mac may have a built-in app that strips text of markup and hidden characters. I don't Mac, so I wouldn't know

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

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.

No, it does not change the emotions he felt at the time, nor does it change the fact that none of us are mind readers and do not really know what he was thinking or feeling at the time. And this could go on forever without either viewpoint being proven, so I choose to let it go. The resulting posts and opinions are pretty much what I expected from pretty much the people I expected them from.

Glenn

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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

 

Good thing I didn't say it was "a history book," then, or deny that it is scripture.

I said it is an authentically historic record. It is not fiction created from whole cloth.

Quote

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.

That's not what I said.

When one advocates false doctrine and, in the process, publicly takes issue with a Church officer in his expression of true doctrine, that compounds the offense as I see it.

Again, I cannot condemn the action of the stake president as recounted in this incident.

 

Edited January 19, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Do you have some research that says people can't discern emotion based on facial expression?

Looks like you're trying to make an argument from silence.

 

[mnn727]

For those of you pointing out Elder Holland patting Elder Uchtdorf's hand, Elder Holland also patted Acting President Ballards hand.

[USU78]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

 

And I wholly reject the story. That the penitent's story is unintelligible, given what we know about how things work, justifies our distrust. He's leaving out something critical, to be blunt. 

[rockpond]

38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Good thing I didn't say it was "a history book," then, or deny that it is scripture.

I said it is an authentically historic record. It is not fiction created from whole cloth.

That's not what I said.

When one advocates false doctrine and, in the process, publicly takes issue with a Church officer in his expression of true doctrine, that compounds the offense as I see it.

Again, I cannot condemn the action of the stake president as recounted in this incident.

 

My friend didn’t advocate false doctrine nor did he take issue with a church officer expressing true doctrine.  He took issue with the church officer’s secular evidences regarding the Book of Mormon.  And he subsequently had his recommend taken away for doing it. 

I would not expect you to condemn the SP.  I wouldn’t even expect you to suggest that the SP was wrong.  That’s been my point throughout this discussion.  In theory our leaders are fallible.  In practice within church orthodoxy, they are treated as infallible. 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

And I wholly reject the story. That the penitent's story is unintelligible, given what we know about how things work, justifies our distrust. He's leaving out something critical, to be blunt. 

Exactly the response I would expect. 

Edited January 20, 2018 by rockpond

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Exactly the response I would expect. 

Because you don't understand what makes a datum reliable.

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

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

Gees Calm...we will forgive ya!

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Because you don't understand what makes a datum reliable.

It wasn’t really about the datum.  It was about the readers’ reactions. Those speak volumes. 

[USU78]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It wasn’t really about the datum.  It was about the readers’ reactions. Those speak volumes. 

In what language? Tendentianese?

[CV75]

On 1/18/2018 at 1:19 PM, rockpond said:

We proclaim fallibility of our leaders but we aren't really permitted to acknowledge any actual mistakes.

That sounds like a fallible, and faulty, opinion. I think it is more believable to say, “We acknowledge that we and our leaders are fallible, and the Church has a due process to address mistakes, errors and sins according to their severity.” At least both fallibility and due process are laid out in ours scriptures.

Your example is a case in point. It lacks some key facts for drawing the conclusion you shared, precisely because you, along with Elder Callister, the Stake President, and the blogger, are fallible.

Did the fallible Stake President call in the fallible blogger for countering the fallible Elder’s evidences in a good faith (objectively, scholarly, etc.) manner; because the fallible blogger’s counterpoints fell under the definition of apostasy; because the blogging is part of a bigger, related concern; because of other questionable things on the blog; or for some other reason altogether?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

My friend didn’t advocate false doctrine nor did he take issue with a church officer expressing true doctrine.  He took issue with the church officer’s secular evidences regarding the Book of Mormon.  And he subsequently had his recommend taken away for doing it. 

 

He took issue because of his wholesale secular rejection of the fact that the Book of Mormon is what it purports to be, a record kept by a real ancient people and brought forth in latter days through the gift and power of God.

Quote

I would not expect you to condemn the SP.  I wouldn’t even expect you to suggest that the SP was wrong.  That’s been my point throughout this discussion.  In theory our leaders are fallible.  In practice within church orthodoxy, they are treated as infallible. 

One doesn't have to think they're infallible to reject a bogus argument against them.

 

[clarkgoble]

It’s so odd to me that the founder of Dialog, the person famous for butting heads with Elder Packer particularly over openness to history, the person who first pushed for homosexuality being innate and who was the first to say this in the Ensign, the one GA who publicly criticized those refusing to give marriage certificates to gays, the person who pushed for compromises....

Anyway you get the idea. He’s seen as harsh and uncompromising while the person in the First Presidency who made all the policies and hadn’t done of of the things Oaks did not even hinted at his views being different from Pres Monson is seen as Progressive. I just don’t get it.

Thats not a knock on any of them. Just that I earnestly don’t get the projection on Uchtdorf of being unorthodox.

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

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.

Thought I addressed this.

But more to the point are you saying Uchtdorf talk said it was good that people left? Or that simply they left for understandable reasons? Which is exactly what the above talk said. 

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

That sounds like a fallible, and faulty, opinion. I think it is more believable to say, “We acknowledge that we and our leaders are fallible, and the Church has a due process to address mistakes, errors and sins according to their severity.” At least both fallibility and due process are laid out in ours scriptures.

Your example is a case in point. It lacks some key facts for drawing the conclusion you shared, precisely because you, along with Elder Callister, the Stake President, and the blogger, are fallible.

Did the fallible Stake President call in the fallible blogger for countering the fallible Elder’s evidences in a good faith (objectively, scholarly, etc.) manner; because the fallible blogger’s counterpoints fell under the definition of apostasy; because the blogging is part of a bigger, related concern; because of other questionable things on the blog; or for some other reason altogether?

I’ve answered questions about the blogger but since his post was taken down (after meeting with the SP) I obviously can’t prove anything. 

I note, however, that all your accusations of impropriety are being leveled at my friend and not at the SP.  Just further evidence to support the point I have been making.  Thank you. 

[Rain]

I finally watched. I couldn't see Elder Uchtdorf's face on my phone so I can't share what I might have seen there.  

I thought how President Nelson reacted with Peggy Stack was very sweet. Tender hearted. Then he continued with that personal touch with each of the reporters who were present in some way. 

I had a meeting with a wonderful woman yesterday. I've only known her for about a year. She is always complimentary and filled with love and sometimes I feel uncomfortable about it, yet I know she is sincere. And yesterday I better understood her.

In our meeting she gave a spiritual thought. She shared how she always thought of charity as doing something for others. Then she heard a talk that changed her life.

Charity Never Faileth

"I consider charity—or “the pure love of Christ”—to be the opposite of criticism and judging. In speaking of charity, I do not at this moment have in mind the relief of the suffering through the giving of our substance. That, of course, is necessary and proper. Tonight, however, I have in mind the charity that manifests itself when we are tolerant of others and lenient toward their actions, the kind of charity that forgives, the kind of charity that is patient.

"I have in mind the charity that impels us to be sympathetic, compassionate, and merciful, not only in times of sickness and affliction and distress but also in times of weakness or error on the part of others.

"There is a serious need for the charity that gives attention to those who are unnoticed, hope to those who are discouraged, aid to those who are afflicted. True charity is love in action. The need for charity is everywhere.

"Needed is the charity which refuses to find satisfaction in hearing or in repeating the reports of misfortunes that come to others, unless by so doing, the unfortunate one may be benefited. The American educator and politician Horace Mann once said, “To pity distress is but human; to relieve it is godlike.”¹¹

"Charity is having patience with someone who has let us down. It is resisting the impulse to become offended easily. It is accepting weaknesses and shortcomings. It is accepting people as they truly are. It is looking beyond physical appearances to attributes that will not dim through time. It is resisting the impulse to categorize others.

Charity, that pure love of Christ, is manifest when a group of young women from a singles ward travels hundreds of miles to attend the funeral services for the mother of one of their Relief Society sisters. Charity is shown when devoted visiting teachers return month after month, year after year to the same uninterested, somewhat critical sister. It is evident when an elderly widow is remembered..."

This what I thought of when I heard President Nelson talk to the reporters. He "remembered" them. Not as a group of reporters, but remembered them personally. 

What a sweet and powerful example he showed of the influence of the Savior in his life.

Edited January 20, 2018 by Rain

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

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.

At the most simplistic level, of course, but that is not what we are talking about.  We are discussing the reading of facial expression or other gestures by people who are not members of our immediate family, and that is a high risk enterprise, often leading to false judgments which can imprison an innocent man, and free a guilty one.  You seem bound and determined to avoid or ignore the hard lessons gleaned from real world experience.  We need hard evidence, not opinion-mongering.  As Brother Brigham said, "No man's opinion is worth a straw."

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

Do you have some research that says people can't discern emotion based on facial expression?

Yeah, I have posted  links that have summaries and links to actual studies 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I finally watched. I couldn't see Elder Uchtdorf's face on my phone so I can't share what I might have seen there.  

I thought how he reacted with Peggy Stack was very sweet. Tender hearted. Then he continued with that personal touch with each of the reporters who were present in some way. 

I had a meeting with a wonderful woman yesterday. I've only known her for about a year. She is always complimentary and filled with love and sometimes I feel uncomfortable about it, yet I know she is sincere. And yesterday I better understood her.

In our meeting she gave a spiritual thought. She shared how she always thought of charity as doing something for others. Then she heard a talk that changed her life.

Charity Never Faileth

"I consider charity—or “the pure love of Christ”—to be the opposite of criticism and judging. In speaking of charity, I do not at this moment have in mind the relief of the suffering through the giving of our substance. That, of course, is necessary and proper. Tonight, however, I have in mind the charity that manifests itself when we are tolerant of others and lenient toward their actions, the kind of charity that forgives, the kind of charity that is patient.

"I have in mind the charity that impels us to be sympathetic, compassionate, and merciful, not only in times of sickness and affliction and distress but also in times of weakness or error on the part of others.

"There is a serious need for the charity that gives attention to those who are unnoticed, hope to those who are discouraged, aid to those who are afflicted. True charity is love in action. The need for charity is everywhere.

"Needed is the charity which refuses to find satisfaction in hearing or in repeating the reports of misfortunes that come to others, unless by so doing, the unfortunate one may be benefited. The American educator and politician Horace Mann once said, “To pity distress is but human; to relieve it is godlike.”¹¹

"Charity is having patience with someone who has let us down. It is resisting the impulse to become offended easily. It is accepting weaknesses and shortcomings. It is accepting people as they truly are. It is looking beyond physical appearances to attributes that will not dim through time. It is resisting the impulse to categorize others.

Charity, that pure love of Christ, is manifest when a group of young women from a singles ward travels hundreds of miles to attend the funeral services for the mother of one of their Relief Society sisters. Charity is shown when devoted visiting teachers return month after month, year after year to the same uninterested, somewhat critical sister. It is evident when an elderly widow is remembered..."

This what I thought of when I heard President Nelson talk to the reporters. He "remembered" them. Not as a group of reporters, but remembered them personally. 

What a sweet and powerful example he showed of the influence of the Savior in his life.

It has been my experience that President Nelson has a real knack for the personal touch.

Some years ago, I covered a unique gathering, a reunion of former members of Sunday School general presidencies in the Church. Relatively few remember today or were even alive when Russell M. Nelson served as the Sunday School general president. It would have been back in the early '70s, when I was in my teens.

Thus, he was at this reunion and presided over the meeting.

As he was addressing the folks who were there, he made reference to a poster in the room "back there by where Scott Lloyd is sitting." I was amazed. I had no idea he knew me well enough to call me by name.

On another occasion a few years later, I was covering the closing session of a seminar for new MTC presidents and visitors' center directors. Elder Nelson was giving the talk. He spoke of the Second Coming of Christ. As best I can remember, he said, "CNN and Fox News will be there. The New York Times will be there. Scott Lloyd will be there to cover it for the Church News."

Every year, Deseret Management Corp., the corporate umbrella for a number of commercial enterprises owned by the Church, including the one I work for, has a Christmas banquet for the respective company managers. Many of the Church leaders attend. For the entertainment each year, a choir is organized, composed of volunteers from the several companies. I have been a member of the choir each year and thus have been at the banquet.

One year, after our choir had finished its performance and we were was leaving the room singing "Silent Night," I passed Elder Nelson's table. He reached out to me and said, "That was very nice, Scott."

My last personal encounter with him was a few years ago when I covered the dedication of the Priesthood Restoration Site at Harmony, Pa. President Nelson was there to dedicate the facilities. I took a memorable photo of President and Sister Nelson with their smartphones taking a picture of the gravestone of the infant son of Joseph and Emma Smith there in the cemetery at Harmony. It was the first visit to that site for either of them.

President Packer had only recently died, and Elder Nelson had ascended by seniority to the position of President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I made a mental note that if I should happen to have a personal encounter with President Nelson, I must be careful to address him with the title "President" rather than "Elder."

As I was in a little anteroom in the visitors center composing my news story and downloading my photos, he surprised the few of us who were in there by coming in to say hello. Sure enough, I made the faux pas I was determined to avoid and addressed him as "Elder Nelson," quickly and awkwardly correcting myself. He, of course, took it very graciously.

I have been fond of President Nelson for years and have secretly hoped for the day that he might become the President of the Church. Now that time is at hand.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have been fond of President Nelson for years and have secretly hoped for the day that he might become the President of the Church. Now that time is at hand.

Your words here, Scott, are mine as well.

[Kenngo1969]

Unless I am mistaken, this is the first time someone who was called into the Quorum of the Twelve when I was alive has ascended to the office of President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Yeah, I have posted  links that have summaries and links to actual studies 

Which, conveniently, have been ignored by people on this thread who consider themselves experts at reading emotion through facial expressions.

Who ya gonna believe?  Them ... or Elder Uchtdorf's lying lips/fingers?

 What?  Oh.  Don't mind me.  Carry on!  

I should add that even if they're absolutely correct in their reading of Elder Uchtdorf's emotions, there's still the considerable risk that they could be misattributing the reason for those emotions to Elder Uchtdorf's "demotion" (my word).  I say that the reason why Elder Uchtdorf looked as though he felt [fill-in-the-blank-with-negative-emotion-here] is because, reveling in the newfound freedom of being relegated to the status of a "mere Apostle" (my phrase) after having had the burden of serving in the First Presidency lifted off of his shoulders, Elder Uchtdorf had gone skiing, and had had a disagreement with Schwester Harriet after he disregarded her instructions to stick to the Bunny Hill.

Exactly as much evidence has been presented for my hypothesis as has been presented for the hypothesis that the source of Elder Uchtdorf's obvious discontent (after all, it was plain to see, written all over the man's face!  ) is his "demotion" (again, my word).