General Conference

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes, someone referred to “colored people” but only in that he stated the full name of the NAACP.  The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. 

Why would the youth feel negatively about Pres. Nelson’s statement about Nephi?

You can't say "colored people," that is highly derogatory and racist.

The new hip way to say it that the COOL and trendy and socially perfectly correct people say it is "people of color".

I mean if one cannot see the vast difference in phraseology between those two expressions, clearly they are racists.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You can't say "colored people," that is highly derogatory and racist.

The new hip way to say it that the COOL and trendy and socially perfectly correct people say it is "people of color".

I mean if one cannot see the vast difference in phraseology between those two expressions, clearly they are racists.

Simple tone, facial expression, loudness etc. can turn what is a harmless comment from one person into a nasty bigoted insult in another.  Is it that surprising that certain phrases have become associated with bigotry even when very similar phrases have not?

Edited April 6, 2020 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You can't say "colored people," that is highly derogatory and racist.

The new hip way to say it that the COOL and trendy and socially perfectly correct people say it is "people of color".

I mean if one cannot see the vast difference in phraseology between those two expressions, clearly they are racists.

I get what you're saying, and, largely, I agree with it.  The cloak of victimhood is stylish and comfortable.  Everyone seems to want to wear it, and when everyone seems to want to wear it, it becomes very easy to make someone "an offender for a word."   We live in a perverse, topsy-turvy, upside-down world in which someone can do even the most heinous things, yet many people will plumb the very depths of psychology, sociology, and similar disciplines in a fevered effort to explain it away, on the one hand, yet, on the other hand, if one merely says the "wrong" thing, that's a perfect excuse to hound him out of a job if he's employed, to hound him out of school if he's a student, to make sure he cannot show his face anywhere in public without being harangued mercilessly (hello, Maxine Waters!) and so on.

All of that having been said, as a person with a disability, a person with a behavioral health diagnosis, and so on, I also agree with the person-first-language idea: human beings are human beings and Children of God first.  They are not their characteristics.  And having said that, many people who insist on "person-first" language are undiagnosed schizophrenics: If you, as an outsider, attempt to validate the "person-first" idea, even by using the person's preferred terminology, then you are downplaying or minimizing the struggle inherent to their race, their disability, or to some other characteristic, and how dare you do that?!  There's no way that you, as an outsider, could understand such a struggle even if you tried, and yet, here you are, minimizing it!

It's truly a no-win, damned-if-one-does-and-damned-if-one-doesn't, "Catch-22" situation.

So you're gonna lose, no matter what, but thanks fer playin', Mark!

Edited April 6, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

  There's no way that you, as an outsider, could understand such a struggle even if you tried, and yet, here you are, minimizing it!

So the whole effort to drop being called Mormons is just another version of victimhood and in reality Saints shouldn’t be concerned about it because labels really don’t matter?

[california boy]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

So the whole effort to drop being called Mormons is just another version of victimhood and in reality Saints shouldn’t be concerned about it because labels really don’t matter?

I personally can't see why people don't respect other groups by addressing them the way they prefer to be addressed. How big of deal is it to use proper references.  To me, it says more about the person using improper references than it does the "victim" of the insult. 

[Anijen]

53 minutes ago, california boy said:

I personally can't see why people don't respect other groups by addressing them the way they prefer to be addressed. How big of deal is it to use proper references.  To me, it says more about the person using improper references than it does the "victim" of the insult. 

II agree with your statement. It is common courtesy to address someone as they want to be. I do not think it is right to be forced to do so.

California boy, I would like also to take this time to apologize to you for anytime I was offensive.

Thanks

Jeff aka Anijen

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone pointed out that today was Palm Sunday. This is a major liturgical day for Catholics and those who follow a liturgical calendar. I was unable to participate in Mass because of the coronavirus, but a neighbor down the street had palms for us, thanks be to God.

What do you think about President Nelson's call to fast on Good Friday coming on Palm Sunday? Is there a connection to traditional Christian liturgical calendars? Would that be a positive or negative thing?

Palm Sunday was mentioned in Conference. Can’t remember who said it. The announcement was made on Saturday.

Edited April 6, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

Quote

I agree with your statement. It is common courtesy to address someone as they want to be

Someone may simply not care to take the time or make the effort to learn what one wants to be called.  This is different than intending offense, but it still shows a lack of respect (no respect, not disrespect, not the presence of dislike, etc).  Would you think your boss valued you if he never bothered to learn your name, but just called out "hey you in the blue shirt" (or whatever color was appropriate) day after day?  (This is different from those who struggle to remember names and faces and apologize for doing so)

Contrast that to how the scriptures describe God who knows us so well he knows the numbers of hairs on our heads.

I wouldn't get offended in a relationship where someone was not calling me by the name I requested, but something easier, but I would also refrain from investing much in that relationship knowing how little I was valued as an individual by that person.

Otoh, if someone called me by a well known derogatory label, especially one that had been around for awhile and tried to justify it as a habit they couldn't break or felt they shouldn't need to, it is also a good indicator of what they value most and I would be walking out if possible on someone who rated me lower than a pretty trivial effort to change one word for another.

(There may be extreme cases of mental disorder where people are delusional.  In those cases I would initially call them what they wanted, checking with their caregiver though to be sure that would not interfere with treatment, etc....but few of us have much opportunity to encounter those extremes.)

Edited April 6, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Palm Sunday was mentioned in Conference. Can’t remember who said it. The announcement was made on Saturday.

Pres. Nelson did when speaking of the Good Friday Fast.  That is why I thought there were two.

He starts talking about it at 9:15.  What confused me is he introduced it as part of our April 2020 general conference...

Haven't watched the whole thing yet, so someone else might have mentioned it...likely would, imo.  

Edited April 6, 2020 by Calm

[Tacenda]

Two things brought to my attention:

1. Elder Uchtdorf's talk is not present on the list of speakers: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/general-conference?lang=eng Why not? 

2. Jean B. Bingham's slip of the tongue, saying "devalue women", not "value women". https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/general-conference/2020/04/media/6147167571001?lang=eng (12:39 mark)

Also, the women speakers were few, nothing new, but with all the changes the church is making, couldn't this have been one?

Edited April 6, 2020 by Tacenda

[ksfisher]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Two things brought to my attention:

1. Elder Uchtdorf's talk is not present on the list of speakers: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/general-conference?lang=eng Why not? 

2. Jean B. Bingham's slip of the tongue, saying "devalue women", not "value women". https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/general-conference/2020/04/media/6147167571001?lang=eng (12:39 mark)

Also, the women speakers were few, nothing new, but with all the changes the church is making, couldn't this have been one?

The list doesn't seem to be complete for Sunday.  President Nelson, for instance, was the conferences concluding speaker.  He is not listed.

Looks like for the moment it's a work in progress.

[Calm]

They probably have limited staff available to fix any problems like sound unevenness. Most probably weren’t an issue if that is why there is a delay, so just the few that are take longer. 
 

It will be surprising if the text comes out as quickly even though something that probably can be done at home for the most part. 
 

The talks are there in the full video as I see Pres Nelson’s announcement of temples is included as well as the closing choirs and prayer. 

Edited April 6, 2020 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

All of that having been said, as a person with a disability, a person with a behavioral health diagnosis, and so on, I also agree with the person-first-language idea: human beings are human beings and Children of God first.  They are not their characteristics.  And having said that, many people who insist on "person-first" language are undiagnosed schizophrenics: If you, as an outsider, attempt to validate the "person-first" idea, even by using the person's preferred terminology, then you are downplaying or minimizing the struggle inherent to their race, their disability, or to some other characteristic, and how dare you do that?!  There's no way that you, as an outsider, could understand such a struggle even if you tried, and yet, here you are, minimizing it!

Well clearly I am an outsider to most "things" now.

Thanks for telling me about this "person first" thing,  I've never heard of it before. 

I never knew it was a "thing."  Of course it makes no sense to me, but I will try to observe this new Dogma, enforced by the persons of the magisterium of social correctness.

Thank you, person of wisdom.

So as long as I put the person aspect first, my word order is correct at and so I'm okay right?

Edited April 6, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

With your education, I would have thought you understood very well that normative Christianity includes all denominations, because they all buy into the same basic assumptions, nearly all of which come from ancient Egypt.  Using words like creedal or trinitarian as though they don't apply won't wash.  That is merely diversionary, Phil.  Surely you realize the implications.  There is no substantive difference between Catholic or Protestant.  Christianity is not an epiphenomenon, and the normative basis for it all was best defined by Huston Smith many years ago -- being respectful, of course.

Hi, My Friend – I can’t separate my educational background from my devotional, and lived background. For me the essence of Christianity is a seed composed of essential embryos that produce faith, trust, doctrine, and spirituality as the seed grows in grace and truth. Much of that is accomplished individually. Christianity is also a forest full of trees, weeds, grasses, mosses, and life. Much of that is corporate. The forest acts as a community of diverse elements that replenish, support, and nourish growth. Even the lichens and the mosses contribute.

As such the forest contains elements that in and of themselves may be toxic, like various fungi. Yet, it is a community that thrives and grows, while at times choking and blocking out greater light that may indeed promote growth. The forest both enables and inhibits the seed while the seed creates growth in the forest. Of course the seed is liable to be blown about by the wind and land on rocky soil. We all have heard about that! Both forest and seed have strengths and weaknesses.

So, Christianity is a melding of the individual seed with the greater forest. Four elements provide the fertilizer, light, nourishment and enrichment necessary for growth. They are Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Desire. These are not unique to my thinking. Others have noticed the same sources of growth and expressed them in more or less similar terms.

I believe two of these are more forest-related while two are more seed (individual)-related. Each is essential and contributes. It is however, because of the interaction of the seed and the forest that Christianity not only contains a few normative elements, but also rich diversity. In fact, normative Christianity was, is, and always will have a diversity to it.

The seeds are the essentials. All the rest of the forest exists to nurture and promote growth of the seeds. The forest includes the corporate, group, communal elements – Scripture and Tradition. The seeds include the individual elements – Reason and Desire. Some forest rangers focus on the communal, while some on the individual.

In so doing they tend to define normative Christianity by their own essential priorities and values. The creeds are communal – their core elements are Scripture interpretation and Tradition. Ironically, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a communal group, also focusing on Scripture and Tradition. These two elements grant authority, identity, and uniqueness – three core elements of the LDS faith (in my observation). Of course, the LDS Church is not the only communal group within Christianity.

Others are more individually oriented. I focus on my individual relationship to Christ therefore I focus on reason and desire, working out in my mind my own unique faith and focusing on thirsting after the water brooks wherever they are found. I constantly affirm I am a Christian individual first, an Evangelical second, and a Mennonite third.

Right or wrong it is my observation that a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is first and foremost, and perhaps only, a member of that community. It provides all the nourishment needed or desired by the faithful community member. There is no better or other identity within Christianity. Not content to be a seed, tree, or even a grove, they are the forest in-toto. That is what their Scriptures and tradition tells them. It is what they know and satisfies their thirst. There is no complete Christianity outside of membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

It is not that either ignores the other. Certainly, being Christ-like involves a love and longing for Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Desire. Each of us longs for and exhibits each in different ways. However, we define our own version of normative Christianity which then leads to orthodoxy or orthopraxy by our focus on which of the  core elements of Christian growth we emphasize.

These are my thoughts and musings. They are a result of my own experience, faith, and life. Oh, and you mention Huston Smith. He was a much smarter man than me. Yet, he defined an individual, rather than a communal search for religious truth. He looked everywhere and in everything. For that he was both lauded and lambasted. I liked him! Ha!

Edited April 6, 2020 by Navidad

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Someone may simply not care to take the time or make the effort to learn what one wants to be called.  This is different than intending offense, but it still shows a lack of respect (no respect, not disrespect, not the presence of dislike, etc).  Would you think your boss valued you if he never bothered to learn your name, but just called out "hey you in the blue shirt" (or whatever color was appropriate) day after day?  (This is different from those who struggle to remember names and faces and apologize for doing so)

Contrast that to how the scriptures describe God who knows us so well he knows the numbers of hairs on our heads.

I wouldn't get offended in a relationship where someone was not calling me by the name I requested, but something easier, but I would also refrain from investing much in that relationship knowing how little I was valued as an individual by that person.

Otoh, if someone called me by a well known derogatory label, especially one that had been around for awhile and tried to justify it as a habit they couldn't break or felt they shouldn't need to, it is also a good indicator of what they value most and I would be walking out if possible on someone who rated me lower than a pretty trivial effort to change one word for another.

(There may be extreme cases of mental disorder where people are delusional.  In those cases I would initially call them what they wanted, checking with their caregiver though to be sure that would not interfere with treatment, etc....but few of us have much opportunity to encounter those extremes.)

Does that mean that members of the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints will stop using the term "anti-Mormon" when angry at, or dismissive of someone? That is certainly a derogatory label, one that has been around for awhile, and one that perpetuates the use of the term "Mormon." Can I get an amen for the suggestion that my LDS friends eliminate that from their vocabulary? I have certainly felt its sting here on this forum.

[Maureen]

9 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Does that mean that members of the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints will stop using the term "anti-Mormon" when angry at, or dismissive of someone? That is certainly a derogatory label, one that has been around for awhile, and one that perpetuates the use of the term "Mormon." Can I get an amen for the suggestion that my LDS friends eliminate that from their vocabulary? I have certainly felt its sting here on this forum.

Amen!

M.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Also, the women speakers were few, nothing new, but with all the changes the church is making, couldn't this have been one?

It would be interesting to compare how often the Seventies and General Officers get to talk.  Given First Presidency and Apostles talk with greater frequency, that doesn’t leave that many slots left for everyone else, men or women. If we start having youth speakers on a consistent basis, that two less. 
 

5 sessions, average 6? Speakers each means 30, make it 31 for symmetrical slots.  7 of those are First Presidency, leaving 24.
Apostles spoke once each, 12 times if I counted correctly.  Leaves 12 slots for Seventies, General Officers and guests. 
Of the twelve slots, women’s session gives us 5 women speakers, almost half of the available slots even though there are 9 women officers and 7 presidents of the seventies, 9 male officers, and 83 General Authority Seventies.

Women officers are likely to talk a number of times during their tenure in General Conference, comparable male roles possibly not given the pool of speakers is 99 men for 6 slots while some it is 9 women in 5speaking slots. 
Need to check Priesthood Session. 

[rockpond]

On 4/5/2020 at 4:04 PM, The Nehor said:

I broke down sobbing even though I immediately knew that Shanghai was not going to be a conventional temple.

This morning, the Church's temple list was updated to include yesterday's announcement but the Shanghai temple is not included on the list.  I know that President Nelson said it wouldn't be a conventional temple, but I'm surprised it isn't included on the list.

[Kenngo1969]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

So the whole effort to drop being called Mormons is just another version of victimhood and in reality Saints shouldn’t be concerned about it because labels really don’t matter?

The use, or non-use of the terms "Mormon" and "member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" did not arise in the context of victimhood.  Rather, the emphasis on the use of the latter term arose from the desire of the organization's leaders for greater precision and to emphasize what they have told us is the central aspect of belonging to the organization.  As for me, personally, If someone were to address me in a manner that does not conform to my preference (and you're corresponding with someone whose detractors used to address him, derisively, as "Crippled Kenny" ... Dem was da days! ), my first instinct would not be to don the stylish, comfortable cloak of victimhood and to  make that person an offender for a word.  Rather, I would simply emphasize my preference for person-centered, person-first language and would reiterate that whatever conditions or characteristics I happen to have, first and foremost, I am a person, and I am not any of those characteristics (that is, I may have a disability, but it doesn't define me).

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well clearly I am an outsider to most "things" now.

Thanks for telling me about this "person first" thing,  I've never heard of it before. 

I never knew it was a "thing."  Of course it makes no sense to me, but I will try to observe this new Dogma, enforced by the persons of the magisterium of social correctness.

Thank you, person of wisdom.

So as long as I put the person aspect first, my word order is correct at and so I'm okay right?

I wouldn't worry too much about it.  If someone is simply looking to make you an offender for a word, it would probably take too much work on your part to maintain the bridge between the two of you in good repair, anyway.  If not, the person will simply take the time to educate you on his or her preferences and on the whys-and-wherefores therefor.  Then you can consider yourself "educated," and likely will probably enjoy an increase in mutual respect and esteem.  That kind of a relationship would be worth the effort necessary to maintain it. 

As for being among the uninitiated, sometimes, I, too, have a hard time keeping up with all of the things I'm supposed to take umbrage about: This umbrage-taking business could end up being a full-time job and an all-consuming passion. As passionate as I might be about various things, I try to keep my various passions within proper bounds and to rein them in when necessary.  I've found myself more-or-less "drafted" to support various disability-related causes in various contexts, including nearly ten years volunteering for a non-profit "Clubhouse model" psychosocial rehabilitation program, six years serving on the Advisory Council for my state's Rehabilitation Services System,  another six years serving on my state's Protection and Advocacy Council for Individuals with Mental Illness, a federally-mandated body responsible for providing guidance to the state's Protection and Advocacy Agency, the agency given the federal mandate for principal protection of the rights of its disabled citizens, the last three of those years as the council's chair, and another 15 months so far as a member of the Advisory Council for the National Training Center on Mental Health and Intellectual and Developmental Disability.

I'm not an activist.  Though I might be very forthright in expressing my opinions on these issues, in contrast to some of the other people with whom I serve, I don't walk, talk, eat, sleep, and breathe this stuff 24/7/365.  For the most part, I was volunteered for these roles rather than volunteering myself for them.  While I hope I'm an asset,  umbrage-taking isn't my first instinct, and some people think that's a liability.  Oh, well!  I call 'em like I see 'em.  If someone has a problem with that, it's his or her problem.

Edited April 7, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

.......................... Christianity is a melding of the individual seed with the greater forest.

........................normative Christianity was, is, and always will have a diversity to it.

............................. the LDS Church is not the only communal group within Christianity.............................. a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is first and foremost, and perhaps only, a member of that community. ........................................ There is no complete Christianity outside of membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

.............................. we define our own version of normative Christianity which then leads to orthodoxy or orthopraxy ...................................................

You are a very fine writer, Phil, and I do not deny the infinite capacity of humans to find great breadth of personal and  communal expression within any given religious or ideological tradition.  I loved the way in which Huston Smith made a lifelong effort to be inclusive, and to do respectful justice to the major religions of humankind.  For many anthropologists (and even biblical scholar Bart Ehrman -- an erstwhile evangelical), of course, religion is all an invention.  A completely human invention, which does not encumber communities of chimpanzees or other simians.   https://getpocket.com/explore/item/big-gods-c  .   ame-after-the-rise-of-civilisations-not-before-finds-study-using-huge-historical-database?utm_source=pocket-newtab   .   

So your descriptive look at Christianity is certainly worthwhile and broadminded.  Not sure, however, that you have gotten at the issues I have raised about the ultimate nature of reality and authenticity.  Most people don't care much for that discussion, and I don't blame them.  It is pretty exotic and seems to have little value in a world well beyond our understanding.  In that respect, we are very much like very smart chimps.  We have a lot to say, but to what end?                    

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I get what you're saying, and, largely, I agree with it.  The cloak of victimhood is stylish and comfortable.  Everyone seems to want to wear it, and when everyone seems to want to wear it, it becomes very easy to make someone "an offender for a word."   We live in a perverse, topsy-turvy, upside-down world in which someone can do even the most heinous things, yet many people will plumb the very depths of psychology, sociology, and similar disciplines in a fevered effort to explain it away, on the one hand, yet, on the other hand, if one merely says the "wrong" thing, that's a perfect excuse to hound him out of a job if he's employed, to hound him out of school if he's a student, to make sure he cannot show his face anywhere in public without being harangued mercilessly (hello, Maxine Waters!) and so on.

All of that having been said, as a person with a disability, a person with a behavioral health diagnosis, and so on, I also agree with the person-first-language idea: human beings are human beings and Children of God first.  They are not their characteristics.  And having said that, many people who insist on "person-first" language are undiagnosed schizophrenics: If you, as an outsider, attempt to validate the "person-first" idea, even by using the person's preferred terminology, then you are downplaying or minimizing the struggle inherent to their race, their disability, or to some other characteristic, and how dare you do that?!  There's no way that you, as an outsider, could understand such a struggle even if you tried, and yet, here you are, minimizing it!

It's truly a no-win, damned-if-one-does-and-damned-if-one-doesn't, "Catch-22" situation.

So you're gonna lose, no matter what, but thanks fer playin', Mark!

Well said, Kenngo.

[The Nehor]

22 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone pointed out that today was Palm Sunday. This is a major liturgical day for Catholics and those who follow a liturgical calendar. I was unable to participate in Mass because of the coronavirus, but a neighbor down the street had palms for us, thanks be to God.

What do you think about President Nelson's call to fast on Good Friday coming on Palm Sunday? Is there a connection to traditional Christian liturgical calendars? Would that be a positive or negative thing?

I am planning to fast from Thursday evening to go with the Last Supper and the Savior saying he would not partake of this again until meeting them again in the Kingdom. Then plan to break the Fast as I bless the sacrament for myself on Sunday to represent Christ arising.

Not sure if you would say that ties into the liturgical calendar or not.

[The Nehor]

On 4/5/2020 at 8:28 PM, Stargazer said:

I, for one, wasn't expecting too much out of the ordinary. We're not yet deep enough into any degree of tribulation, yet, so I was perfectly satisfied with how it went. I enjoyed many of the talks (and totally missed the Saturday evening session -- it was 1 am here), so will have to pick that up tomorrow. I can understand disappointment, though. I think that President Nelson might have talked up this conference a little too much, and raised expectations for something rather more dramatic than what happened.  From some of the reactions in this thread, however, some got more than others from it.

I was seriously uplifted by many of the talks and I am looking forward to reviewing them. It's too late at night right now to get into details, and I probably can't remember enough at the moment. If only the Hosanna Shout had been done in the Conference Center is would have been far more dramatic and emotionally affecting. My wife and I enjoyed it nonetheless and felt uplifted by it. I could hardly sing "The Spirit of God" in connection with this, my heart was so full.

This new proclamation was the highlight of the conference.  Because it was brought to the fore in this way, the message of the restoration may very well get out to more people. One hopes that the media will sensationalize it (and if possibly out of impure motives, so what) and thus bring the word to many more.  "Mormon founder claims he saw God the Father and Jesus Christ!" might be one of the headlines. And who knows what will happen?  Some who might otherwise not care might be led to be curious.

I got more than I expected. It was not a normal conference for me.

[Bernard Gui]

19 hours ago, Navidad said:

Does that mean that members of the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints will stop using the term "anti-Mormon" when angry at, or dismissive of someone? That is certainly a derogatory label, one that has been around for awhile, and one that perpetuates the use of the term "Mormon." Can I get an amen for the suggestion that my LDS friends eliminate that from their vocabulary? I have certainly felt its sting here on this forum.

I have met people I consider to be anti-Mormon because of their words and actions. I don’t know what else to call the mob that drove my great-grandfather, his brothers, and their families and neighbors from and burned their homes in Tennessee, killed two missionaries, and severely wounded the boys’ mother.  Any suggestions?

Edited April 7, 2020 by Bernard Gui