New First Presidency

[Kenngo1969]

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Good for you (seriously).  

I can see your point.  I think most probably were under the impression that Pres. Nelson's responses were impromptu or off the cuff.  But to be honest, I don't really have a problem with him preparing some (and even memorizing some responses) in advance and actually find that to be quite normal.

I do wonder why Pres. Oaks memorized the same responses, though. 

ALarson: "Why did the Brethren [or Fill-in-Name-of-President-[Name]-Here] memorize responses?" Or, "Presidents Nelson and Oaks memorized the same responses."

Kenngo1969: "Objection!  Assumes facts not in evidence!"

His Honor: "Sustained."

Edited January 23, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

ALarson: "Why did the Brethren [or Fill-in-Name-of-President-[Name]-Here] memorize responses?" Or, "Presidents Nelson and Oaks memorized the same responses."

Kenngo1969: "Objection!  Assumes facts not in evidence!"

His Honor: "Sustained."

Watch the clip (that has been posted).  Pres. Oaks was mouthing the same words that Pres. Nelson was speaking (and at the same time).  If you want to claim otherwise, fine....go ahead.  But either they both had the same information memorized ahead of time or it was quite the coincidence that they were saying the same thing at the same time (although Pres. Oaks wasn't saying it out loud).  I'm not going to play the game you're attempting to play here (and I get tired of your antics on here sometimes, quite frankly....although I think you're usually at least being good natured about it rather than mean spirited as I've seen on this thread).  

In case you haven't noticed, I've stood up for the leaders regarding these scripted or memorized in advance responses.  It does raise a few questions (such as the one I asked above), but quite honestly, I think it's no big deal to have prepared some responses in advance.

Edited January 23, 2018 by ALarson

[Kenngo1969]

37 minutes ago, ALarson said:

... I get tired of your antics on here sometimes, quite frankly ....

Let's all commiserate in unison with ALarson, who's grown tired of my alleged antics on the Board.  All Mormon Dialogue and Discussion posters in unison, ready?  Remember, everybody in unison after we've counted down from three.  Ready? Three, two, one ...

"Awwwww!"

There!  Feel better, ALarson?

Ken holds up thumb and forefinger with the teensiest, tiniest, itsy-bitsiest, little bit of space between them.  "Do you know what this is, ALarson?  It's the world's smalllest violin, and it's playing juuuuust for you!"

 I have a very simple solution if you're "tired" of my alleged Board "antics," but you're not gonna like it ...  

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Let's all commiserate in unison with ALarson, who's grown tired of my alleged antics on the Board.  All Mormon Dialogue and Discussion posters in unison, ready?  Remember, everybody in unison after we've counted down from three.  Ready? Three, two, one ...

"Awwwww!"

There!  Feel better, ALarson?

Ken holds up thumb and forefinger with the teensiest, tiniest, itsy-bitsiest, little bit of space between them.  "Do you know what this is, ALarson?  It's the world's smalllest violin, and it's playing juuuuust for you!"

 I have a very simple solution if you're "tired" of my alleged Board "antics," but you're not gonna like it ...  

You are the only one here that gets away with  being a smartxxx..

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Let's all commiserate in unison with ALarson, who's grown tired of my alleged antics on the Board.  All Mormon Dialogue and Discussion posters in unison, ready?  Remember, everybody in unison after we've counted down from three.  Ready? Three, two, one ...

"Awwwww!"

There!  Feel better, ALarson?

Ken holds up thumb and forefinger with the teensiest, tiniest, itsy-bitsiest, little bit of space between them.  "Do you know what this is, ALarson?  It's the world's smalllest violin, and it's playing juuuuust for you!"

 I have a very simple solution if you're "tired" of my alleged Board "antics," but you're not gonna like it ...  

Um.  How about you post all of the sentence so it’s in context?  Are you having a bad day, Kenngo?  This really seems so out of character for you!  Hope you’re ok (I mean that).  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Watch the clip (that has been posted).  Pres. Oaks was mouthing the same words that Pres. Nelson was speaking (and at the same time).  If you want to claim otherwise, fine....go ahead.  But either they both had the same information memorized ahead of time or it was quite the coincidence that they were saying the same thing at the same time (although Pres. Oaks wasn't saying it out loud).  I'm not going to play the game you're attempting to play here (and I get tired of your antics on here sometimes, quite frankly....although I think you're usually at least being good natured about it rather than mean spirited as I've seen on this thread).  

In case you haven't noticed, I've stood up for the leaders regarding these scripted or memorized in advance responses.  It does raise a few questions (such as the one I asked above), but quite honestly, I think it's no big deal to have prepared some responses in advance.

Have you ever seen a mother standing by her child or watching from the audience while her child gives a speech?

In many cases she has practiced with her long enough for the words to have sunk into her brain and unconsciously she mouths them along with her, especially if there is any intent to prompt.

Occasionally I would find myself doing it from Primary kids I taught and even the Primary leaders during performance of the Primary program.  It was one way I unconsciously kept track of where we were.

No coincidence at all if two good friends helped each other out practicing.  Much more likely, imo, than memorizing the same thing separately if he was mimicking the cadence of Pres. Nelson's words and not looking like he was stumbling over the timing...because that would mean the remembered timing was a result of Pres Nelson's choices, not his own.  Pres. Oaks has been giving long speeches for a long time and had to memorize much over the years in his career and current service.  He just may automatically go there whenever lots of repetition occurs.

Edited January 23, 2018 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

You know that I like you Robert, and there's nothing personal in this, but this is a very strained and irrelevant comparison. There's a big difference between deciphering what someone is feeling in the moment vs using that to determine innocence or guilt of some crime committed in the past. It's one thing to notice that a defendant looks nervous, it's another thing to guess whether he's nervous because he's on trial or if he's nervous because he did it.

Maybe I am totally wrong on this, Gray.  And maybe a forensic psychologist like Phil McGraw would claim that he can read people with such instant accuracy (even if that doesn't transfer to ordinary people, who are woefully inaccurate).  And yet I know from my own extensive academic study over many years, along with personal experience dealing with criminal justice that such is simply not so.  After all, even experienced detectives cannot actually tell when someone is lying to them, and Phil McGraw actually depends heavily upon polygraphy.  I consider it a pipe dream to imagine that one can read people the way you claim they can.  The evidence just doesn't support your claim, Gray.  Moreover, even in the matter of Elder Uchtdorf, your judgment isn't apparent to others on this board.  Should we take a poll and decide the issue on that basis?  C'mon, get real, man.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Even those trained in reading microexpressions and having a much higher success rate than usual (80% iirc  been a few days since read article) still are incapable of knowing why the person feels that way.

Schwester Harriet and Elder Uchtdorf had a disagreement when, feeling a sense of immense relief and adventurousness after having had the immense burden of being a member of the First Presidency lifted off of his shoulders ... Although, if I were he, I might, upon hearing President Nelson's call to chair two committees and to oversee Europe and Eastern Europe, have said, "Are you sure you don't need a third counselor?"  ... when the two went skiing, Elder Uchtdorf disregarded Schwester Harriet's instructions to stick to the bunny hill.  

Mystery solved!  (And my hypothesis/speculation has at least as much to back it up as anyone else's on the thread ...)

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Have you ever seen a mother standing by her child or watching from the audience while her child gives a speech?

In many cases she has practiced with her long enough for the words to have sunk into her brain and unconsciously she mouths them along with her, especially if there is any intent to prompt.

Occasionally I would find myself doing it from Primary kids I taught and even the Primary leaders during performance of the Primary program.  It was one way I unconsciously kept track of where we were.

No coincidence at all if two good friends helped each other out practicing.  Much more likely, imo, than memorizing the same thing separately if he was mimicking the cadence of Pres. Nelson's words and not looking like he was stumbling over the timing...because that would mean the remembered timing was a result of Pres Nelson's choices, not his own.  Pres. Oaks has been giving long speeches for a long time and had to memorize much over the years in his career and current service.  He just may automatically go there whenever lots of repetition occurs.

I quite agree (and have done the same when my kids were younger).  Like I've said several times, I think it's quite natural for them to have prepared in advance.  

My wondering out loud was just that....wondering....and thinking or asking if they'd prepared the same answer, would either of them given the same answer (if they weren't sure who was going to be asked each question).  Of course, that could have been done, and both of them meant what they were saying (and I already stated that too).

The only possibly negative feeling from some may be if they had completely believed this was all impromptu or off the cuff.  I gotta say though. that I would have prepared in advance like they did.  They know from experience that every word that comes out of their mouths gets analyzed.

Edited January 23, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Um.  How about you post all of the sentence so it’s in context?  Are you having a bad day, Kenngo?  This really seems so out of character for you!  Hope you’re ok (I mean that).  

Yeah....I'm starting to wonder the same thing 

No worries on my end though.

Edited January 23, 2018 by ALarson

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I quite agree (and have done the same when my kids were younger).  Like I've said several times, I think it's quite natural for them to have prepared in advance.  

My wondering out loud was just that....wondering....and thinking or asking if they'd prepared the same answer, would either of them given the same answer (if they weren't sure who was going to be asked each question).  Of course, that could have been done, and both of them meant what they were saying (and I already stated that too).

The only possibly negative feeling from some may be if they had completely believed this was all impromptu or off the cuff.  I gotta say though. that I would have prepared in advance like they did.  They know from experience that every word that comes out of their mouths gets analyzed.

I hadn't thought of the possibility that they didn't know who Stack was going to direct her question to....

Edited January 23, 2018 by Calm

[Hestia]

Kennego has been banned from the thread.

[juliann]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

He was mouthing his answer right along exactly as Pres. Nelson was giving his answer....using the exact words.

I think it looks like there may have been a teleprompter as that makes the most sense to me.  (And, I don't think there's anything wrong if there was one there for them to help respond and answer questions....)

Was anyone there who could say if one was present?  (Maybe they can conceal them now....I'm not up on all the new technology).

I didn't notice that until it was pointed out.  I am completely blank about what was going on. I just keep going back to how happy they seemed to be sitting there together and how comfortable Pres. Oaks was in finishing his comments for him. That takes a very good friend. We often say how we are of one mind, they are taking it to a new level. LOL

[Tacenda]

dbl post

Edited January 24, 2018 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

Just now, Tacenda said:

I guess there is some kind of teleprompter. Surprised that Peggy Strack didn't see it. I'm sure the presidency didn't use it the entire time, although I wish they hadn't used it at all. But hey, I would need it for a talk or something, but they weren't giving a talk. And the world was watching, how nerve wracking would that be?!?

[stemelbow]

It’s odd Peggy said there was no TelePrompTer when there was one.  There’s really no way she didn’t see it since it was not hidden.  That’s really confusing regarding all of this.  I wonder who was typing up the leaders responses.  It kind of makes me feel a little better that their answers were so bad and non answers.  

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I guess there is some kind of teleprompter. Surprised that Peggy Strack didn't see it. I'm sure the presidency didn't use it the entire time, although I wish they hadn't used it at all. But hey, I would need it for a talk or something, but they weren't giving a talk. And the world was watching, how nerve wracking would that be?!?

Perhaps you have forgotten that President Nelson opened the news conference with a prepared opening statement, for which the TelePrompTer was likely used. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It’s odd Peggy said there was no TelePrompTer when there was one.  There’s really no way she didn’t see it since it was not hidden.  That’s really confusing regarding all of this.  I wonder who was typing up the leaders responses.  It kind of makes me feel a little better that their answers were so bad and non answers.  

What makes you think the TelePrompTer was used throughout?

And Your not liking the answers doesn’t make them  bad or “non-answers.” 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I noticed since the press conference some were quite pleased the President Nelson appeared to know the reporters asking the questions and made a personal note on each.  I felt it was kind of patronizing particularly as he and the others were unable or unwilling to actually address the questions asked.  But someone pointed out and posted the explanation on YouTube, how even that which I felt was patronizing was scripted, as Oaks was mouthing what President Nelson was saying.  Sadly, even with a scripted help, apparently, in the press conference it came out as it did.................................

19 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Just saw something about the press conference. I guess when Pres. Nelson was answering Peggy Strack, Elder Oak's lips were saying the same thing at the beginning as if there were a teleprompter. Could that be possible? If you want to go back to watch you'll see it. Not saying it's bad to have them reading some prompts. I couldn't do what they have to do. But curious what anyone on here might think. ........................................................

I see no justification for the claim you are making.  Oaks' lips do move slightly, but it would make as much sense to imagine that he is mouthing words of his own to Peggy, while his boss is talking.  What is being proposed here makes about as much sense as serious talk about the evidence for aliens at Roswell, New Mexico.

As to being patronizing, the Brethren are not conscious of normal press conference behavior, and probably don't much care.  What Pres Nelson says is quite authentic and unscripted, because Peggy Fletcher comes from a very prominent Mormon family personally known to him, and Peggy has been a fixture in reporting for the SLTribune for decades, and before that editor of Sunstone.  Through all that time, she has exhibited unflinching integrity and readiness to tell it as she sees it, even when that makes the LDS Church look bad.  If you don't know her history and her personally, that may not make any sense to you two.

I have seen Elder Holland make similar "patronizing" remarks to Peggy at other press conferences, and I consider them entirely genuine.  None of the Brethren would dare bring a teleprompter to such a press conference (even if they were so crass), fully knowing that Peggy would put that in her story.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I guess there is some kind of teleprompter. Surprised that Peggy Strack didn't see it. I'm sure the presidency didn't use it the entire time, although I wish they hadn't used it at all. But hey, I would need it for a talk or something, but they weren't giving a talk. And the world was watching, how nerve wracking would that be?!?

 

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It’s odd Peggy said there was no TelePrompTer when there was one.  There’s really no way she didn’t see it since it was not hidden.  That’s really confusing regarding all of this.  I wonder who was typing up the leaders responses.  It kind of makes me feel a little better that their answers were so bad and non answers.  

Peggy was probably referring to the sort of teleprompter used by the Brethren at Conference time which is immediately in front of the lectern.  The large screen visible at the back of the room was likely used only for English language translation of foreign language questions (and for the prepared statement by Pres Nelson, as Scott suggests).  It would have been a major faux pas to use it for pretend off-the-cuff responses to questions such as those asked by Peggy Fletcher.  Why?  Because word of that would get out very quickly, with all the people in that room, and would become a scandal about possible dementia of the new Prophet.  Conspiratorial suggestions of this sort ought to have a high bar of evidence before they are given any credence.

[stemelbow]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What makes you think the TelePrompTer was used throughout?

I didn't say throughout.  it was obvious Pres Oaks for instance read from it while Pres Nelson was speaking the same words, at least for a moment.  
And it so happened it was during a moment wherein the President was trying to come off as genuine, coming up with the ideas all on his own at that very moment--trying to be heartfelt.  It certainly lessened the effects of the sentiment, one would think.  

Quote

And Your not liking the answers doesn’t make them  bad or “non-answers.” 

Sure not in the objective.  But it remains my conclusion so I'll say so.  

Edited January 24, 2018 by stemelbow

[Rain]

Am I the only one who saw a title of "Bad lip reading..." on that clip? I didn't finish to the end. Was the clip a joke? If it wasn't a joke, why would you name it that if you were serious about him memorizing or reading the teleprompter?

Personally, I could go either way with that. The cadence seemed to be on, but given the amount of time spent moving his lips (not much) and given Scott's personal experiences with President Nelson, it could just be coincidence or something different than memorized lines. I don't know.

The one thing I caught with this though was when Peggy mentioned the presidency was American. This clip didn't show Elder Uchtdorf at that point. Must be another one.

 

 

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I see no justification for the claim you are making.  Oaks' lips do move slightly, but it would make as much sense to imagine that he is mouthing words of his own to Peggy, while his boss is talking.  What is being proposed here makes about as much sense as serious talk about the evidence for aliens at Roswell, New Mexico.

As to being patronizing, the Brethren are not conscious of normal press conference behavior, and probably don't much care.  What Pres Nelson says is quite authentic and unscripted, because Peggy Fletcher comes from a very prominent Mormon family personally known to him, and Peggy has been a fixture in reporting for the SLTribune for decades, and before that editor of Sunstone.  Through all that time, she has exhibited unflinching integrity and readiness to tell it as she sees it, even when that makes the LDS Church look bad.  If you don't know her history and her personally, that may not make any sense to you two.

I have seen Elder Holland make similar "patronizing" remarks to Peggy at other press conferences, and I consider them entirely genuine.  None of the Brethren would dare bring a teleprompter to such a press conference (even if they were so crass), fully knowing that Peggy would put that in her story.

I don't know see much validity to your claim that Oaks was not mouthing the words that President Nelson was speaking.  It looks obvious to me.  But to each their own, I suppose.  

[stemelbow]

 

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Peggy was probably referring to the sort of teleprompter used by the Brethren at Conference time which is immediately in front of the lectern.  The large screen visible at the back of the room was likely used only for English language translation of foreign language questions (and for the prepared statement by Pres Nelson, as Scott suggests).  It would have been a major faux pas to use it for pretend off-the-cuff responses to questions such as those asked by Peggy Fletcher.  Why?  Because word of that would get out very quickly, with all the people in that room, and would become a scandal about possible dementia of the new Prophet.  Conspiratorial suggestions of this sort ought to have a high bar of evidence before they are given any credence.

I think it obvious you're wrong here.  The picture taken shows the words fo the teleprompter and it's not a translation of foreign language questions.  it is lines for the person at the front to read.  

[smac97]

The Trib is weighing on BodylanguageGate:

Quote

What was with all the leaning, laughing and touching during the new Mormon leaders’ debut? Body-language experts explain.

By Bob Mims

In their public debut, new Mormon church President Russell M. Nelson and his counselors spoke about women (they’re loved), LGBT members (they’re welcome) and millennials (they’re strong).

But, beyond the thousands of words they uttered, their body language — posture, gestures, touches, facial expressions — said even more.

The 93-year-old Nelson appeared open and inviting. His first counselor, Dallin H. Oaks, 85, was assertive and supportive. Second counselor Henry B. Eyring, 84, seemed more removed, at first, and periodically uncomfortable.

So say body-language experts who reviewed video of last week’s 47-minute news conference given by the LDS Church’s new governing First Presidency. They noticed the give-and-take, the unity, the chemistry — and occasional lack of it — of this dynamic Mormon triumvirate.

"First, in terms of communication and charisma, I believe that Nelson is an excellent representative, as he seems welcoming and inviting and speaks with conviction … directly to the audience, not at them,” said Lillian Glass, an internationally renowned nonverbal communication expert and author. “[Nelson] also has a very strong leadership quality and seems to be open-minded in his answers.”

Oaks, next in the line of succession to lead The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a longtime apostolic colleague of Nelson, was supportive, she said. “His body language shows this with his smiles and [throughout] his turning directly toward Nelson and hanging on to his every word.”

Until, that is, a reporter asked about any future church policies toward LGBT Mormons.

“Nelson handled that [question] beautifully as he said there was a place for everyone,” Glass said. “[But] I think Dallin Oaks’ comment was a bit diverting as he stressed the commandments. ... It was not as welcoming as Nelson’s comments.”

During that exchange, Oaks leans forward and closer to Nelson, a former heart surgeon. He first praises the loving response of the new church president, she said, then amends it to point out the faith’s “responsibility to teach love and the commandments.”

Glass noted that Nelson, briefly seen bowing his head, “attempted to save face by adding the weighing element, [saying], ‘We have a love and law balance here,’ while moving his hands up and down, [scalelike] as to be diplomatic in the situation on the world stage.”

 

Read the whole thing, if you like.  It seems quite subjective and vague.  Kinda like astrology, actually.

Thanks,

-Smac