Calm Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Gray said: Some people don't have the knack, to be sure. More than people think apparently....see the link Did you take the quiz I posted awhile ago? Edited January 18, 2018 by Calm Link to comment
Calm Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 (edited) "In the New Scientist piece, Barrett addresses an assumption many people hold — that facial expressions can be neatly matched to discrete emotions. A scowl always means anger, a curled upper lip is a dead giveaway for disgust, and so on. But it’s more complicated than it seems, Barrett argues, as many studies on facial expressions use a “psychological cheat”:..." https://www.thecut.com/2017/03/if-youre-bad-at-reading-faces-perhaps-this-is-why.html Edited January 18, 2018 by Calm 2 Link to comment
Gray Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 8 minutes ago, Calm said: More than people think apparently....see the link Did you take the quiz I posted awhile ago? No, I didn't see it. Link to comment
Calm Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 (edited) Here's one. More fun imo than diagnostic. I scored quite average on another one and way up there, practically perfect with this one. I should be a genius at it. https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/well-quiz-the-mind-behind-the-eyes/ The word choice on this makes it obvious imo. Here is the other one where I was mediocre: https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/quizzes/take_quiz/ei_quiz Edited January 18, 2018 by Calm Link to comment
Popular Post bluebell Posted January 18, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 18, 2018 I apologize if someone in the thread has already posted this. I haven't read the whole thing. This was posted by Elder Uchtdorf on his Facebook page- In the last couple of days, I have seen countless comments on social media and have heard many questions regarding how I feel now that I am no longer a counselor in the First Presidency. I appreciate your concern for my welfare, but I assure you, I’m just fine. 😃❤️ I love and support the First Presidency, and I am thrilled to again more closely associate with the other members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Just after being called to the First Presidency in 2008, I delivered a talk in general conference titled “Lift Where You Stand.” During that address, I discussed the importance of seeing every calling we receive—no matter what it is—as an opportunity to strengthen and bless others and become what Heavenly Father wants us to become. I could give that talk again today and the words I shared would be just as relevant. Just a few days ago, Harriet and I spoke to the young people of the Church and made specific reference to how we cannot connect the dots in our lives looking forward. We can only do so looking backward. In hindsight, each of us will see how the dots connect in our lives on a more elevated, spiritual level. One of my favorite quotes comes from President Gordon B. Hinckley, who said the following: “Your obligation is as serious in your sphere of responsibility as is my obligation in my sphere. No calling in this Church is small or of little consequence. All of us in the pursuit of our duty touch the lives of others.” My friends, let us work together on the task at hand—to help all of God’s children know that He has a plan for them and to let them know they can find true joy in the gospel of Jesus Christ. I know that God is in charge. HE is at the helm. HE wants us to serve wherever we are in this beautiful worldwide Church. No matter where we are on this planet and to whichever calling we are assigned, let us do our best to serve God and our fellowman. 7 Link to comment
USU78 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 11 hours ago, smac97 said: I know it is a common trope to characterize lawyers as being obsessed with the letter of the law, as martinets who have no concern for the "human" side of legal issues that arise. Having worked as an attorney for 13 years now, I feel that such characterizations are often very misplaced. I think lawyers are some of the most clear-eyed observers of the interactions between "justice" and "mercy." Thanks, -Smac ... and don't forget beauty. How we bind ourselves together in mutual trust with mutual covenants for our mutual benefit ... with no thought of domination. Good people of good will. That's the law's beauty. 2 Link to comment
clarkgoble Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 1 hour ago, Gray said: Uchtdorf is by far the most theologically liberal of the 15. He hasn't publicly weighed in on gay marriage, but his other talks make it clear that he is not in lock step with most of the others on several key matters. That may mean he has a different viewpoint. That doesn't mean we know what his views are, but if any of them are more liberal on the issue, my money is on Uchtdorf . As you say, President Monson didn't weigh in on it either. But, President Monson never weighed in on anything controversial in public that I can recall. That doesn't seem to have been his way. Could you give me an example of something Uchtdorf is liberal on. I looked through a ton of his talks and I don't see it. 1 Link to comment
Gray Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Could you give me an example of something Uchtdorf is liberal on. I looked through a ton of his talks and I don't see it. Here's a prime example: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng Link to comment
hope_for_things Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 8 hours ago, smac97 said: I believe that because the Scriptures and the Church teaches it. It's a matter of faith, of course. But polygamy is baked into the LDS paradigm, along with animal sacrifice, male-only ordination, the Law of Chastity's narrow constraints on sexual activity, the Word of Wisdom, the Law of Tithing, the Book of Mormon and its origin story, and on and on and on. Probably because there are various different perspectives throughout the scriptures, and interpretations throughout history. When we try to take one idea, one person's perspective, one interpretation and say, this here represents the mind and will of God. I think that is a mistake and at times can be turning a view point into an idol. We need to be more humble and we should be very hesitant to say that God agrees with our PoV. For polygamy in particular, I've read many books and journal accounts about the Mormon history of it, and I'm comfortable saying that I don't believe the practice is in alignment with the central principles of the gospel as I understand them and as I aspire to believe in the gospel. But I try not to judge the individuals participating as I'm pretty sure their vantage point (many of my ancestors participated) is different than mine and their perspectives about what God was communicating to them is a personal perspective, so I don't expect them to have all the same experiences as I do or the same information with which to make a judgement. My perspective on the gospel is a mixture of life experience, study and conscience. So while you might point to a scriptural passage or a quote from an authority and say, this message is clearly in the first person voice of God from scripture or this message is clearly authoritative and direct from a leader with authority, therefore you accept the message (and your interpretation) as being an accurate representation of God's will. I have a different way of looking at things. I look at those same statements, and I don't just dismiss them out of hand, or completely ignore their importance. Rather, I weight them against all the other information that I've gathered in my life's experience, my understanding of history, my conscience, and my understanding of what I believe are key gospel principles. If those statements and scriptural interpretations don't square up with everything else I just listed, then I consider other ways of interpreting. I also consider that the author of the scripture or statement has imputed their limited understanding and perspective including their culture and personal background along the way. I try to be charitable to every individual, recognizing that we are all largely a product of our sitz im leben. This charity extends to how I view their motives, but it doesn't extend to agreement with the ideas they are promulgating. I may disagree strongly and I will point out the errors in thinking that I find logically and ethically problematic. Hopefully that helps, as I wanted to explain my approach these days. I have to say that this is all fairly new for me, I was a strongly conservative orthodox Mormon just a few years back, so my current way of thinking is quite radically different from the model I was operating under in my earlier life. I do believe my current model is a superior in many aspects, but I also freely admit that it is much more complicated and has some drawbacks as well. I believe that it was important for my personal growth, and for that I'm very grateful to have entered into a different developmental way of thinking. 1 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, Gray said: Again, not seeing the relevance. We all read faces every day - it's a key part of communicating with each other. Yes, and too bad that it is so easy to con someone. I am often struck by how differently a person can be read by different people (including the case which began this conversation). A blithe and pollyannish approach carries with it the likelihood that our judgments will be erroneous -- and our courtrooms demonstrate just how dangerous that attitude can be. The innocent can easily be convicted, while the guilty go free. In settings of that kind, we should prefer hard forensic evidence, rather than convincing claims delivered with a calm, nice demeanor (as with the murderer Mark Hofmann). Reading the faces and body language of close friends and family every day may give us the false notion that we can easily extend that to those we don't know well. In a courtroom setting that has meant that nice looking people who present themselves well can get off Scot-free, even though they are as guilty as sin. It happens all the time. Edited January 18, 2018 by Robert F. Smith 2 Link to comment
Popular Post clarkgoble Posted January 18, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 18, 2018 25 minutes ago, Gray said: Here's a prime example: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng No offense but that's pretty mainstream doctrine he's teaching. There's nothing remotely theologically liberal in that talk. To me this is a perfect example of people taking style as implying content. Further often the style isn't even that different from other figures. Compare the above to say this well known talk of Hinckley. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1976/10/everything-to-gain-nothing-to-lose?lang=eng 5 Link to comment
Gray Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Yes, and too bad that it is so easy to con someone. I am often struck by how differently a person can be read by different people (including the case with began this conversation). A blithe and pollyannish approach carries with it the likelihood that our judgments will be erroneous -- and our courtrooms demonstrate just how dangerous that attitude can be. The innocent can easily be convicted, while the guilty go free. In settings of that kind, we should prefer hard forensic evidence, rather than convincing claims delivered with a calm, nice demeanor (as with the murderer Mark Hofmann). Reading the faces and body language of close friends and family every day may give us the false notion that we can easily extend that to those we don't know well. In a courtroom setting that has meant that nice looking people who present themselves well can get off Scot-free, even though they are as guilty as sin. It happens all the time. I'm not seeing the relevance, unless you're suggesting Elder U. was trying to con us with his facial expressions? I'm sure that's not what you mean. Edited January 18, 2018 by Gray Link to comment
Gray Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: No offense but that's pretty mainstream doctrine he's teaching. There's nothing remotely theologically liberal in that talk. To me this is a perfect example of people taking style as implying content. Further often the style isn't even that different from other figures. Compare the above to say this well known talk of Hinckley. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1976/10/everything-to-gain-nothing-to-lose?lang=eng It's not mainstream at all, this was pretty shocking even for its time. Quote To Those Who Leave The search for truth has led millions of people to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, there are some who leave the Church they once loved. One might ask, “If the gospel is so wonderful, why would anyone leave?” Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations. Some of our dear members struggle for years with the question whether they should separate themselves from the Church. In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly, that was restored by a young man who asked questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth. It may break our hearts when their journey takes them away from the Church we love and the truth we have found, but we honor their right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience, just as we claim that privilege for ourselves.5 Quote Mistakes of Imperfect People And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine. I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes. In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”6 This is the way it has always been and will be until the perfect day when Christ Himself reigns personally upon the earth. This was a major shift. 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 2 hours ago, bluebell said: I apologize if someone in the thread has already posted this. I haven't read the whole thing. This was posted by Elder Uchtdorf on his Facebook page- In the last couple of days, I have seen countless comments on social media and have heard many questions regarding how I feel now that I am no longer a counselor in the First Presidency. I appreciate your concern for my welfare, but I assure you, I’m just fine. 😃❤️ I love and support the First Presidency, and I am thrilled to again more closely associate with the other members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Just after being called to the First Presidency in 2008, I delivered a talk in general conference titled “Lift Where You Stand.” During that address, I discussed the importance of seeing every calling we receive—no matter what it is—as an opportunity to strengthen and bless others and become what Heavenly Father wants us to become. I could give that talk again today and the words I shared would be just as relevant. Just a few days ago, Harriet and I spoke to the young people of the Church and made specific reference to how we cannot connect the dots in our lives looking forward. We can only do so looking backward. In hindsight, each of us will see how the dots connect in our lives on a more elevated, spiritual level. One of my favorite quotes comes from President Gordon B. Hinckley, who said the following: “Your obligation is as serious in your sphere of responsibility as is my obligation in my sphere. No calling in this Church is small or of little consequence. All of us in the pursuit of our duty touch the lives of others.” My friends, let us work together on the task at hand—to help all of God’s children know that He has a plan for them and to let them know they can find true joy in the gospel of Jesus Christ. I know that God is in charge. HE is at the helm. HE wants us to serve wherever we are in this beautiful worldwide Church. No matter where we are on this planet and to whichever calling we are assigned, let us do our best to serve God and our fellowman. So we now have this pointed assurance from Elder Uchtdorf himself. Yet we are still seeing the absurd fussing over facial expressions and "hand pats." Most of us are acquainted with the scriptural phrase "making a man an offender for a word." Could that be extended in meaning to making a man an offender for a facial expression? 2 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 1 hour ago, Gray said: It's not mainstream at all, this was pretty shocking even for its time. This was a major shift. More like an acknowledgment of the obvious. 1 Link to comment
JLHPROF Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: No offense but that's pretty mainstream doctrine he's teaching. There's nothing remotely theologically liberal in that talk. To me this is a perfect example of people taking style as implying content. Further often the style isn't even that different from other figures. Compare the above to say this well known talk of Hinckley. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1976/10/everything-to-gain-nothing-to-lose?lang=eng 1 hour ago, Gray said: It's not mainstream at all, this was pretty shocking even for its time. This was a major shift. 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: More like an acknowledgment of the obvious. Call it style, call it content, call it focus, call it approach. Elder Uchtdorf selected and provided more traditionally Christian topics than other brethren. Much has been written and observed both in the Church and without on Elder Uchtdorf's discourses as compared to other of the brethren. The same can be said of Elder Holland. And others. They all have their own approach. And Elder Uchtdorf's discourse on grace turned a lot of heads. 1 Link to comment
ksfisher Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 1 hour ago, Gray said: It's not mainstream at all, this was pretty shocking even for its time. What is it about Elder Hinckley's talk that you find shocking? Link to comment
rockpond Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 1 hour ago, Gray said: It's not mainstream at all, this was pretty shocking even for its time. This was a major shift. In practice, however, it is still just a theoretical principle in the church. We proclaim fallibility of our leaders but we aren't really permitted to acknowledge any actual mistakes. For example, a friend of mine recently wrote a blog post in response to Elder Callister's Oct 2017 conference address on the Book of Mormon. In the blog post my friend proclaimed his testimony of the Book of Mormon as scripture but he also countered the "evidences" that were presented by Elder Callister and explained why many of them were not correct. He was subsequently brought in by our stake president and told that he could not longer hold a temple recommend and could possibly face other disciplinary action. 2 Link to comment
Duncan Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: In practice, however, it is still just a theoretical principle in the church. We proclaim fallibility of our leaders but we aren't really permitted to acknowledge any actual mistakes. For example, a friend of mine recently wrote a blog post in response to Elder Callister's Oct 2017 conference address on the Book of Mormon. In the blog post my friend proclaimed his testimony of the Book of Mormon as scripture but he also countered the "evidences" that were presented by Elder Callister and explained why many of them were not correct. He was subsequently brought in by our stake president and told that he could not longer hold a temple recommend and could possibly face other disciplinary action. what? that's crazy! I'm surprised Stake Presidents even read blogs! Mine has a blog even, but he isn't current with it Link to comment
Gray Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: More like an acknowledgment of the obvious. It seems to obvious in retrospect, right? Link to comment
Gray Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 25 minutes ago, ksfisher said: What is it about Elder Hinckley's talk that you find shocking? Do you mean Elder Uchtdorf? Link to comment
kiwi57 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 4 hours ago, Gray said: Again, not seeing the relevance. We all read faces every day - it's a key part of communicating with each other. And we frequently get it wrong. Particularly when we want to see something in particular. Germans are not a smiley group. I can show you examples. People learn to "read faces" by "reading" the faces they grow up around; in your case, loud, gushy Americans. Elder Uchtdorf's relaxed face is a serious face, not a grinning one, but you either don't realise that, or prefer not to take it into account. 2 Link to comment
clarkgoble Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Gray said: It's not mainstream at all, this was pretty shocking even for its time. This was a major shift. I completely disagree. Even a quick search shows lots of discussions of mistakes. Second, Nelson and Oaks have made that exact same point and are accused of being too conservative. Finally the idea people leave because they're offended by the mistake of some leader is pretty well known and discussed in the Church and has been since I was a kid. Most significantly I think you didn't read Hinckley's talk I linked to because he makes this very same point. Quote I think I know why some of you left. You were offended by a thoughtless individual who injured you, and you mistook his actions as representative of the Church. Admittedly Hinckley doesn't make the leader aspect explicit, but he has elsewhere. And many other GAs have made exactly the same point even tying it to leaders. With just a quick search. Maxwell " A Brother Offended " "" "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." If anything Maxwell goes much farther than Uchtdorf. Hinckley "The Essence of True Faith" "This sacred calling has made me aware of my weaknesses. If I have offended at any time, I apologize and hope you will forgive me. Whether this assignment be lengthy or brief, I pledge my best effort, given with love and faith. I plead for understanding among our people, for a spirit of tolerance toward one another, and for forgiveness. All of us have far too much to do to waste our time and energies in criticism, faultfinding, or the abuse of others." There's tons of talks there and that's ignoring the comments in firesides, devotionals and the like which have been common since I was a youth. Especially in training meetings warning leaders. Edited January 18, 2018 by clarkgoble 1 Link to comment
Gray Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: I completely disagree. Even a quick search shows lots of discussions of mistakes. Second, Nelson and Oaks have made that exact same point and are accused of being too conservative. Finally the idea people leave because they're offended by the mistake of some leader is pretty well known and discussed in the Church and has been since I was a kid. Most significantly I think you didn't read Hinckley's talk I linked to because he makes this very same point. Admittedly Hinckley doesn't make the leader aspect explicit, but he has elsewhere. And many other GAs have made exactly the same point even tying it to leaders. With just a quick search. Maxwell " A Brother Offended " "" "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." If anything Maxwell goes much farther than Uchtdorf. Hinckley "The Essence of True Faith" "This sacred calling has made me aware of my weaknesses. If I have offended at any time, I apologize and hope you will forgive me. Whether this assignment be lengthy or brief, I pledge my best effort, given with love and faith. I plead for understanding among our people, for a spirit of tolerance toward one another, and for forgiveness. All of us have far too much to do to waste our time and energies in criticism, faultfinding, or the abuse of others." There's tons of talks there and that's ignoring the comments in firesides, devotionals and the like which have been common since I was a youth. Especially in training meetings warning leaders. None of those are as strong a statement of fallibility and mistakes by both senior church leadership and the church itself. Not to mention, his talk suggests there may be legitimate reasons to leave the church. Your Hinckley quote is actually contradicted by Uchtdorf: Quote I think I know why some of you left. You were offended by a thoughtless individual who injured you, and you mistook his actions as representative of the Church. This is the usual "you left because you were offended" material. Uchtdorf says it's not that simple. Edited January 18, 2018 by Gray Link to comment
clarkgoble Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 5 minutes ago, Gray said: None of those are as strong a statement of fallibility and mistakes by both senior church leadership and the church itself. Not to mention, his talk suggests there may be legitimate reasons to leave the church. I'd disagree on that point, particularly with Maxwell. I think in particular the Hinckley quote strongly suggests he was worried he'd done that. Quote This is the usual "you left because you were offended" material. Uchtdorf says it's not that simple. I think that's a bit of equivocation over offense. Uchtdorf, as I took him, was using offense in the sense of illegitimate offense. I took Maxwell and Hinckley to be using it in the sense of you may have been right to be offended but please stay. So it's certainly not that simple and other figures point out doctrinal things in other talks. In any case, the main point is that what Uchtdorf said is what I've been taught my whole life going back to the early 80's. When someone brings up liberal theology I don't think "GAs are human and make mistakes" or "people leave sometimes for completely understandable reasons." I think anyone who's been in Church leadership long quickly figures those ones out. Heck, there have been excommunicated GAs. As soon as you learn about Adam/God or Brigham's racist comments you realize it. This is just long standing. That's not to say every member knows it of course. But that's true of many, many doctrines. Now when I use the term liberal theology I usually mean something like "homosexual actions aren't wrong" or "the Book of Mormon is fiction" or things like that. Link to comment
Recommended Posts