Jump to content

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I think it utter nonsense to refer to any "demotion" here.  The choice of counselors is completely up to the Pres, and does not reflect well or badly upon those appointed or not appointed.  What you are suggesting is that any release from a calling anywhere in the Church reflects badly upon the person released.  That may be the way of the world, but it is certainly not the way of God.

On the contrary, I have never suggested that (nor would I), which is why I put the word "demotion" in quotation marks.  And you have not been paying very close attention to the thread, because I have been arguing against that very notion throughout. :rolleyes: 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, rongo said:

I never really liked the emphasis that President Clark put on it by giving that talk. I don't know anyone who thinks that being called as a 2nd counselor when one was a 1st counselor is a "demotion" --- or even needs to be addressed. It seems to me that it bothered him, which is why he brought it up in the first place. In other words, why give a talk explaining that it's all right?

And, what is the difference other than cardinal number between assignments, status, etc. of the 1st and 2nd counselor? It's silly

He didn't give that talk because HE had a problem with it. He gave it because there were members that had a problem with it.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Just watched the meeting since I couldn't while at work. I saw absolutely nothing from Elder Uchtdorf to indicate that he is unhappy or upset over this. The few times the camera was on him he looked happy. There appears to be no evidence for a rift among anyone

Also, the gift of prophecy was readily demonstrated today

A lot you know!  <_< You simply lack Emotional Intelligence!  :huh: You must pay attention to subtle cues (indeed, they're nigh imperceptible to normal human beings)!  It's more of a "read-[waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay]-between-the-lines," deeply, deeply, subliminal sort of a thing!  And they were probably only noticeable during the live broadcast, which is another reason why you missed them!

Oh ...  and, prophecy, schmophecy!!!

;):D 

And I'm still waiting for anyone (particularly anyone who views Elder Uchtdorf's new-old-new calling back into the Twelve as a "demotion" ... please note quotation marks ... I'm talking to you, Robert Smith! ;)) to comment on President Nelson's assertion that the Brethren who now hold new/old titles have already received assignments for which they are uniquely qualified in those roles.  (I realize that many may feel it's impossible to comment intelligently without knowing what those assignments are, but, in an infinite number of possible universes, I can envision at least one such universe (however unlikely :rolleyes:) in which now-Elder Uchtdorf might be uniquely qualified for a particular role ... a role which it would have been impossible for him to fill as a member of the First Presidency, given the administrative demands of his former calling ...)

And don't we care about Hal?  How do we think President Eyring feels about his "demotion"?  (Happy Jack Wagon, any comment as proponent of the theory that first counselors are trusted far more than those shifty second counselors?)

 

Edited by Kenngo1969

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, CMZ said:

He didn't give that talk because HE had a problem with it. He gave it because there were members that had a problem with it.

How did he know at that time? I think he had a problem with it, and so gave a talk talking about how it shouldn't matter. ;) 

I think most members don't sit around clucking their tongues about counselors' numbers being changed, or even FP counselors being replaced by other apostles. 

My wife said last night, and I think she's right, considering the rank-and-file active members: Only the whack-a-doos on that message board of yours are losing their minds over this. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/16/2018 at 2:38 PM, rongo said:

I never really liked the emphasis that President Clark put on it by giving that talk. I don't know anyone who thinks that being called as a 2nd counselor when one was a 1st counselor is a "demotion" --- or even needs to be addressed. It seems to me that it bothered him, which is why he brought it up in the first place. In other words, why give a talk explaining that it's all right?

.....

 

There have been a number of times when I knew that others would have a problem with something so I included words to that response ahead of time. I have no idea why he spoke as he did.  He may well have done it because he was the one bothered by it,  but my own experience tells me that it is entirely possible that he could have done it because he just "knew" ahead of time. 

 

18 hours ago, Gray said:

Not tea leaves. Faces. That's something we all do every day. Normal part of human communication.

Having had my face read wrong many times and having read many things about communication and knowing very often people read facial expressions and body language and even words wrong it doesn't matter to me if it is a part of normal communication. Even with my own family I often ask, "what do you mean by this?"

I am curious what I will think I see when I watch it. I tried going to the link above, it must have changed what it is there or I was going to the wrong link. 

Edited by Rain

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The problem with that is that we often see what we want to see (as with tea leaves).  Juries often use that method to read suspects and witnesses, and too often reach the wrong verdict thereby.  It is "normal," and too often simply wrong.

I think most people are pretty good at reading faces. I think it's much harder to hide our emotions through our expressions than it is through our words.

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think most people are pretty good at reading faces. I think it's much harder to hide our emotions through our expressions than it is through our words.

I think that most people are not really good at reading faces or body language. I do not know if any of the posters on this board ever followed the Amanda Knox saga/ordeal but it is a case study of people "reading" a person's expressions and body language as evidence of a person's guilt. Amanda was an American student that had gone to Italy to study at a university in Perugia who was accused of killing one of her flat mates. The forensic evidence gathered from the scene of the crime pretty much ruled her out as the culprit, but there were (and still are) those who believe(d) her actions expressions were almost foolproof indicators of guilt.

Oh, there are people who do wear their hearts on their sleeves as the saying goes, but there are also many whose outward expressions are not really indicative of what they are feeling inside. I learned this the hard way while raising trying to raise from seven to nine children.

Glenn

Edited by Glenn101
reality

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think most people are pretty good at reading faces. I think it's much harder to hide our emotions through our expressions than it is through our words.

When it comes to so many other things LDS, you are a very hard to convince skeptic. That’s why if find it so strangely out of character for someone who is such a hard-nosed naysayer to be convinced on this particular point with zero real proof or reliable evidence. So I’m disappointed to learn that when it comes to something you WANT TO BELIEVE your great caution and indomitable skepticism seems to go right out the window.

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I think that most people are not really good at reading faces or body language. I do not know if any of the posters on this board ever followed the Amanda Knox saga/ordeal but it is a case study of people "reading" a person's expressions and body language as evidence of a person's guilt. Amanda was an American student that had gone to Italy to study at a university in Perugia who was accused of killing one of her flat mates. The forensic evidence gathered from the scene of the crime pretty much ruled her out as the culprit, but there were (and still are) those who believe(d) her actions expressions were almost foolproof indicators of guilt.

Oh, there are people who do wear their hearts on their sleeves as the saying goes, but there are also many whose outward expressions are not really indicative of what they are feeling inside. I learned this the hard way while raising trying to raise from seven to nine children.

Glenn

Reading guilt (what someone did in the past) is very different from reading emotion (what someone is feeling in the moment)

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

When it comes to so many other things LDS, you are a very hard to convince skeptic. That’s why if find it so strangely out of character for someone who is such a hard-nosed naysayer to be convinced on this particular point with zero real proof or reliable evidence. So I’m disappointed to learn that when it comes to something you WANT TO BELIEVE your great caution and indomitable skepticism seems to go right out the window.

What emotion is the person below feeling? This is really tough to figure out. Faces are such a mystery! Some have suggested sadness, but how could we ever really know? He could just be bored or amused!

851913.jpeg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Gray

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

So saddened by losing Elder Uchtdorf in the presidency.  This is not a good sign for the progressives in the church like me.   Here is my suspicion on what just happened.  

1.  I think Elder Oaks "earned" this promotion through his vocal and ardent articulation on the LGBT topic and on women and the priesthood, and I think Nelson rewarded and promoted him accordingly.  

2. I suspect that Elder Uchtdorf was vocal behind the scenes with concerns about the LGBT policy and possibly other issues, and I think Nelson and others interpreted his concerns as disloyalty.  

This news today has me greatly saddened.  I see this as retrenchment and a move in the wrong direction.  

There is absolutely no evidence for any of this. Not a speck. 

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Gray said:

What emotion is the person below feeling? This is really tough to figure out. Faces are such a mystery! Some have suggested sadness, but how could we ever really know? He could just be bored or amused!

851913.jpeg

 

 

 

 

 

 

It seemed Uchtdorf was a little despondent.  It's not surprising given how the outside world might view his not being retained in the first presidency as a demotion.  He may not think so and mormons here may not, however, to outsiders and some progressive mormons too, it looks like he was demoted.

Edited by Exiled

Share this post


Link to post

Elder Uchtdorf may have just been exhausted.  After all, he was the youngest, by quite a bit, in a presidency in which the prophet's health was failing and the first counselor was also dealing with a sick wife.  If he's anything like the bishop's counselors I know, he was doing absolutely everything possible to lighten their load.  Now that even the perception of that responsibility has been passed on, he may finally be allowing himself to feel how very tired he must be.

 

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, DispensatorMysteriorum said:

There is absolutely no evidence for any of this. Not a speck. 

I never made the claim that there was, these are my suspicions and I was venturing into speculation which I was very clear about in my post.  

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, Gray said:

What emotion is the person below feeling? This is really tough to figure out. Faces are such a mystery! Some have suggested sadness, but how could we ever really know? He could just be bored or amused!

851913.jpeg

Because that's totally how Uchtdorf (or any of them, for that matter) looked yesterday.

You're not helping your case by posting a picture of a man crying and rubbing his eyes. If they had looked like that, I could go along with your "utterly despondent." As it is, they really looked how they always look. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, rongo said:

Because that's totally how Uchtdorf (or any of them, for that matter) looked yesterday.

You're not helping your case by posting a picture of a man crying and rubbing his eyes. If they had looked like that, I could go along with your "utterly despondent." As it is, they really looked how they always look. 

Why do you think Holland patted Uchtdorf on the leg if not for consolation?  To most people in the outside world, it looks like a demotion, in my opinion.  It's got to be tough for him.  Maybe the pat was an acknowledgement of this?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

So I’m disappointed to learn that when it comes to something you WANT TO BELIEVE your great caution and indomitable skepticism seems to go right out the window.

And, you're doing the same (seeing what "you WANT TO BELIEVE").  There's speculation going on here from both sides:

22 minutes ago, Traela said:

Elder Uchtdorf may have just been exhausted.  After all, he was the youngest, by quite a bit, in a presidency in which the prophet's health was failing and the first counselor was also dealing with a sick wife.  If he's anything like the bishop's counselors I know, he was doing absolutely everything possible to lighten their load.  Now that even the perception of that responsibility has been passed on, he may finally be allowing himself to feel how very tired he must be.

I think it's totally normal for Elder Uchtdorf to have felt a bit awkward and possibly sad even.  He is human.  I would imagine that everyone in the room knew this was not a comfortable situation for him.  I think he handled himself with grace and dignity, but yes....I saw other emotions on his face too.  (And, they could have meant any number of things...but he did appear upset and not happy at times.)

Of course, that does not mean that he does not throw his full support and love behind the new first presidency.  

It's possible to feel more than one emotion at a time.  (And, completely normal.)

 

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, Gray said:

What emotion is the person below feeling? This is really tough to figure out. Faces are such a mystery! Some have suggested sadness, but how could we ever really know? He could just be bored or amused!

851913.jpeg

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's actually a really good example of why it's hard to read emotions from facial expressions. I've seen people look like that when they're depressed, sad, or tired. But I've also seen virtually the same expression when people are overjoyed, extremely relieved, or have eaten something very, very spicy.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, rongo said:

Because that's totally how Uchtdorf (or any of them, for that matter) looked yesterday.

You're not helping your case by posting a picture of a man crying and rubbing his eyes. If they had looked like that, I could go along with your "utterly despondent." As it is, they really looked how they always look. 

He didn't look like the man above. But he also looked unhappy.

The point of the picture was not to suggest that's how Uchtdorf looked. But I've had multiple people try to tell me that you just can't tell if someone is upset or not by looking at their faces. It's astonishing the things people come up with to deal with information they find disconcerting.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Gray said:

I don't think there's any evidence that Uchtdorf had anything to do with Prop 8.

Except that he was the counselor in the First Presidency that was pushing Prop-8 opposition. So I have a hard time seeing how you can say he had nothing to do with it. His name is on lots of the documents related to it.

Now if there was evidence he opposed it and was arguing against it I think this might be a reasonable position. When your administration is the one pushing the Prop-8 battle in a way the prior one didn't, I don't think you can say you have nothing to do with it.

Edited by clarkgoble

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, rchorse said:

That's actually a really good example of why it's hard to read emotions from facial expressions. I've seen people look like that when they're depressed, sad, or tired. But I've also seen virtually the same expression when people are overjoyed, extremely relieved, or have eaten something very, very spicy.

No, no one looks like that when they're overjoyed, extremely relieved, or have just eaten a ghost pepper. 

I'm not one to throw around words like "gaslighting" or "backfire effect", and I don't think that's exactly what's happening in this thread. But I have a little more sympathy now with people who tend to use those terms (even though they don't tend to use them with much precision). Because something a little like that seems to be playing out here.

 

 

Edited by Gray

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, clarkgoble said:

Except that he was the counselor in the First Presidency that was pushing Prop-8 opposition. So I have a hard time seeing how you can say he had nothing to do with it. His name is on lots of the documents related to it.

What makes you think he was pushing it? He may have assented to include his signature in the name of unity, as part of his first presidency duties. But I've never heard him preach a word against gay relationships - he doesn't even tend to talk about gender roles.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×