One of my countdown timers will soon expire

[cacheman]

What are your thoughts on the church's projections (as stated by Elder Holland) of around 100,000 missionaries by 2019?  I assume you have a countdown clock for that too. 

[Rich Hansen]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If a negative or nay-saying prediction turns out over time not to have been validated or fulfilled, that's cause for some measure of satisfaction and pleasure. And it might have some educational benefit for some in leading to reconsideration of expectations.

Furthermore, it can help counter general notions of gloom and doom that some harbor about the Church of Jesus Christ and its prosperity and progress.

Let's hope this doesn't follow you to your obituary.

"Scott enjoyed numerous hobbies.  He received a measure of pleasure and satisfaction from studiously tracking and refuting the forgotten predictions of minor matters made by those he deemed his enemies."

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, cacheman said:

What are your thoughts on the church's projections (as stated by Elder Holland) of around 100,000 missionaries by 2019?  I assume you have a countdown clock for that too. 

Yes, but I think the projection is too optimistic as I've said before.

But CFR that Elder Holland was speaking for the Church. As I recall, it was an offhand response made during a press interview.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Rich Hansen said:

Let's hope this doesn't follow you to your obituary.

"Scott enjoyed numerous hobbies.  He received a measure of pleasure and satisfaction from studiously tracking and refuting the forgotten predictions of minor matters made by those he deemed his enemies."

I've never once said I deem Mike my enemy. Never.

And the pleasure and satisfaction come from seeing the vitality and progress of the Church.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[cacheman]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, but I think the projection is too optimistic as I've said before.

But CFR that Elder Holland was speaking for the Church. As I recall, it was an offhand response made during a press interview.

I believe he said 'we're projecting'. I assumed he meant himself and other church leaders. ..but that's just an assumption.  I don't know for sure who he was projecting with. 

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, but I think the projection is too optimistic as I've said before.

But CFR that Elder Holland was speaking for the Church. As I recall, it was an offhand response made during a press interview.

Do you believe Mike was speaking for the church?  Why start a countdown timer for him and not for Elder Holland?

Edited January 10, 2017 by JulieM

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Do you believe Mike was speaking for the church?  Why start a countdown timer for him and not for Elder Holland?

Good idea!

[JulieM]

15 hours ago, cacheman said:

What are your thoughts on the church's projections (as stated by Elder Holland) of around 100,000 missionaries by 2019?  I assume you have a countdown clock for that too. 

Well, Scott did want a more specific prediction and this one is!  Somehow I doubt he has a clock running on Elder Holland's prediction though 

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, JulieM said:

Do you believe Mike was speaking for the church?  Why start a countdown timer for him and not for Elder Holland?

 

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Well, Scott did want a more specific prediction and this one is!  Somehow I doubt he has a clock running on Elder Holland's prediction though 

Sigh.

Did you not read my response to cacheman? See below:

17 hours ago, cacheman said:

What are your thoughts on the church's projections (as stated by Elder Holland) of around 100,000 missionaries by 2019?  I assume you have a countdown clock for that too. 

 

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, but I think the projection is too optimistic as I've said before.

But CFR that Elder Holland was speaking for the Church. As I recall, it was an offhand response made during a press interview.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Good idea!

Apparently you don't pay attention any better than JulieM does.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, cacheman said:

I believe he said 'we're projecting'. I assumed he meant himself and other church leaders. ..but that's just an assumption.  I don't know for sure who he was projecting with. 

Neither do I. He could have been referring only to himself. People often use the first-person plural in a figurative way when speaking of themselves individually.

But I've never held to the notion that every word ever uttered by a Church leaders in whatever setting or circumstance is to be taken as officially binding on the Church. Even the books General Authorities write typically carry a disclaimer absolving the Church of any responsibility for their words.

 

[cacheman]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Neither do I. He could have been referring only to himself. People often use the first-person plural in a figurative way when speaking of themselves individually.

But I've never held to the notion that every word ever uttered by a Church leaders in whatever setting or circumstance is to be taken as officially binding on the Church. Even the books General Authorities write typically carry a disclaimer absolving the Church of any responsibility for their words.

 

You're right.  It's probably best not to read more into someone's vague prediction that what they said (and sometimes what they said, might not be what they meant).  Thanks.

[JulieM]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Apparently you don't pay attention any better than JulieM does.

Oh, I see what you're doing here and completely understand the double standard you have when it comes to not holding some people accountable for their predictions that you disagree with vs. others who you start a countdown clock for a specific prediction they didn't even make 

Edited January 10, 2017 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Oh, I see what you're doing here and completely understand the double standard you have when it comes to holding some people accountable for their predictions that you disagree with vs. others. 

You could have responded here in any number of ways.

"Oh, my bad. I didn't read carefully your response to cacheman. I beg your pardon."

Thing is, JulieM, when Elder Holland's prediction was quoted, somebody on here asked me if I were going to start a countdown clock for it. I cheerfully said I would, and the clock has been running ever since. I also said I would bring it back up when the clock ran out.

I don't expect you to know about that, but I do expect you to read a post carefully before immediately shifting into snarkiness mode.

You have been nothing but unpleasant in your past posts to me. Accordingly, I will be avoiding any future interaction with you. Life's too short to waste any of it on the aggravation.

 

 

Edited January 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Apparently you don't pay attention any better than JulieM does.

Oh, I paid attention but maybe my filter was different. Didn't Mike make an offhand remark on a discussion board? Or did he make a statement to the press a maybe in a talk, for example. See I think side by side it works! Unless I've missed something. ETA: He made this statement in a radio interview, as I see you've already mentioned it. Here is an article. So what is the difference between his statement and Mike Reid's? http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2249417-155/lds-apostle-jeffrey-r-holland-predicts

Edited January 10, 2017 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Oh, I paid attention but maybe my filter was different. Didn't Mike make an offhand remark on a discussion board? Or did he make a statement to the press a maybe a talk, for example. See I think side by side it works! Unless I've missed something.

When you said, "Good idea!" in the context of JulieM's post, I thought you meant starting a countdown clock for Elder Holland's prediction -- which I had already done, and said so in my response to cacheman. Am I not understanding you?

 

Edited January 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You could have responded here in any number of ways.

"Oh, my bad. I didn't read carefully your response to cacheman. I beg your pardon."

But that's not the truth, so why would I respond with that?  I definitely feel you have been unfair with Mike here and it appears that many agree with me.

But I'm moving on and will leave you to defend yourself further if you choose to.  Good luck!!

 

[ERayR]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

But that's not the truth, so why would I respond with that?  I definitely feel you have been unfair with Mike here and it appears that many agree with me.

But I'm moving on and will leave you to defend yourself further if you choose to.  Good luck!!

 

And many of us don't

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, JulieM said:

But that's not the truth, so why would I respond with that?  I definitely feel you have been unfair with Mike here and it appears that many agree with me.

But I'm moving on and will leave you to defend yourself further if you choose to.  Good luck!!

 

What's not the truth? That I have a time clock running for Elder Holland's prediction? I'm telling you I do and that i have had since March 5, 2015. It will expire in 2019, and I pledge to bring it up then.

What's not the truth? That you did not carefully read my response to cacheman? Obviously you didn't as you snarkily went off on your assumption that I did not have the time clock and with your ignorant, presumptuous accusations about double standards.

I'll tell you what is the truth, as shown by your last few posts: that you lack the strength of character to admit when you're wrong, even when the error is obvious.

 

Edited January 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What's not the truth? That I have a time clock running for Elder Holland's prediction? I'm telling you I do and that i have had since March 5, 2015. It will expire in 2019, and I pledge to bring it up then.

What's not the truth? That you did not carefully read my response to cacheman? Obviously you didn't as you snarkily went off on your assumption that I did not have the time clock and with your ignorant, presumptuous accusations about double standards.

I'll tell you what is the truth, as shown by your last few posts: that you lack the strength of character to admit when you're wrong, even when the error is obvious.

 

[Gray]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What's not the truth? That I have a time clock running for Elder Holland's prediction? I'm telling you I do and that i have had since March 5, 2015. It will expire in 2019, and I pledge to bring it up then.

What's not the truth? That you did not carefully read my response to cacheman? Obviously you didn't as you snarkily went off on your assumption that I did not have the time clock and with your ignorant, presumptuous accusations about double standards.

I'll tell you what is the truth, as shown by your last few posts: that you lack the strength of character to admit when you're wrong, even when the error is obvious.

 

This is not only unfair to Julie but better serving as a criticism for your own behavior in this thread. Mike deserves an apology for being so misrepresented by you, and the people pointing it out to you don't deserve to be insulted for pointing out what is obvious to just about everyone except you. 

Edited January 10, 2017 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Oh, I paid attention but maybe my filter was different. Didn't Mike make an offhand remark on a discussion board? Or did he make a statement to the press a maybe in a talk, for example. See I think side by side it works! Unless I've missed something. ETA: He made this statement in a radio interview, as I see you've already mentioned it. Here is an article. So what is the difference between his statement and Mike Reid's? http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2249417-155/lds-apostle-jeffrey-r-holland-predicts

Response to your ETA:

I don't say there is much of a difference, if any.

My point is, both you and JulieM were going off on a mistaken assumption that I had not started a countdown clock for Elder Holland's prediction when I had already said in my post to cacheman that I did indeed have such a clock running for his prediction.

Do you understand my point? A simple admission that you were mistaken in your assumption would be sufficient; I won't hold it over your head.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

48 minutes ago, Gray said:

This is not only unfair to Julie but better serving as a criticism for your own behavior in this thread. Mike deserves an apology for being so misrepresented by you, and the people pointing it out to you don't deserve to be insulted for pointing out what is obvious to just about everyone except you. 

One way I have to gauge whether I have been unfair to someone is role reversal. I ask myself, if positions were switched, whether I would think I had been ill treated.

In this instance, the answer is no. If I were to make a public prediction and attach a time frame to it, and someone were to note down the prediction and observe whether it was fulfilled within the attached time frame, I could not honestly cry foul.

And I deny I have misrepresented Mike. I quoted him directly, made note that he had not provided clarification when asked, and acknowledged that I was applying my own interpretation to his words and gave my reasoning.

As for JulieM, I have not unfairly characterized what she did, which was to mistakenly assume behavior on my part and then refuse to acknowledge that her assumption was mistaken when that was pointed out to her.

So I categorically reject your criticism.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One way I have to gauge whether I have been unfair to someone is role reversal. I ask myself, if positions were switched, whether I would think I had been ill treated.

In this instance, the answer is no. If I were to make a public prediction and attach a time frame to it, and someone were to note down the prediction and observe whether it was fulfilled within the attached time frame, I could not honestly cry foul.

And I deny I have misrepresented Mike. I quoted him directly, made note that he had not provided clarification when asked, and acknowledged that I was applying my own interpretation to his words and gave my reasoning.

As for JulieM, I have not unfairly characterized what she did, which was to mistakenly assume behavior on my part and then refuse to acknowledge that her assumption was mistaken when that was pointed out to her.

So I categorically reject your criticism.

You must, of course, make your own choices. 

[ttribe]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One way I have to gauge whether I have been unfair to someone is role reversal. I ask myself, if positions were switched, whether I would think I had been ill treated.

In this instance, the answer is no. If I were to make a public prediction and attach a time frame to it, and someone were to note down the prediction and observe whether it was fulfilled within the attached time frame, I could not honestly cry foul.

And I deny I have misrepresented Mike. I quoted him directly, made note that he had not provided clarification when asked, and acknowledged that I was applying my own interpretation to his words and gave my reasoning.

As for JulieM, I have not unfairly characterized what she did, which was to mistakenly assume behavior on my part and then refuse to acknowledge that her assumption was mistaken when that was pointed out to her.

So I categorically reject your criticism.