JLHPROF Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: Well, I don't know. I watched all three seasons of Lie To Me. Are you suggesting that this show was not grounded in empirical science? LOVED that show. 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: From the article: That sounds rather "political," does it not? Yes, that quote, and the article itself both sound quite political. However, Church member and Professor of Religion Taysom's analysis of the doctrinal emphasis made by each Apostle can hardly be seen as political. Just an educated observation, and one I happen to agree with.
Popular Post smac97 Posted January 17, 2018 Popular Post Posted January 17, 2018 (edited) 14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: So you can't imagine a situation where President Nelson would select a counselor who shared his approach rather than a different one? Yes, I can imagine that. And I think Pres. Nelson's personal preferences may have been part of the equation. But I am persuaded that he sought, and obtained, revelatory guidance as to whom he should select as his counselors. Quote Or the Lord may have selected one by revelation in order that the First Presidency be completely on the same page as to their approach to the gospel? Is it entirely inconceivable that there might have been an actual reason why Oaks was selected over Uchtdorf, even if that reason came by revelation Both concepts are possible. Quote Maybe it was just that Oaks is next in line and Nelson recognizes the difficulty in becoming President never having served in the First Presidency. Perhaps the reason is he wants his friend President Oaks to have experience he never received. Yes, that too could be a factor. Quote There is nothing wrong with wondering why either the Lord or President Nelson selected President Oaks over Elder Uchtdorf. And I fail to see why the staunch defenders are getting so up in arms over such thoughts. The "up in arms" bit, I think, relates mostly to the apparent politicization of this issue. And to the lack of attention given to the idea that these men are being assigned to their respective callings through revelation. And to the oblique disparagement of Pres. Nelson (for not selecting Elder Uchtdorf as a counselor). And to the oblique disparagement of Pres. Oaks (for being selected as a counselor). And to the unseemly attempts to factionalize the General Authorities. To choose favorites, and then to publicly express displeasure when that favorite is "demoted" (not my word). It bears some emphasis that Elder Uchtdorf returned to being "Elder" Uchtdorf not by anything Pres. Nelson did or did not do, nor by anything Elder Uchtdorf did or did not do. The First Presidency dissolves automatically at the death of the Presiding High Priest. Elder Uchtdorf's calling as Second Counselor ended on January 2. Thanks, -Smac Edited January 17, 2018 by smac97 5
Kenngo1969 Posted January 17, 2018 Author Posted January 17, 2018 57 minutes ago, smac97 said: When people speak of Elder Uchtdorf's automatic release from the First Presidency as being a "demotion," that sounds more political than spiritual. When people characterize Elder Uchtdorf's automatic release from the First Presidency (and, as a corollary, the calling of Pres. Oaks into the First Presidency) as some sort of great calamity for the Church, that sounds more political than spiritual. When the Salt Lake Tribune publishes an article entitled "Many Mormons are not happy with Uchtdorf’s lower profile," notes that Elder Uchtdorf has a nickname (the "Silver Fox"), characterizes him as "a kind of latter-day superstar" and "the symbol of what so many hoped would be seen as an increasingly global faith," that sounds more political than spiritual. I have some specific examples, but I'll refrain from quoting them directly. He also selected as a counselor the next senior apostle. Around half of the presidents of the Church have served as counselors in the First Presidency. And then there's the role of revelation, which is getting remarkably short shrift in this discussion. It's as if this discussion is more about a political personality, and not as much about a revelatory process in which God's administration of His Church is presumed. In that sense, then, some of the remarks I have read really do come across as factionalizing. Thanks, -Smac Quoted for truth.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 51 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Are you of the opinion that there are no politics in church leadership? I see that as an impossibility. Politics, in a very broad sense, plays into every group dynamic I can think of. It's the most natural thing in the world. It's part of every conversation and friendship and team. I don't see the brethren as somehow being able to perfectly transcend that human condition. I think being above it is part and parcel of their calling, and from what I can tell, they pretty much succeed . 1
CMZ Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Tribune didn't say it. A member of the Church who happens to be a professor of Philosophy and Comparative religion did. The Trib just quoted him. Yes, but it gave the Trib something to exploit.
stemelbow Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 49 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: But I think they were trying to be genuine. That people didn't think they were genuine is inherently about style. I do wish it were that easy.
JLHPROF Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, CMZ said: Yes, but it gave the Trib something to exploit. Probably true. But I found his quote I referenced quite accurate, unlike the political speculations about Elder Uchtdorf and the LGBTQ community. I try to avoid the political and focus on the religious. That is what these callings are. I personally still think that President Nelson (or the Lord) chose President Oaks in part because they have similar approaches to the gospel, approaches that are somewhat different than Elder Uchtdorf and others. 1
clarkgoble Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 20 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I do wish it were that easy. I'm not sure why you'd think that's easy. The problem is that when you're style is sufficiently divergent from a certain subgroup then all your authenticity and sincerity will be misread. That makes it extremely hard not easy. Interestingly here's an example of that divide from Mark Silk at RNS. I thought his take was overly harsh, but does highlight in an extreme form the linguistic and cultural divide at work. So what I think most took as at an attempt at a Monson-like folksiness and friendliness he took as unprofessional and creepy. There's huge divides here partially due to the huge rapid social shifts. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted January 17, 2018 Author Posted January 17, 2018 Here's a profile of President Nelson which may be germane to this discussion. Does it veer into hagiography? Well, to borrow and to slightly alter something attributed to OJ Simpson (who, reportedly, once said, "If you can back it up, it ain't braggin' ..." so we know he wasn't bragging about killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman ... sorry; another subject for another day), "If you can back it up, it ain't hagiography," and I'm sure Elder Jensen and President Nelson can back up most any of the latter's attributes attested to herein: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900007746/marlin-k-jensen-president-nelson-is-superbly-prepared-for-the-destiny-that-is-now-his.html. Happy reading. 1
stemelbow Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 24 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: I'm not sure why you'd think that's easy. The problem is that when you're style is sufficiently divergent from a certain subgroup then all your authenticity and sincerity will be misread. That makes it extremely hard not easy. Interestingly here's an example of that divide from Mark Silk at RNS. I thought his take was overly harsh, but does highlight in an extreme form the linguistic and cultural divide at work. So what I think most took as at an attempt at a Monson-like folksiness and friendliness he took as unprofessional and creepy. There's huge divides here partially due to the huge rapid social shifts. Thanks for the link, I hadn't read that. I'm still not sold on your style is everything when it comes to coming off as genuine. But that's alright with me. I feel settled enough with our brief back and forth.
Glenn101 Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 4 hours ago, Gray said: Reading guilt (what someone did in the past) is very different from reading emotion (what someone is feeling in the moment) You need to read the entire story. People though that she was not showing enough remorse, etc. The stories in the press as the reporters "read her" at points in the trials. On another front, I have a daughter that so often would walk around the house with the saddest expression on her face. When I would question her as to what was wrong she invariably said that there was nothing wrong. Eventually I came to the conclusion that there was nothing wrong. She just had a frowning face when her mind was wandering or she was in deep thought. Now, since Elder Uchtdorf has publicly voiced his support for the new first presidency, maybe we should just take him at his word and stop reading between lines that are not there. Glenn 2
stemelbow Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 25 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Here's a profile of President Nelson which may be germane to this discussion. Does it veer into hagiography? Well, to borrow and to slightly alter something attributed to OJ Simpson (who, reportedly, once said, "If you can back it up, it ain't braggin' ..." so we know he wasn't bragging about killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman ... sorry; another subject for another day), "If you can back it up, it ain't hagiography," and I'm sure Elder Jensen and President Nelson can back up most any of the latter's attributes attested to herein: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900007746/marlin-k-jensen-president-nelson-is-superbly-prepared-for-the-destiny-that-is-now-his.html. Happy reading. Thanks that was good, kenngo. I admit I cant wait until the day we have a officious Paul, or naughty Alma called. it's nice we keep getting life long plodding righteous guys. But they also seem to be the ones stuck in old times, and tradition, which it seems to me keeps clouding and blocking any innovation or inspiration. Ah well, someday, I guess.
USU78 Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 This: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2018/01/17/many-mormons-are-not-high-on-uchtdorfs-lower-profile/ demonstrates more than anything that the unfriendly [/understatement] press desires above all to control the narrative. But the narrative expressed by the First Presidency was completely estranged from the tendentious press agenda. Peggy knows darned well what they said, what they meant, why they said it as they did, and what significant message is given in everybody involved accepting callings and doing their level best to fulfill them. If you're fooled, you're only fooling yourself. 4
Calm Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Well, I don't know. I watched all three seasons of Lie To Me. Are you suggesting that this show was not grounded in empirical science? Thanks, -Smac If the show is accurate, it only proves it takes an expert to read body language. They supposedly based it on a real person...he is claimed to be the foremost expert on facial expressions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ekman And if you look at all the popular self help books and seminars held to help teach body language, I think that confirms that many don't believe that they are that good at reading at least subtle responses and this is likely based on their past success rate in conversations...which implies that a good portion of the population are not. Edited January 17, 2018 by Calm added info about Ekman 2
Calm Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 (edited) For those interested in seeing if they are good at reading body language according to one set of experts, see https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/quizzes/take_quiz/ei_quiz I am average and I only got a little over half right. Which implies the experts think people are on average wrong about half the time. Edited January 17, 2018 by Calm 2
Calm Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Glenn101 said: On another front, I have a daughter that so often would walk around the house with the saddest expression on her face. When I would question her as to what was wrong she invariably said that there was nothing wrong. Eventually I came to the conclusion that there was nothing wrong. She just had a frowning face when her mind was wandering or she was in deep thought. My dad would scare kids with his face until they got to know him really well (basically only his kids and grandkids). I called his face a gangster face in repose. Really nice guy too, just had the skull and facial muscles of a hit man. When my husband is tired, he looks like he is depressed. His eyes are naturally droopy (I call them puppy dog eyes). HIs mouth and set of shoulders are a much better signal, but it took me years to figure that out as he doesn't talk about negative feelings. He also has reddish tinged skin which can make an over read of excitement or anger. Edited January 17, 2018 by Calm 1
Popular Post clarkgoble Posted January 17, 2018 Popular Post Posted January 17, 2018 25 minutes ago, Glenn101 said: On another front, I have a daughter that so often would walk around the house with the saddest expression on her face. When I would question her as to what was wrong she invariably said that there was nothing wrong. Eventually I came to the conclusion that there was nothing wrong. She just had a frowning face when her mind was wandering or she was in deep thought. Let us all learn from the actor grumpy cat that she's not really grumpy but just looks that way. 5
USU78 Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 11 minutes ago, Calm said: My dad would scare kids with his face until they got to know him really well (basically only his kids and grandkids). I called his face a gangster face in repose. Really nice guy too, just had the skull and facial muscles of a hit man. When my husband is tired, he looks like he is depressed. His eyes are naturally droopy (I call them puppy dog eyes). HIs mouth and set of shoulders are a much better signal, but it took me years to figure that out as he doesn't talk about negative feelings. My first wife never could tell the difference between hurt and angry. It was a constant point of contention. 2
Popular Post clarkgoble Posted January 17, 2018 Popular Post Posted January 17, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: There is nothing wrong with wondering why either the Lord or President Nelson selected President Oaks over Elder Uchtdorf. And I fail to see why the staunch defenders are getting so up in arms over such thoughts. I have no problems with such speculations, although I think the simplest explanation is the likeliest. Nelson knows he's not going to live much longer and wants to make the transition to Oaks, who may be in similar straights when he takes over, less of an issue. Further he thinks there's legal issues ahead and looks to Oaks for advice. 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Tribune didn't say it. A member of the Church who happens to be a professor of Philosophy and Comparative religion did. The Trib just quoted him. That's not much of an explanation since the reporter decides which quotes to use and whom to interview. Looking at those interviewed and quoted do you think they're representational of the Church body? If not, would you describe a certain commonality of views in those interviewed? Were the similarities in those analyzed or disclosed? If not, is that fair reporting? Edited January 17, 2018 by clarkgoble 5
Calm Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 16 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Let us all learn from the actor grumpy cat that she's not really grumpy but just looks that way. Best post of the month...maybe the year. 1
Calm Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 10 minutes ago, USU78 said: My first wife never could tell the difference between hurt and angry. It was a constant point of contention. If someone gets angry, it is usually because they are hurt. Best just to look to the actual cause and try to ignore anger in my experience with people. OTOH, people around me don't get angry very often, so I don't have a lot of experience in that.
USU78 Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 17 minutes ago, Calm said: If someone gets angry, it is usually because they are hurt. Best just to look to the actual cause and try to ignore anger in my experience with people. OTOH, people around me don't get angry very often, so I don't have a lot of experience in that. ... because you're that kind of person. Emphasis on the "kind." 1
JLHPROF Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 30 minutes ago, USU78 said: This: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2018/01/17/many-mormons-are-not-high-on-uchtdorfs-lower-profile/ demonstrates more than anything that the unfriendly [/understatement] press desires above all to control the narrative. But the narrative expressed by the First Presidency was completely estranged from the tendentious press agenda. Peggy knows darned well what they said, what they meant, why they said it as they did, and what significant message is given in everybody involved accepting callings and doing their level best to fulfill them. I actually like that article. I think it shows what I've been saying clearly about the distinction in doctrinal focus between various brethren. And then, in typical Trib fashion, it turns it into a social issue and attempts to imply that the Church won't have as much to offer to certain groups. I have no patience for that either. The gospel is what it is. It hasn't changed, shouldn't change, and definitely doesn't need to change any standards to be more inclusive. But taking Presidents Nelson, Oaks and Elder Uchtdorf's approaches as examples we can see that the observations are still correct.October 2017 - Oaks - The Plan and Proclamation - Nelson - The Book of Mormon - Uchtdorf - A Yearning for HomeApril 2017 - Oaks - The Godhead and Plan of Salvation - Nelson - Drawing the Power of Jesus Christ - Uchtdorf - Perfect Love Casteth out Fear October 2016 - Oaks - Sharing the Restored Gospel - Nelson - Joy and Spiritual Survival - Uchtdorf - O How Great the Plan of Our God April 2016 - Oaks - Opposition in All Things - Nelson - The Price of Priesthood Power - Uchtdorf - He Will Place You On His Shoulders and Carry You Home Yes, this doesn't give full context or do these discourses justice. I am sure that all three focus on Christ, mention love, preach faith etc. But I think the topics of choice evident even in their discourse titles show a clear difference in approach to the gospel, plain enough for anyone to see. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted January 17, 2018 Author Posted January 17, 2018 56 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Let us all learn from the actor grumpy cat that she's not really grumpy but just looks that way. Dang! You mean, even Mormon cats are upset that Elder Uchtdorf wasn't retained in the First Presidency? Shoot! Maybe this is more serious than I thought! 1
Avatar4321 Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: Thanks that was good, kenngo. I admit I cant wait until the day we have a officious Paul, or naughty Alma called. it's nice we keep getting life long plodding righteous guys. But they also seem to be the ones stuck in old times, and tradition, which it seems to me keeps clouding and blocking any innovation or inspiration. Ah well, someday, I guess. Perhaps the Lord doesn't want us following the innovation of the world 2
Recommended Posts