New First Presidency

[rongo]

43 minutes ago, Gray said:

You keep using courtroom metaphors, but they're not relevant. Innocence and guilt of a crime are not emotional states. Being upset is, and it's easy to see on his face.

Then why is it that I watched the announcement and the press conference, and didn't see his face as being upset? If it's east to see, why do different people see different things?

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Then your friend can appeal the SP's decision.

 

Just curious if anyone has any information about how a SP's decision can be appealed? Does the member appeal the SP decision to the SP or does he somehow have access to the area 70? How does that work?

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

Then why is it that I watched the announcement and the press conference, and didn't see his face as being upset? If it's east to see, why do different people see different things?

Maybe you didn't watch the right segment.

[Gray]

23 minutes ago, Rain said:

Yes. It is also a huge part of miscommunication. Sometimes folded arms means, "Go ahead. Try and teach me!" Sometimes, "I'm cold." Or "I don't know where to put my hands. " 

My husband and I have this thing we do sometimes. Years ago I saw an a rice where there were picture of celebrities. A psycholoist looked at the pictures and told what you could learn about the relationship. With one couple she was turned in toward him and he was turned out. This relationship was "one sided." He clearly wasn't in to her like she was with him. 

We laughed at how this tells such a small part of the story and you can't really get much from it. Sometimes if one of us is turned away the other will say, "quick, turn back to me or someone might take a picture and think you don't live me as much as I love you." Or we will both turn out and sit there so people could "take our picture" or snuggle. Or whatever. It's just one of our things. There is just so much you cannot interpret correctly from just a small bit of body language.

This morning I was looking at anot er message board. The topic was things that happen when they age. Several of the women mentioned how they didn't like that now that they are older the corners of their lips on their resting faces have turned down, making them look sad or grumpy. I've noticed the same thing with myself. I've started to have people asking me what is wrong,  when I feel good.

 

Did you see his reaction when they said that the FP was entirely American? Not talking about resting faces.

Edited January 22, 2018 by Gray

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

Maybe you didn't watch the right segment.

I watched all of them (the whole thing). And I don't see what you insist is so easy, we all should see the same thing and agree on what we see. 

What does that tell us?

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Just curious if anyone has any information about how a SP's decision can be appealed? Does the member appeal the SP decision to the SP or does he somehow have access to the area 70? How does that work?

A member can ask that the decision be appealed to the next higher authority and continue up to the FP.

I don't know if my friend will do that or just continue working with the SP to get his recommend back. 

[smac97]

On 1/21/2018 at 7:05 PM, rockpond said:

No problem.  If you're admitting that the SP could have been in error for removing the recommend of a member who wrote in contrary to a conference address, than I agree.

I admit that stake presidents can and do make mistakes.  Stake presidents are no more infallible than the General Authorities.

I'll not weigh in on this particular stake president.  We don't have all the facts.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 8, 2018 by smac97

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

The latter, although for reasons beyond "someone hurt their feelings and they were offended."

But neither Maxwell, Hinkley nor others were saying someone hurt their feelings. At least as I read them. 

[Raingirl]

29 minutes ago, Gray said:

Maybe you didn't watch the right segment.

I also watched the entire broadcast, looking for the "upset" and "despondent" emotions that you so stubbornly insist are obvious. I tried really hard, but I don't see anything remotely resembling what you claim is there. 

And there is the fact that Elder Uchtdorf himself has stated he did not have the feelings you are so desperate to assign to him. 

I am always baffled by those who insist they know the thoughts and feelings of another person better than the person actually having those thoughts and feelings. It's just not possible. 

[HappyJackWagon]

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

A member can ask that the decision be appealed to the next higher authority and continue up to the FP.

I don't know if my friend will do that or just continue working with the SP to get his recommend back. 

How does one do this? Goes through the SP, to appeal the SP, right?

It's a terrible system designed to discourage anyone taking things up the chain since most people don't have access to or even know who is next up on the chain.

[Bernard Gui]

11 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

I am always baffled by those who insist they know the thoughts and feelings of another person better than the person actually having those thoughts and feelings. It's just not possible

Very lucrative media careers are based on that ability.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

How does one do this? Goes through the SP, to appeal the SP, right?

It's a terrible system designed to discourage anyone taking things up the chain since most people don't have access to or even know who is next up on the chain.

You assume that the "system" is inherently adversarial and hostile.  It isn't, not in design or (in most instances) in implementation.

Our ward's bishop had a situation like this a few years back.  A member of the ward disagreed with him on an important issue.  The member asked the bishop what he (the member) could do to get the bishop to reconsider.  The bishop responded that he would give the decision some further thought, and that if the decision stood the member could schedule an appointment with the stake president.  The member ended up meeting with the stake president.  The issue was resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.

I think most stake presidents are good and decent men, trying to do what they think is right.  They are not ego-driven martinets.

The system works just fine.  It's not perfect, since any system that involves the judgment of flawed and imperfect human beings will not be perfectly implemented.  But "terrible system" is just rank hyperbole.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

You assume that the "system" is inherently adversarial and hostile.  It isn't, not in design or (in most instances) in implementation.

Our ward's bishop had a situation like this a few years back.  A member of the ward disagreed with him on an important issue.  The member asked the bishop what he (the member) could do to get the bishop to reconsider.  The bishop responded that he would give the decision some further thought, and that if the decision stood the member could schedule an appointment with the stake president.  The member ended up meeting with the stake president.  The issue was resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.

I think most stake presidents are good and decent men, trying to do what they think is right.  They are not ego-driven martinets.

The system works just fine.  It's not perfect, since any system that involves the judgment of flawed and imperfect human beings will not be perfectly implemented.  But "terrible system" is just rank hyperbole.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, it's easy for someone to go to the SP about an issue with the bishop. Easy, peasy. I haven't suggested otherwise.

Going beyond the SP gets much trickier. I have a problem with my SP removing my recommend because he says my beliefs aren't orthodox enough. Great. So now I go up the chain to the area 70 except I don't know who it is, so naturally I don't have any contact information, phone numbers email etc. So I go back to my SP and tell him I want to speak to his superior about it and you think the SP will happily set up a meeting for me to go speak with the area 70?  Will I get to speak to the A70 before or after the SP has given his side of the story and solicited the A70's support?

 

 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I watched all of them (the whole thing). And I don't see what you insist is so easy, we all should see the same thing and agree on what we see. 

What does that tell us?

Maybe you don't want to see it? I realize that's an easy criticism and you can easily level the opposite one at me. But I think that's what's going on.

[Gray]

37 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

I also watched the entire broadcast, looking for the "upset" and "despondent" emotions that you so stubbornly insist are obvious. I tried really hard, but I don't see anything remotely resembling what you claim is there. 

And there is the fact that Elder Uchtdorf himself has stated he did not have the feelings you are so desperate to assign to him. 

That's not what he said, as I recall. He said he is all right. I believe him.

 

 

[Gray]

41 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But neither Maxwell, Hinkley nor others were saying someone hurt their feelings. At least as I read them. 

That's exactly what I understood them to be saying.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, it's easy for someone to go to the SP about an issue with the bishop. Easy, peasy. I haven't suggested otherwise.

Going beyond the SP gets much trickier. I have a problem with my SP removing my recommend because he says my beliefs aren't orthodox enough. Great. So now I go up the chain to the area 70 except I don't know who it is,

So you . . . ask a question.  Not tricky at all.

Area Authority Seventies are called during General Conference.  If an individual does not know the identity of the Seventy for his/her area, he can simply ask.

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

so naturally I don't have any contact information, phone numbers email etc. So I go back to my SP and tell him I want to speak to his superior about it and you think the SP will happily set up a meeting for me to go speak with the area 70? 

Again, you assume that the "system" is inherently adversarial and hostile.  It isn't.  Stake presidents are generally good and decent men.  They are not in the business of hiding disputes from those above them in the hierarchy of the Church.

I'm not saying that "a meeting" would be arranged in all circumstances.  Sometimes a letter might be more apropos (initially, anyway).

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Will I get to speak to the A70 before or after the SP has given his side of the story and solicited the A70's support?

You are describing a Good Ol' Boys club.  With respect, I do not think your cynicism is warranted.

The local leaders of the Church are, broadly and generally speaking, seeking to do what is right.  Adversarial power plays and scheming, such as you are suggesting, are a flight of fancy.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[rongo]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

Maybe you don't want to see it? I realize that's an easy criticism and you can easily level the opposite one at me. But I think that's what's going on.

As you preemptively noted, the reverse is also true. It's a Rohrschach test mirroring the observer. Not surprisingly, how one feels about progressive social issues and the Church is a dead indicator for whether one saw President Uchtdorf as looking upset or how he always looks. 

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

As you preemptively noted, the reverse is also true. It's a Rohrschach test mirroring the observer. Not surprisingly, how one feels about progressive social issues and the Church is a dead indicator for whether one saw President Uchtdorf as looking upset or how he always looks. 

The emperor's clothes look magnificent, in other words?

 

 

 

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

How does one do this? Goes through the SP, to appeal the SP, right?

It's a terrible system designed to discourage anyone taking things up the chain since most people don't have access to or even know who is next up on the chain.

Yes, you have to ask your SP to appeal his own decision.  I have seen it done but it took a lot of persistence by the member.  And in the end, the FP agreed with the member and advised the SP to give him a recommend.

 

[rongo]

Just now, Gray said:

The emperor's clothes look magnificent, in other words?

No, more like you and others are bound and determined to see him as wearing no clothes because you want to --- and because not seeing clothes would help complain that a perceived ally on your side on social issues and the Church was demoted, and so he naturally was upset.  

Round and round it goes . . . 

[clarkgoble]

41 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's exactly what I understood them to be saying.

Well probably not worth pursuing more. We just read the very talks quite differently. I just don't see the brethren as saying people only leave because of hurt feelings for inappropriate reasons. Certainly in less public settings they seem very aware of what's going on. Your reading would more or less demand they're ignorant of people upset about things like Adam/God or other oddities while all the evidence is they were quite aware of such things. But I'll just drop it as it's not worth arguing further. My experience just seems quite at odds with how you're choosing to read them. But I'm sure you're not alone in reading them that way.

Edited January 22, 2018 by clarkgoble

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, you have to ask your SP to appeal his own decision.  I have seen it done but it took a lot of persistence by the member.  And in the end, the FP agreed with the member and advised the SP to give him a recommend.

Avraham Gileadi is an interesting case study, as he was excommunicated and then had his excommunication expunged, which he therefore - and perhaps with some justification - characterizes as "a tacit admission that the church had made a mistake." But look at his 2012 approach to his erroneous excommunication and compare it with the combative, defiant, slanderous, litigious, rebellious, in-your-face approach taken by Kate Kelly (emphases added):

Quote

Having attempted over the years to correct erroneous statements about me that others have made under my name on Wikipedia—only to have them intentionally or non-intentionally replaced by the same ones as before—I feel constrained to clarify several things...

...

Third, although I was excommunicated in 1993 from the LDS church in a disciplinary council that began a wave of several thousand excommunications on the Wasatch Front in the 1990s, in my case—as not a single charge was true or supported by evidence—all record of it was expunged from the church’s records nearly a decade ago in a tacit admission that the church had made a mistake. In other words, as my excommunication from the church was a non-event so far as the church is concerned, it doesn’t define me as a person. Yet there are those who take it on themselves to define me as such throughout the current Wikipedia article, attaching it even to my listed name.

Fourth, while several prominent writers who were excommunicated in 1993 pleaded their cause in the media at that time and thus embarrassed the church, I never did so, even though my family, reputation, work, etc. were adversely affected by the church’s action. Yet those same prominent writers were evidently glad to see me among their number and to ascribe to me the very same questioning of the church’s authority and “speaking against church doctrine or leadership” in which they engaged, as the current Wikipedia write-up asserts. As I have never been asked to change my conclusions that derive from applying several methodologies of literary analysis to researching scriptural texts, my supposedly “challenging the exclusive right of leaders to define doctrine” is a non sequitur. In short, the above writers have no evidence of any such spurious claims and I ask them to desist from their calumnies.

Assuming the foregoing is correct (and I do), I admire Bro. Gileadi's resilience.  It took a lot of character for him to pursue the above course of action.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

38 minutes ago, rongo said:

No, more like you and others are bound and determined to see him as wearing no clothes because you want to --- and because not seeing clothes would help complain that a perceived ally on your side on social issues and the Church was demoted, and so he naturally was upset.  

Round and round it goes . . . 

I see him as a human being and not a machine. I'm not the only one - quite a lot of people noticed, many of them quite a bit more conservative than me.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

You keep using courtroom metaphors, but they're not relevant. Innocence and guilt of a crime are not emotional states. Being upset is, and it's easy to see on his face.

They are not metaphors, Gray, they are real life.  Juries regularly follow your erroneous by-gosh and by-golly approach to reading people, and just as regularly destroy lives.  Many (perhaps  most) people hold to such provincial views, despite evidence to the contrary.  And it is precisely the hard evidence which we need to examine in each case.

The truth is that we typically see what we want to see.  That tendency is there in all of us, and we must learn to resist that superficial tug of emotion when it is inappropriate.  Most of all we need to resist the tendency to make our own personal judgment the basis of all reality.  It is sometimes helpful to humbly temper our judgment by listening to someone who just might not share our parochial view (often a matter of projection).