New First Presidency

[Rain]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

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 genuinely coming up with the ideas all on his own at that very moment.  Trying to be heartfelt.  It certainly lessen the effects of the sentiment, one would think.  

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

I have sometimes rehearsed heartfelt sentiment over and over in my mind, especially when the stakes are high. Times when I really want the other person to know of my love, but know that what we will be talking about may be difficult. Times when I am afraid that in my worries about talking about a difficult subject that I will forget to express the love. 

You may be right that this may lessen the effects on the person you are speaking with. If the person knew how important it was to you then it might actually strengthen the effects. Either way it doesn't lessen the effects of how I personally feel when speaking what I have rehearsed. 

 

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, Rain said:

I have sometimes rehearsed heartfelt sentiment over and over in my mind, especially when the stakes are high. Times when I really want the other person to know of my love, but know that what we will be talking about may be difficult. Times when I am afraid that in my worries about talking about a difficult subject that I will forget to express the love. 

You may be right that this may lessen the effects on the person you are speaking with. If the person knew how important it was to you then it might actually strengthen the effects. Either way it doesn't lessen the effects of how I personally feel when speaking what I have rehearsed. 

 

So Pres Oaks and Nelson rehearsed what Pres Nelson would say to Peggy after she asked a question?  Odd thought.  Seems far more likely, and appears to be the case, that Oaks read along, as Nelson said what was given him to say, via the teleprompter.  

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So Pres Oaks and Nelson rehearsed what Pres Nelson would say to Peggy after she asked a question?  Odd thought.  Seems far more likely, and appears to be the case, that Oaks read along, as Nelson said what was given him to say, via the teleprompter.  

I'm wondering if Peggy Fletcher-Stack stated that a teleprompter wasn't used to answer the questions (does anyone have what she actually said?).  Meaning that some of their statements were prepared ahead of time and on the prompter for them (such as the personal comments made to the reporters like what was done with Stack....those could have been written in advance knowing that she'd be one of the reporters asking a question).   

Maybe someone who was actually there will say more.  If not, this does explain why Pres. Oaks was mouthing the words right along with Pres. Nelson (he was reading along on the teleprompter for the personal info in the response).  I think it makes sense to prep some of those things in advance.

Edited January 24, 2018 by ALarson

[Rain]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So Pres Oaks and Nelson rehearsed what Pres Nelson would say to Peggy after she asked a question?  Odd thought.  Seems far more likely, and appears to be the case, that Oaks read along, as Nelson said what was given him to say, via the teleprompter.  

That wasn't my thought. That was a thought that came from yours and Tacenda's clip. 

My personal thinking is that I don't know what happened based on the evidence. What I said to you was a comment only to what you said - that this kind of thing lessens the sentiment. I tied my own experience in  to what had already been said, knowing there are different ways of looking at it, not just critical ones. 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Rain

[Gray]

19 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

It is actually the same type of thing. A juror reading body language that he or she thinks is nervous energy and inferring that the defendant is guilty vs reading an expression on a person's face or their body language and inferring that the person is feeling disappointed, depressed, unhappy, etc. about what some other people have termed a demotion. 

Actually projection is the first step in interpreting body language.

Glenn

That's like saying noticing tea leaves at the bottom of the cup is the same as using tea leaves for divination.

[Gray]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

You keep making these claims, but unless I am really out of it...which is a high possibility....you have put up no documentation to demonstrate such, while I have put up some limited material demonstrating your claims of high accuracy in body language being a common attribute to be inaccurate and Robert has pointed out a real life case where those who depended on body language to make a judgement about how a defendant was feeling screwed up the finding.

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.

I think this is an appropriate source, given you're essentially asking for information to demonstrate that water is wet:

 

https://kids.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/frym.2017.00011

 

[Gray]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Again, I'm not talking about detecting lies or innocence or guilt. I'm talking about the everyday human skill of discerning emotion.

 

https://kids.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/frym.2017.00011

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

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.  

So you claim to be able to read those words on that back room teleprompter, and they are specifically the words said by Pres Nelson to Peggy?  I don't think so.  And you dismiss the possibility of your theory being subjected to eyewitness observation there in the room, thus leading to a major scandal?  Would the Brethren be that dumb?  What you are saying makes no rational sense, stem.  It is more on the level of arguing for a flat Earth.  Really?

[Robert F. Smith]

38 minutes ago, Gray said:

Again, I'm not talking about detecting lies or innocence or guilt. I'm talking about the everyday human skill of discerning emotion.

https://kids.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/frym.2017.00011

Thanks for the interesting article, Gray.  I have been talking about the everyday human skill of discerning and interpreting emotion, something which both psychologists and juries frequently use to judge whether what someone is saying is true or false.  All of us use that supposed skill, to a greater or lesser intensity and accuracy.  That you don't see the connection between those phases of judgment only means that you are working at the surface, unconcerned with whether such judgments are correct or in error.  You automatically assume that facial expression provides you with instant, dependable access to the emotional state of the subject.  Had you thought carefully about that, you would have understood what I have been saying from the outset.  You would also have been saying to yourself "How is it that others on this board don't share my view of the emotional state of Elder Uchtdorf?"  If it is so cut and dried, how is that possible?  Perhaps some bias is involved, or perhaps there is something wrong with your theory.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The Trib is weighing on BodylanguageGate:

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

Yep, a little bit like reading tea leaves.  It may be helpful, but it may as likely tell us more about the observing clinician.

[CA Steve]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you claim to be able to read those words on that back room teleprompter, and they are specifically the words said by Pres Nelson to Peggy?  I don't think so.  And you dismiss the possibility of your theory being subjected to eyewitness observation there in the room, thus leading to a major scandal?  Would the Brethren be that dumb?  What you are saying makes no rational sense, stem.  It is more on the level of arguing for a flat Earth.  Really?

It is possible to read what  is on the teleprompter in the picture. If you zoom in, it says something like this...

 

"Good morning ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters. I would like to welcome you this morning to the...

 

So no, not to Peggy, but obviously this is  before she asked her question.

 

By the way I am not arguing anything here, just stating that in the photo it is possible to read what is on the teleprompter.

 

 

[ALarson]

4 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). 

The words are in English (you can zoom in).  Were there any questions asked in a foreign language?  (If that's what you meant...).

Peggy Fletcher-Stack has responded on Facebook apparently (just read this on another forum) and stated that she was wrong and stands corrected.  She said that the teleprompter was way behind her and she was always facing forward so she missed it.

 

[Gray]

34 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Thanks for the interesting article, Gray.  I have been talking about the everyday human skill of discerning and interpreting emotion, something which both psychologists and juries frequently use to judge whether what someone is saying is true or false.  All of us use that supposed skill, to a greater or lesser intensity and accuracy.  That you don't see the connection between those phases of judgment only means that you are working at the surface, unconcerned with whether such judgments are correct or in error.  You automatically assume that facial expression provides you with instant, dependable access to the emotional state of the subject.  Had you thought carefully about that, you would have understood what I have been saying from the outset.  You would also have been saying to yourself "How is it that others on this board don't share my view of the emotional state of Elder Uchtdorf?"  If it is so cut and dried, how is that possible?  Perhaps some bias is involved, or perhaps there is something wrong with your theory.

Still with the jury thing? As I've said over and over again, that's not germane to the point I'm making. I'm not using Elder U's facial expressions to determine whether or not he was a good pilot in his previous career or if he took the last cookie in the cookie jar last month.

"How is it that others on this board don't share my view of the emotional state of Elder Uchtdorf?"  I think some people have a vested interest in poo pooing the idea that there could every be the slightest amount of disharmony within the function of the Q12/FP. The unrealistic PR effort of constant smiles and unity must be maintained. So we get page after page of a rather strained skepticism about the wetness of water and whether or not human beings are in fact capable of bipedal locomotion. Anything but acknowledge that this seems to have been an understandably uncomfortable experience for Elder Uchtdorf.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Gray

[Tacenda]

31 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The words are in English (you can zoom in).  Were there any questions asked in a foreign language?  (If that's what you meant...).

Peggy Fletcher-Stack has responded on Facebook apparently (just read this on another forum) and stated that she was wrong and stands corrected.  She said that the teleprompter was way behind her and she was always facing forward so she missed it.

 

That clears up a lot, thanks! I had seen her comment to Bill Reel that there wasn't. I guess she corrected it. Trying to stay away from my addiction to FB.

[USU78]

On 1/16/2018 at 11:12 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

President Russell M. Nelson, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

President Dallin H. Oaks, First Counselor in the First Presidency and President of the Quorum of the Twelve

President Henry B. Eyring, Second Counselor in the First Presidency

President M. Russell Ballard, Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

 

You wuz robbed.

[USU78]

18 hours ago, Hestia said:

Kennego has been banned from the thread.

Kennego he go.

[Robert F. Smith]

39 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The words are in English (you can zoom in).  Were there any questions asked in a foreign language?  (If that's what you meant...).

Yes, and CASteve makes it clear that those words were from the lengthy introductory remarks by Pres Nelson and his counselors.  You ought to watch the actual press conference, in which you will hear a full question asked in Spanish by Mexican Antonio Aras.  The translation may also have appeared on that screen.

Quote

Peggy Fletcher-Stack has responded on Facebook apparently (just read this on another forum) and stated that she was wrong and stands corrected.  She said that the teleprompter was way behind her and she was always facing forward so she missed it.

I see no reason to assume that any of the responses to questions were prescripted.  I am not even sure that the Brethren would have advanced talking points.  Certainly didn't seem so to me.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you claim to be able to read those words on that back room teleprompter, and they are specifically the words said by Pres Nelson to Peggy?  I don't think so. 

I can read what is on the prompter based ont he picture posted earlier.  It contains words for he who is currently speaking.  That picture was not taken when the response to Peggy was happening.  

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

And you dismiss the possibility of your theory being subjected to eyewitness observation there in the room, thus leading to a major scandal?  Would the Brethren be that dumb?  What you are saying makes no rational sense, stem.  It is more on the level of arguing for a flat Earth.  Really?

I'm certain I'm not at all getting what you're laying down here.  It makes sense to me.  I'm not sure what alternative makes more sense, in fact.  

[Robert F. Smith]

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

Still with the jury thing? As I've said over and over again, that's not germane to the point I'm making. I'm not using Elder U's facial expressions to determine whether or not he was a good pilot in his previous career or if he took the last cookie in the cookie jar last month.

As I have said repeatedly here, Gray, you have misinterpreted Elder Uchtdorf's facial expression and attributed to it false emotional content, something which yokels do all the time without realizing it.  The results of such self-assured but reckless assumptions can be catastrophic or just annoying and unfair, but still false just the same.  You have repeatedly deflected and ignored that fact.

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

"How is it that others on this board don't share my view of the emotional state of Elder Uchtdorf?"  I think some people have a vested interest in poo pooing the idea that there could every be the slightest amount of disharmony within the function of the Q12/FP. The unrealistic PR effort of constant smiles and unity must be maintained. So we get page after page of a rather strained skepticism about the wetness of water and whether or not human beings are in fact capable of bipedal locomotion. Anything but acknowledge that this seems to have been an understandably uncomfortable experience for Elder Uchtdorf.

It is usually helpful to actually read what people say before responding.  You have not carefully read any of my responses and have misunderstood everyone of them, perhaps because you have a vested interest inventing emotion where it doesn't exist and in finding fault.

I take a hard, realistic view of the Brethren, have never seen them as unified on everything, and have repeatedly emphasized instances in which they took major issue with one another on key principles.  However, unlike you, I don't do that just because I wish to find fault.  I do it because it is a matter of factual history, and helps to clarify the real history of this or any religious organization.  Moreover, professional historians generally take that same view.  We have enough of that without inventing stuff on which there is no evidence, Gray.  You are convicted by your own words here, and I have highlighted the words you yourself use to show that.  Those words fairly drip with contempt and anger from you.

[Robert F. Smith]

Dkuplicate.  Sorry.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I can read what is on the prompter based ont he picture posted earlier.  It contains words for he who is currently speaking.  That picture was not taken when the response to Peggy was happening.  .......................

Yes, CASteve pointed out that those words are part of Pres Nelson's formal introductory remarks.  There is no reason to imagine that any of his responses were prescripted.  Indeed, had that been the case, someone in the room would have noticed.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As I have said repeatedly here, Gray, you have misinterpreted Elder Uchtdorf's facial expression and attributed to it false emotional content, something which yokels do all the time without realizing it.  The results of such self-assured but reckless assumptions can be catastrophic or just annoying and unfair, but still false just the same.  You have repeatedly deflected and ignored that fact.

It is usually helpful to actually read what people say before responding.  You have not carefully read any of my responses and have misunderstood everyone of them, perhaps because you have a vested interest inventing emotion where it doesn't exist and in finding fault.

I take a hard, realistic view of the Brethren, have never seen them as unified on everything, and have repeatedly emphasized instances in which they took major issue with one another on key principles.  However, unlike you, I don't do that just because I wish to find fault.  I do it because it is a matter of factual history, and helps to clarify the real history of this or any religious organization.  Moreover, professional historians generally take that same view.  We have enough of that without inventing stuff on which there is no evidence, Gray.  You are convicted by your own words here, and I have highlighted the words you yourself use to show that.  Those words fairly drip with contempt and anger from you.

Robert, I'm not the one making passive aggressive insults ("yokels", etc), so why am I the one who is full of contempt and anger? I've been very patient with it because I know it's your way. I try not to take it personally. Mostly because, as I said, I like you.

I'm certainly not looking to find fault. But if you really view the assertion that "Elder Uchtdorf seemed upset" as a kind of fault-finding, aren't you demonstrating my point for me? The happy family PR image must be maintained, opinions to the contrary must be put down. To notice that someone is upset is not to find fault. It's not even critical. You're as human as the rest of us. You're a partisan too, Robert. I don't think you're being as objective as you'd like to think.

I'll bow out as I don't think this issue is worth the time I've put into it so far.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

..............................

I'm certainly not looking to find fault. But if you really view the assertion that "Elder Uchtdorf seemed upset" as a kind of fault-finding, aren't you demonstrating my point for me? The happy family PR image must be maintained, opinions to the contrary must be put down. To notice that someone is upset is not to find fault. It's not even critical. You're as human as the rest of us. You're a partisan too, Robert. I don't think you're being as objective as you'd like to think..............

Everyone has to be a partisan.  There is no room for dispassionate scholarship.  Thus, all negative or positive assumptions are automatically true as stated.  The happy or sad family PR image has to be maintained by the pro and anti forces, willy nilly.  And you don't see the problem with that automatic assumption?  Yokels never do.

[Glenn101]

10 hours ago, Gray said:

That's like saying noticing tea leaves at the bottom of the cup is the same as using tea leaves for divination.

Way off.

[Meerkat]

7 hours ago, USU78 said:

You wuz robbed.

Actually no.  I'm very pleased.