Duncan Posted January 14, 2018 Author Posted January 14, 2018 1 hour ago, CMZ said: Possibly just custom. But I have seen it held up through four dozen years of living, living and attending church in a number of states, going on a mission to a foreign (albeit English-speaking) country, attending Church schools, etc. True that it's not precisely the same as with the bishop thing, since 'bishop' is a priesthood office and 'president' is not, but it still respectfully remembers that they served in such a calling. In the main stake I have been in most of my life (off and on for around 40 years) everyone refers to everyone that has ever been president of the stake as "President So-and-so." But me saying all this is not the same as saying, "If a lot of members do it that means it's a true and eternal doctrinal principle of the Gospel," because in this case we really are just talking about tradition. how did you go to a foreign mission but speaking English? did you serve in New York State or something?
Scott Lloyd Posted January 14, 2018 Posted January 14, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, CMZ said: Possibly just custom. But I have seen it held up through four dozen years of living, living and attending church in a number of states, going on a mission to a foreign (albeit English-speaking) country, attending Church schools, etc. True that it's not precisely the same as with the bishop thing, since 'bishop' is a priesthood office and 'president' is not, but it still respectfully remembers that they served in such a calling. In the main stake I have been in most of my life (off and on for around 40 years) everyone refers to everyone that has ever been president of the stake as "President So-and-so." But me saying all this is not the same as saying, "If a lot of members do it that means it's a true and eternal doctrinal principle of the Gospel," because in this case we really are just talking about tradition. I agree it is a matter of tradition, and continuing to call a man “President” after he has been released from a stake presidency only by virtue of his having been in a stake presidency is not a practice I have observed to be as pervasive as you have, obviously. On the other hand, calling an ex-bishop “Bishop” is a practice I have seen from early childhood and throughout my 60-plus years in the Church. I suspect that the one practice is rooted in doctrine while the other is not. Edited January 14, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
cdowis Posted January 14, 2018 Posted January 14, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I accept that a bishop retains the title even after his release. But CFR that a former stake president retains the title of president. I have personally heard it in multiple stakes, including Utah and GA. It is probably a convention, not a canonized doctrine. Let me ask you a question. You see your former SP in your class == when you greet him, do you call him Bro Smith or President Smith? I intend to use YOU as as part of the CFR. He will never again be addressed as "Brother" but as "President". BTW in southern Utah, I was visiting a ward where everyone was addressed as Mr. or Mrs. Edited January 14, 2018 by cdowis 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 14, 2018 Posted January 14, 2018 4 minutes ago, cdowis said: I have personally heard it in multiple stakes, including Utah and GA. It is probably a convention, not a canonized doctrine. Let me ask you a question. You see your former SP in your class == when you greet him, do you call him Bro Smith or President Smith? I intend to use YOU as as part of the CFR. He will never again be addressed as "Brother" but as "President". BTW in southern Utah, I was visiting a ward where everyone was addressed as Mr. or Mrs. I would address him as “Brother” and would feel very comfortable in doing so. I wouldn’t call him “President”. So your CFR response fails if you are trying to press me into service. 1
ALarson Posted January 14, 2018 Posted January 14, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, cdowis said: I have personally heard it in multiple stakes, including Utah and GA. It is probably a convention, not a canonized doctrine. Let me ask you a question. You see your former SP in your class == when you greet him, do you call him Bro Smith or President Smith? I intend to use YOU as as part of the CFR. He will never again be addressed as "Brother" but as "President". We have two ex Stake Presidents who live in our ward. They are always referred to as "president"....from what I've heard. I wouldn't even think of calling them "brother Smith" rather than "President Smith" just out of respect. Maybe if someone didn't know that they'd served as a SP, then they'd refer to them as "brother". I know it's most likely just tradition....or a matter of respect. It just feels like the right thing to do, IMO. Edited January 14, 2018 by ALarson 1
cdowis Posted January 14, 2018 Posted January 14, 2018 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I would address him as “Brother” and would feel very comfortable in doing so. I wouldn’t call him “President”. So your CFR response fails if you are trying to press me into service. Why don't you .call him Mister? Or use his first name. How very sad. But you WIN, so go to the front counter and claim your prize. You earned it, Edited January 14, 2018 by cdowis 1
Duncan Posted January 14, 2018 Author Posted January 14, 2018 We have our former Stake President who is now in the Mission Presidency simultaneously serving on a couple mission here, so is he Elder/President,? I don't know. So, I call him neither, I say "hey you"
CMZ Posted January 14, 2018 Posted January 14, 2018 2 hours ago, Duncan said: how did you go to a foreign mission but speaking English? did you serve in New York State or something? Ireland. Numerous other countries could qualify. I also remember being on a two-week mission in California and as me and the other three missionaries were riding our bikes through a neighborhood one of the full-time missionaries, who happened to be from Utah, exclaimed, "Look, there's President Woodhouse working in his garden. He used to be the stake president here about 15 years ago." I do agree that it's a custom or tradition rather than a strict doctrinal stipulation, but it hasn't been until this weekend that I've ever heard anyone in the Church question it. 1
kiwi57 Posted January 14, 2018 Posted January 14, 2018 3 hours ago, Duncan said: how did you go to a foreign mission but speaking English? did you serve in New York State or something? One could persuasively argue that, from the point of view of a USAmerican, all English-speaking countries are foreign countries. After all, in the words of Henry Higgins, "The Americans haven't spoken it for years." 2
Duncan Posted January 14, 2018 Author Posted January 14, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, CMZ said: Ireland. Numerous other countries could qualify. I also remember being on a two-week mission in California and as me and the other three missionaries were riding our bikes through a neighborhood one of the full-time missionaries, who happened to be from Utah, exclaimed, "Look, there's President Woodhouse working in his garden. He used to be the stake president here about 15 years ago." I do agree that it's a custom or tradition rather than a strict doctrinal stipulation, but it hasn't been until this weekend that I've ever heard anyone in the Church question it. I know 3 people who served in Ireland, 2 in the late 1990's don't like either of them... but my MTC teacher served there, she was nice! She served maybe 1993 to 1995 Edited January 14, 2018 by Duncan
CMZ Posted January 14, 2018 Posted January 14, 2018 I'm sorry that you don't like some people that served there. It was quite the place to go.
Duncan Posted January 14, 2018 Author Posted January 14, 2018 17 minutes ago, CMZ said: I'm sorry that you don't like some people that served there. It was quite the place to go. it's okay!!! I'm quite sure you're not in that group of people I dislike!!! 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 14, 2018 Posted January 14, 2018 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I agree it is a matter of tradition, and continuing to call a man “President” after he has been released from a stake presidency only by virtue of his having been in a stake presidency is not a practice I have observed to be as pervasive as you have, obviously. On the other hand, calling an ex-bishop “Bishop” is a practice I have seen from early childhood and throughout my 60-plus years in the Church. We don't do either in these parts. I think it's confusing.
sunstoned Posted January 15, 2018 Posted January 15, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, cdowis said: Why don't you .call him Mister? Or use his first name. How very sad. But you WIN, so go to the front counter and claim your prize. You earned it, I call our former stake president and our former bishop (both live in my neighborhood) by their first names, and they call me by my first name. It all seems to be working just fine. Edited January 15, 2018 by sunstoned
Scott Lloyd Posted January 15, 2018 Posted January 15, 2018 7 hours ago, cdowis said: Why don't you .call him Mister? Or use his first name. How very sad. But you WIN, so go to the front counter and claim your prize. You earned it, Why do you think I would call him “Mr.” when I know him well? Your question makes no sense, even as sarcasm, which, I suspect is how you intended it. And I might use his first name. What gave you the idea I wouldn’t. And why the “how very sad” remark? Why is it sad that I would not conform to a questionable social practice you yourself are (apparently) unable to show is matter of official protocol or convention?
Scott Lloyd Posted January 15, 2018 Posted January 15, 2018 46 minutes ago, sunstoned said: I call our former stake president and our former bishop (both live in my neighborhood) by their first names, and they call me by my first name. It all seems to be working just fine. Seems OK to me too.
Garden Girl Posted January 15, 2018 Posted January 15, 2018 Because I don't recall there being this much "announcing" ... my first thought was that perhaps Pres Nelson was going to step aside and not become Prophet, but bypass the normal succession and name a younger man...so that we don't have to go through this again in a very few years... I'll have to read the news article links... GG 1
Calm Posted January 15, 2018 Posted January 15, 2018 49 minutes ago, Garden Girl said: Because I don't recall there being this much "announcing" ... my first thought was that perhaps Pres Nelson was going to step aside and not become Prophet, but bypass the normal succession and name a younger man...so that we don't have to go through this again in a very few years... I'll have to read the news article links... GG I think they are just trying to be in front of the media and take advantage of the opportunity to help the membership feel more connected with Salt Lake, just like they are doing the Face to Face stuff. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 15, 2018 Posted January 15, 2018 1 hour ago, Garden Girl said: Because I don't recall there being this much "announcing" ... my first thought was that perhaps Pres Nelson was going to step aside and not become Prophet, but bypass the normal succession and name a younger man...so that we don't have to go through this again in a very few years... I'll have to read the news article links... GG 28 minutes ago, Calm said: I think they are just trying to be in front of the media and take advantage of the opportunity to help the membership feel more connected with Salt Lake, just like they are doing the Face to Face stuff. It’s not very often we witness a succession in the Church presidency, so it can be difficult to remember in detail what was done in the past. But I can say with certainty there were announcements and news conferences on past occasions such as this. Remember President Hinckley saying in response to a question posed at the news conference that the theme of his presidency would be “Carry On”? It’s very clear in my memory. 1
kiwi57 Posted January 15, 2018 Posted January 15, 2018 32 minutes ago, Calm said: I think they are just trying to be in front of the media and take advantage of the opportunity to help the membership feel more connected with Salt Lake, just like they are doing the Face to Face stuff. Quite apart from the content of the announcement, I see an implicit message here too. I see the leaders of the Church telling the members: We'll tell you first, before we tell the world. And perhaps there's a little subtext of: We can take care of our internal communications without your help thank you media outlets, so your interests come second. If I'm right (and I'm quite prepared not to be) then I hope that if there are any of the chattering classes still imagining that the Church needs them, then they will get over it. Soon. 2
Calm Posted January 15, 2018 Posted January 15, 2018 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: It’s not very often we witness a succession in the Church presidency, so it can be difficult to remember in detail what was done in the past. But I can say with certainty there were announcements and news conferences on past occasions such as this. Remember President Hinckley saying in response to a question posed at the news conference that the theme of his presidency would be “Carry On”? It’s very clear in my memory. I am thinking of the hour "special invitation" event. Were those in the past? It makes sense to me to expand the program while they have people's attention. The name makes me think of Face to Face, intimacy/engagement through technology....
sjdawg Posted January 15, 2018 Posted January 15, 2018 14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I agree it is a matter of tradition, and continuing to call a man “President” after he has been released from a stake presidency only by virtue of his having been in a stake presidency is not a practice I have observed to be as pervasive as you have, obviously. On the other hand, calling an ex-bishop “Bishop” is a practice I have seen from early childhood and throughout my 60-plus years in the Church. I suspect that the one practice is rooted in doctrine while the other is not. My Dad was a Stake President when I was a kid. Most people I knew through church called him President right up until his death. I assume it isn't doctrinal but is cultural 3
mnn727 Posted January 15, 2018 Posted January 15, 2018 On 1/13/2018 at 2:58 PM, CMZ said: Note how this page has been amended to reflect that President/Elder Uchtdorf is once again a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: https://www.lds.org/church/events/january-2018-worldwide-devotional-for-young-adults?cid=HP_WE_3-1-2018_dSI_fCNWS_xLIDyL1-C_&lang=eng That automatically happened when President Monson died - the First Presidency was automatically dissolved.
The Nehor Posted January 15, 2018 Posted January 15, 2018 On 1/14/2018 at 12:02 PM, Duncan said: how did you go to a foreign mission but speaking English? did you serve in New York State or something? When I put in my papers I sought to counsel God and asked for a foreign English speaking mission. Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, a bunch of islands. I gave God lots of options. He sent me to Manchester. 1
Duncan Posted January 15, 2018 Author Posted January 15, 2018 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: When I put in my papers I sought to counsel God and asked for a foreign English speaking mission. Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, a bunch of islands. I gave God lots of options. He sent me to Manchester. I did the same thing, except I got sent to LA! I had to learn, "powdered sugar", ""ruff" instead of "roof" and "pore" instead of "poor"! can you imagine????!!!! 1
Recommended Posts