Views on Name Correction vs. Wrong Name Continuance

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The real issue is to lead the children of God unto Christ which this counsel is intended to help. 

I would be told to stop and rightfully so. We are only meant to teach the doctrines publicly revealed by the apostles. Even if what I taught was correct and revealed to me personally I should still keep my mouth shut.

You’ve got an interesting perspective on these things, thanks for sharing with candor.  

[10THAmendment]

Just now, The Nehor said:

The real issue is to lead the children of God unto Christ which this counsel is intended to help. 

I would be told to stop and rightfully so. We are only meant to teach the doctrines publicly revealed by the apostles. Even if what I taught was correct and revealed to me personally I should still keep my mouth shut.

To be clear are you saying that Adam revealed himself as God to Brigham Young and Brigham Young only? The current leaders are the ones preaching false doctrine now?

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

No, I'm suggesting the prophet focus on real issues that help this world and not name changes and labels.  

So I take it you haven't been paying attention to other things he does and says or listening to General Conference, right?
This name thing only seems bigger because it is something different and because members and people and the media have been making a big thing out of it. 
He focuses on a lot of things that we just don't hear much about unless we are paying attention.
 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that all mortals are foolish, including President Nelson, when compared to a perfect deity.  

The idea of a God that cares about labels and names more than other seemingly much more important priorities, like poverty, slavery, abuse, is concerning to me theologically speaking.  

Everyone wants to do something big and important.  No one has time for the small and unimportant things.  Yet, Dr Jordan Peterson advises that those who want to do great things need to start by cleaning their room, and otherwise getting their personal lives in order.  Only then will they be ready to take on greater responsibilities.

[sunstoned]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think in recent years, the Brethren have been united in trying to get the membership to use the full and proper name of the Savior’s Church. I believe it is members who have refused to comply who have played into the adversary’s hands and, to the extent they continue to refuse, continue to do so. 

The expensive "I'm a Mormon" campaign was not something dreamed up by the members.  That came from top leadership. Don't blame the membership.

Edited March 30, 2019 by sunstoned

[Joshua Valentine]

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is certainly not the first time that Church leaders have asked members of the Church to refer to the Church by its proper name, calling it after the name of Jesus Christ. And President Nelson is certainly not the only Church leader to have requested it. The expressed preference has been in place for many years.

In my opinion, what is offensive to God is past refusal or resistance to this divine directive given by God through the instrumentality of His anointed servants, as well as the fact that such refusal has played into the adversary's hands by facilitating the de facto severance of the name of the Church from the name of Him Who founded it. I view the recent re-emphasis by President Nelson as an earnest effort to correct that past errancy on the part of many of the membership at large..

For many years now, I have avoided the terms "Mormon Church" and "LDS Church," as per directive from the leadership of the Church,  so I have not had any challenge in adapting to the recent instruction in this regard. 

I have on occasion used the term "Mormon" or "Mormons" to refer to members of the Church, but since the recent instruction from President Nelson, I have consistently referred to Church members as Latter-day Saints or as Church members. Again, it has not been difficult for me to do so.

If I may ask, why do  you, who have in the past written publicly in opposition to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, care what it calls itself?

Having trouble with breaking up a quote. Sorry.

-True, the preference has been indicated for quite some time. However, it is this addition of God´s displeasure and indication that such was the case ever since God made his church´s name clear in revelation that is new and seemingly full of dangerous and unnecessary implications.

-I follow you statements in your opinion - however it does not treat with the issue of Leadership controlled names - Mormon Tabernacle Choir, official websites, etc. These are certainly not the fault of the membership not heeding the leadership, rather it sounds like Nelson is claiming God was offended by the lack of followthrough by previous presidents, by this very dimension (official usage).

-Thanks for letting me know how you have dealt with the change, Scott Lloyd.

-As to you question of me: I am mainly just genuinely interested in how the membership are referring to themselves/each other - this seems to be the most difficult part of the pronouncement that I immediately wondered upon hearing of it.

[Joshua Valentine]

14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think President Nelson is addressing one of his personal pet peeves.  The arguments he's making for why this is important seem shallow when compared to challenging issues facing our world and the church in general.  He may personally feel inspired and motivated about this topic, and perhaps there is some good that can come from his efforts, but it seems to me that if we're prioritizing and looking at good, better, best, type criteria this particular issue is way low on the totem poll from my vantage point.  

I might agree, if this looked to be his top priority to the exclusion of other possible priorities, but I don´t know that that scenario has been shown to be the case, yet.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Joshua Valentine said:

Having trouble with breaking up a quote. Sorry.

Quote the whole post.

Then place the cursor at the end of the where you want the break and hit return.  Sometimes just hitting return again if it was at the end of a paragraph will create two separate quote boxes.  Sometimes you need to put it back at the end of the break, which is now the end of a new paragraph and hit return.  Once you have broken it up into the sections, you can backspace to delete any quote boxes you don't want,

Edited March 30, 2019 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that all mortals are foolish, including President Nelson, when compared to a perfect deity.  

The idea of a God that cares about labels and names more than other seemingly much more important priorities, like poverty, slavery, abuse, is concerning to me theologically speaking.  

It’s not an either/or choice. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think you are dissembling and not being honest at all about what past leaders thought about the use of the name Mormon Church. Its clear this is a pet peeve of President Nelson and now he has the power to elevate it. 

I think you either are ignorant of or are ignoring what has gone on before with regard to official expressions from the Church and it’s leaders urging the use of the full and proper name of the Church and avoiding appellations such as “Mormon Church” and “LDS Church.” 

Edited March 30, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Joshua Valentine]

 

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think God felt we were done with the transition period of getting away from the nicknames and abbreviations and, through President Nelson, is now making it a command. It seems petty to many but they are comparatively foolish mortals (many with an axe to grind) whereas God sees the end from the beginning and sees that this change will have positive effects for at least one and more likely many of his children.

 

12 hours ago, Calm said:

It could be seen as similar to the progression of treatment of the Word of Wisdom, first info is provided on the correct way of doing things, but people are not commanded.  Then given a time when greater push to get used to the idea, more specifics on certain things, and then it becomes a commandment.

 

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Nothing is being called into question.  Past practices are being sharpened because circumstances have changed or are about to change.  

Your insistence that past leaders are being disrespected calls into question your own beliefs, assuming that you're a Christian, @Joshua Valentine.   Until Moses was instructed otherwise, the laws before Leviticus consisted only of sacrifice of certain animals.  But then the complex system of Leviticus became the law. Until Peter was directed otherwise, the Gospel was only sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.  Then the Lord directed that the work was to expand to all others.  And the Law of Moses was fulfilled.  Moses was not disrespected.  Abraham was not disrespected.  The situation changed, and Lord's system of worship changed with it.

Insisting upon absolute consistency over all time is man's game, not God's.  Besides, men have changed the ordinances and the teachings to suit themselves -- is not God allowed to make His own changes when and how it suits Him?

Nelson clearly connects God´s original commandment on the name of his church to all adoption and sponsoring of nicknames and that these offend God. There is no mention of nor room for a ¨transition period¨ or a ¨progression¨.  And rather it is Nelson´s own statements that imply that this as been the consistent position of God - command the name and if it is not used or even changed by members or leadership then it offends him.

Nelson said:

Thus, the name of the Church is not negotiable. When the Savior clearly states what the name of His Church should be and even precedes His declaration with, “Thus shall my church be called,” He is serious. And if we allow nicknames to be used or adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, He is offended.

 

Now he does seem to qualify the nature of this offense by indeed implying that ¨circumstances have changed or about to change¨.

Nelson said:

After all He had endured—and after all He had done for humankind—I realize with profound regret that we have unwittingly acquiesced in the Lord’s restored Church being called by other names, each of which expunges the sacred name of Jesus Christ!

Nelson seems to be implying (without negating the previous point of God being offended from the very beginning) that leadership and members unwittingly committed this offense. There is no clear specification that he means simply in the very beginning of using other terms, so there seems to be room to take him as saying that from now on members and leadership will be held responsible for the offense.

This is the closest that Nelson gets to implying a ¨transition¨, ¨progression¨ or ¨change¨, but it is very subtle and not nearly as clearly stated as it might ought to have been in order to effectively state that previous leadership were not at fault and that all will be held responsible for their offense from now on.

 

 

 

On a side note - I would think, given the line-upon-line/not-infallible teachings, that LDS leadership would be more careful about such ¨changes¨ or ¨corrections¨ in order to not allow any question of guilt or error by previous presidencies. Seems like they would be used to clearer communication about such adjustments by now.

[Joshua Valentine]

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Nothing is being called into question.  Past practices are being sharpened because circumstances have changed or are about to change.  

Your insistence that past leaders are being disrespected calls into question your own beliefs, assuming that you're a Christian, @Joshua Valentine.   Until Moses was instructed otherwise, the laws before Leviticus consisted only of sacrifice of certain animals.  But then the complex system of Leviticus became the law. Until Peter was directed otherwise, the Gospel was only sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.  Then the Lord directed that the work was to expand to all others.  And the Law of Moses was fulfilled.  Moses was not disrespected.  Abraham was not disrespected.  The situation changed, and Lord's system of worship changed with it.

Insisting upon absolute consistency over all time is man's game, not God's.  Besides, men have changed the ordinances and the teachings to suit themselves -- is not God allowed to make His own changes when and how it suits Him?

Your example here does not work, because, at least to my knowledge, none of those developments were given with claims of God´s displeasure nor are any of those developments ones, that I know of, that were declared by God but delayed by leadership or members.

Stargazer, you might come up with better comparisons before all the ¨insistence¨ (never insisted - gave many qualifiers to uncertainty), calling ¨into question¨ my beliefs, and ¨assuming¨ anything about my being a Christian talk.

[Joshua Valentine]

14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think President Nelson is addressing one of his personal pet peeves.  The arguments he's making for why this is important seem shallow when compared to challenging issues facing our world and the church in general.  He may personally feel inspired and motivated about this topic, and perhaps there is some good that can come from his efforts, but it seems to me that if we're prioritizing and looking at good, better, best, type criteria this particular issue is way low on the totem poll from my vantage point.  

We should look at his arguments to see if this is true (see below)

14 hours ago, ALarson said:

This.  I agree 100%.  But I also feel it's a good thing to use the proper name of the church when possible.  It is obviously something that has really bothered President Nelson for years though, and now he's in the position to do something about it.

The real negative regarding his statements (IMO) is how they almost make the usage of the word "Mormon" to be evil now and if one uses that term they are "playing into the hands of the adversary".  I think that's going to such an extreme (and it also contradicts past leader's statements), and I don't agree with that.  I love Gordon B. Hinckley's words and attitude on this topic (that I quoted above).

One of Nelson´s points seems to indicate a clear, objective import to this declaration (see below)

14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This is what I've observed as well.  I haven't seen anyone flinch when I've used the word Mormon during church on Sunday, even when making comments in class.  I suspect most people don't see this as a big issue.  Like I mentioned in my last post, I think it is a pet peeve of President Nelson's.  Its like switching the toilet paper from rolling on the outside to rolling on the inside, or the way someone uses their toothpaste tube.  Pretty sure most people see this as unimportant. 

Given the example below, it does not at all seem to be like toilet paper rolls.

14 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I thought it's made God look petty and stupid.  if the devil get's delighted when the term Mormon is used and has been used, then it's only because the devil knows it's offending God.  He couldn't possibly be happy about it if it didn't matter to God.  I find it all just completely silly, in the end.  It's sad to me to think what God has been reduced to by this.  

Nelson directly contradicts that it ¨only¨ delights the devil because it offends God (see below)

13 hours ago, ALarson said:

A "command"?  

Do you honestly believe we are breaking one of God's commandments if we still use the terms "Mormon" or "LDS" in relation to members or to the church?  

I think it's important to keep things in perspective here regarding statements from past Prophets who have been in error or who have just been speaking as a man or giving their opinion.  I know that Pres. Nelson loves the "R" word (revelation), but in my opinion, this is something that's bothered him for years and I believe he does feel inspired or that it's right.  But I would not classify it as a commandment from God.  Just my feelings....

It is nice to see the media using the full name of the church and I do support that.

Nelson uses the term ¨command¨ a lot (see below)

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes. I am not saying it would be a particularly serious sin but it would be one unless done out of ignorance or accidentally out of habit. I did it when I was teaching two weeks ago but I caught myself and corrected it.

If the prophet cannot give commandements from God then no one can and since all of the General commands we have (absenting those given by personal revelation or by local leaders or to families) were usually received by prophets and were virtually always recorded by prophets if we cannot trust a prophet’s counsel we should either chuck the scriptures or admit we prefer to garnish the sepulcheres of dead prophets while defying the living ones. President Nelson was very clear about how serious this is. It is ironic. If he makes it clear how serious it is some people accuse him of hyperbole and being petty. If he had soft-pedaled it the same people would have dismissed it as vague counsel.

Not so sure this would not be a ¨particularly serious sin¨ (see below) but totally agree with your second paragraph.

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that all mortals are foolish, including President Nelson, when compared to a perfect deity.  

The idea of a God that cares about labels and names more than other seemingly much more important priorities, like poverty, slavery, abuse, is concerning to me theologically speaking.  

Theologically speaking Nelson´s argument for what this effects seems to make is theologically central for LDS.

12 hours ago, ALarson said:

Well, I'm going to disagree that this is now one of God's commandments.  I do not believe a person is sinning or breaking a commandment if they still use the terms "Mormon" or "LDS" to describe members or the church itself.  I feel that's very much taking it to the extreme.

I do however, think it's a positive step to remind us of the full name of the church and I do like how it is now being used in the media (when speaking of the church and writing about it).  I very much support that.

But I do not believe it's a sin to use other, more common or familiar terms.  I still also believe that this is coming from President Nelson (he's expressed this opinion over the years) and I respect that, but I do not think it's actually a commandment from God.  Our Prophets speak as men and give their opinions (which have been proven wrong over time at times).  I doubt this will be changed in the future, but I also doubt it will ever become a sin to not strictly follow it.  That's my opinion (and others agree who I've heard discuss it in my ward, or in discussions within friends and family too).  

I'm fine if you disagree....I respect that as well.

It may not be extreme as an action (simply using the wrong term) but does it not become extreme when it is done against God and his church?

 

 

Now to what I promised above. Nelson gives these indications (and many more) that this is, in fact, not trivial and related to things of great consequence:

 

Quote

Today I feel compelled to discuss with you a matter of great importance... I did this because the Lord impressed upon my mind the importance of the name He decreed for His Church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Importance emphasized

 

 

And for you who mentioned more important things in the world and doubted if it was a command.

Quote

Others wondered why, with all that’s going on in the world, it was necessary to emphasize something so “inconsequential.” ... Let me explain why we care so deeply about this issue. But first let me state what this effort is not:

• It is not a name change.

• It is not rebranding.

• It is not cosmetic.

• It is not a whim.

• And it is not inconsequential.

Instead, it is a correction. It is the command of the Lord. Joseph Smith did not name the Church restored through him; neither did Mormon. It was the Savior Himself who said, “For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

 

 

 

 

Quote

Even earlier, in AD 34, our resurrected Lord gave similar instruction to members of His Church when He visited them in the Americas. At that time He said:

“Ye shall call the church in my name. …

“And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church.”⁵

Thus, the name of the Church is not negotiable. When the Savior clearly states what the name of His Church should be and even precedes His declaration with, “Thus shall my church be called,” He is serious. And if we allow nicknames to be used or adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, He is offended.

This seems pretty straightforward. These sound like commands.  Even Jesus in the BoM is giving reasons as to why the name is not inconsequential and very important. Theological significance seems clear. It would seem clear enough that it would not require a prophet to declare revelation for members to put this scripture into practice to the full.

 

 

Quote

Every Sunday as we worthily partake of the sacrament, we make anew our sacred promise to our Heavenly Father that we are willing to take upon us the name of His Son, Jesus Christ.⁸ We promise to follow Him, repent, keep His commandments, and always remember Him.

When we omit His name from His Church, we are inadvertently removing Him as the central focus of our lives.

...

If we as a people and as individuals are to have access to the power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ—to cleanse and heal us, to strengthen and magnify us, and ultimately to exalt us—we must clearly acknowledge Him as the source of that power. We can begin by calling His Church by the name He decreed.

Here Nelson connects this issue with the fulfillment of sacramental covenants - this seems both personally and theologically significant!

 

Lastly,

Quote

My dear brothers and sisters, I promise you that if we will do our best to restore the correct name of the Lord’s Church, He whose Church this is will pour down His power and blessings upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints,¹⁷ the likes of which we have never seen. We will have the knowledge and power of God to help us take the blessings of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people and to prepare the world for the Second Coming of the Lord.

this is a pretty significant promise of the results of following through with this given by a president in GC.

 

So, Nelson specifically refers to it as a command, uses examples from the BoM that clearly sound like commands, connects it to both Sacrament Covenant fulfillment (which is obviously very important and a commandment) and the future blessing of the LDS Church. These all indicate that it is not a whim, not a pet peeve, is more than just God´s offense but the salvation of his people (thru covenant integrity) and legitimacy of his church.

Despite all of the clear language Nelson used (of which the above are only a portion) is there anything else that Nelson could have said to make it clear that this is in fact not simply a whim but an actual revelation from God?

If not, how does one ever know that anything spoken by the LDS president in GC is in fact a revelation?

If your prayerful consultation with God for confirmation leads you to believe otherwise, what about all your brothers and sisters in the faith whose personal testimony counters your own?

I know these go into other areas than the OP (perhaps they are just rhetorical questions) but it does seem clear that Nelson thinks this is important and far-reaching and presented it in all seriousness of his office (except addition to scripture - but that takes time anyway).

[Joshua Valentine]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you either are ignorant of or are ignoring what has gone on before with regard to official expressions from the Church anc it’s leaders urging the usd of the full and proper name of the Church and avoiding appellations such as “Mormon Church” and “LDS Church.” 

Only part of the issue Scott Lloyd - the leadership controlled usage of the name is still an issue for your points (see my reply to you above - 6th from top of page 3)

[Kenngo1969]

Nelson ... Nelson ... Nelson ... Nelson ... Nelson ... Nelson ... Nelson ... Nelson 

Valentine,

Your continual last-name-only references to President Nelson tell me everything I need to know about you and about your attitude toward him and his leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Thanks,

Gourdin

[hope_for_things]

8 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

I might agree, if this looked to be his top priority to the exclusion of other possible priorities, but I don´t know that that scenario has been shown to be the case, yet.

But you realize his talk has reverberations throughout the church, all these formal name changes are taking time, money and resources.  How much money?  $1M?  $10M?  Who knows.  It’s time and money better spent on other things.  It’s energy and even just mental capital from millions of members, better spent doing good in the world.  

[hope_for_things]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It’s not an either/or choice. 

But there is a finite amount of time and resources we can all deploy towards any effort in this world.  I believe how this precious time is spent means something and that leaders of large organizations have a responsibility with respect to how they lead.  

[Teancum]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you either are ignorant of or are ignoring what has gone on before with regard to official expressions from the Church and it’s leaders urging the use of the full and proper name of the Church and avoiding appellations such as “Mormon Church” and “LDS Church.” 

I am fully aware of what past leaders have said about the name Mormon Church. I am also aware that President Hinckley gave subtle rebuttal of President Nelson's conference talks about the name of the church sometime in the early 1990's.  I am also aware the under President Monson we had the Meet the Mormons ad campaign which cost I am sure a lot of money.  We also had Mormon.org under President Monson. He certainly did not mind the name Mormon Church and did not think it a victory for Satan.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

But there is a finite amount of time and resources we can all deploy towards any effort in this world.  I believe how this precious time is spent means something and that leaders of large organizations have a responsibility with respect to how they lead.  

You said, 

Quote

The idea of a God that cares about labels and names more than other seemingly much more important priorities, like poverty, slavery, abuse, is concerning to me theologically speaking.  

The idea you have stated is a false dilemma. God can care about anything he wishes. He notes the fall of the sparrow and numbers the hairs on my head, which lately is a lot less difficult to do. Even I can do that now.

Moreover, in this case there is no evidence that he, his prophet, or his Church puts labels and names over more important issues. Far more effort, concern, resources, thought, and energy are spent on those issues than on the name of the Church. Let’s compare the Church’s welfare efforts with the name change. No comparison.

[hope_for_things]

28 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You said, 

The idea you have stated is a false dilemma. God can care about anything he wishes. He notes the fall of the sparrow and numbers the hairs on my head, which lately is a lot less difficult to do. Even I can do that now.

Moreover, in this case there is no evidence that he, his prophet, or his Church puts labels and names over more important issues. Far more effort, concern, resources, thought, and energy are spent on those issues than on the name of the Church. Let’s compare the Church’s welfare efforts with the name change. No comparison.

Resources are finite, and wasting them on unimportant things is irresponsible.  I could also say that a just God is offended by this act of waste, but I don’t want to get into arguments from authority.  Suffice it to say I don’t agree with your reasoning.  

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Resources are finite, and wasting them on unimportant things is irresponsible.  I could also say that a just God is offended by this act of waste, but I don’t want to get into arguments from authority.  Suffice it to say I don’t agree with your reasoning.  

Nor do I with yours.

I can change the address numbers on my garage and repair the holes in the roof, mow the lawn and plant the garden. Doing one neither diminishes nor restricts the others. And have time for a siesta.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Joshua Valentine]

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Nelson ... Nelson ... Nelson ... Nelson ... Nelson ... Nelson ... Nelson ... Nelson 

Valentine,

Your continual last-name-only references to President Nelson tell me everything I need to know about you and about your attitude toward him and his leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Thanks,

Gourdin

What exactly would that be Gourdin?

Perhaps that I don´t refer to people by their titles and names simultaneously? That I generally loath titles so that I usually only refer to people in any position by their last name - including Trump, Obama, Clinton, Biden, Macron, Trudeau, McConnell, Schumer, Pelosi, AOC, Beto, Francis, etc?

Come on Gourdin, since you went out of your way to make this point - please clarify what is it that you ¨know¨ about me from my use of his last name?

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Joshua Valentine said:

What exactly would that be Gourdin?

Perhaps that I don´t refer to people by their titles and names simultaneously? That I generally loath titles so that I usually only refer to people in any position by their last name - including Trump, Obama, Clinton, Biden, Macron, Trudeau, McConnell, Schumer, Pelosi, AOC, Beto, Francis, etc?

Come on Gourdin, since you went out of your way to make this point - please clarify what is it that you ¨know¨ about me from my use of his last name?

Thanks for your very kind invitation to take the bait, Valentine, but, no thanks.

[Joshua Valentine]

4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Thanks for your very kind invitation to take the bait, Valentine, but, no thanks.

Wow, Kenngo1969, I think that qualifies as the pot calling the kettle black or, more accurately, projection.

You made the claim/attack, Kenngo, I simply and reasonably asked you to justify it, but you won't even stand by it? You even try to claim I'm acting in poor faith? Wow...

What's happened to you Kenngo in the past four years? I remember you being much more reasonable, even congenial, than these two posts seem to represent.

Maybe it's an outlier. Hope things go better for our interactions in the future.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

What exactly would that be Gourdin?

Perhaps that I don´t refer to people by their titles and names simultaneously? That I generally loath titles so that I usually only refer to people in any position by their last name - including Trump, Obama, Clinton, Biden, Macron, Trudeau, McConnell, Schumer, Pelosi, AOC, Beto, Francis, etc?

Come on Gourdin, since you went out of your way to make this point - please clarify what is it that you ¨know¨ about me from my use of his last name?

Using last names only may indicate a lack of respect. I usually use titles simply out of respect; however, I do not respect the folks on your list in the same way I respect President Nelson. I would not refer to him with only his last name. It implies a familiarity that I have not earned and displays a casualness that is unseemly.   Perhaps it’s a generational thing.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Bernard Gui