Scott Lloyd Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 5 minutes ago, JAHS said: Gee. Wish I posted that. 😉 I haven’t read the entire thread. Had you already posted the link? Sorry.
Scott Lloyd Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 6 minutes ago, JAHS said: Gee. Wish I posted that. 😉 I haven’t read the entire thread. Had you already posted the link? Sorry.
Bernard Gui Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 (edited) Not many people in my current ward know I served as a bishop almost 40 years ago, so only a few old timers in my old ward call me Bishop Gui, but a few still do. I've always thought that old bishops are kinda worthless...but maybe that's the way it's supposed to be. I never get asked to share advice or wisdom from those years. Edited December 23, 2018 by Bernard Gui 1
Rain Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: If you can document it, please do, because I would earnestly like to know if that is the case. As I said, I’ve seen it done in the Church throughout my life, and this is honestly the first hint I’ve ever seen that it was frowned upon. Edited to add: I found this link on LDS.org. It is old, but it does seem to indicate there is nothing wrong with the practice: https://www.lds.org/new-era/1980/06/q-and-a-questions-and-answers/do-you-refer-to-a-former-bishop-as-brother-or-as-bishop?lang=eng I didn't get the impression that it was "wrong"to do so from whatever it was, just a factual like tone saying not to do it. It was more recent than 1980, but not in the last 5 years. 1
JAHS Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I haven’t read the entire thread. Had you already posted the link? Sorry. I posted the text of the article so it was good that you posted the link for it.
Scott Lloyd Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 6 minutes ago, JAHS said: Gee. Wish I posted that. 😉 I haven’t read the entire thread. Had you already posted the link? Sorry.
JAHS Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 7 hours ago, Rain said: I've talked about it before and searched for it then, but I can remember, either in a letter or in CHI, where it stated not to call him "bishop" anymore. I wish I could find that and share it. I have found people mentioning they have seen it as well. Personally I like the idea of going to whatever the person likes. I hate being called "Sister Patty". I prefer being called "Patty", but if you must call me "Sister" then use my last name as well. Here's a more recent reference from April 1993: "We show proper respect to our Church leaders by referring to them in Church-related functions by their ecclesiastical titles. We may refer to a bishop as “Bishop Garza” or a stake president as “President Leiben,” for example. The titles Bishop and President (designating members of temple, mission, stake, and district presidencies and branch presidencies) are appropriate even after the leader has been released." What is the appropriate way to address Church members at church and in professional settings?
Rain Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 24 minutes ago, JAHS said: Here's a more recent reference from April 1993: "We show proper respect to our Church leaders by referring to them in Church-related functions by their ecclesiastical titles. We may refer to a bishop as “Bishop Garza” or a stake president as “President Leiben,” for example. The titles Bishop and President (designating members of temple, mission, stake, and district presidencies and branch presidencies) are appropriate even after the leader has been released." What is the appropriate way to address Church members at church and in professional settings? You are at least helping me narrow it down! It would have been after 1995, the year we moved to our first home. Now if I could only tell you which home then we could narrow it down to 7-10 years. Alas, I can't remember so it is in an approximate time frame of 1995-2013. My guess is it more like 2000-2013.
Scott Lloyd Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 1 hour ago, Rain said: I didn't get the impression that it was "wrong"to do so from whatever it was, just a factual like tone saying not to do it. It was more recent than 1980, but not in the last 5 years. If there’s nothing wrong with it, why make a point of saying don’t do it? I don’t get it. But if you can find and post the document, whatever it is, perhaps that will clear the matter up.
Scott Lloyd Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 31 minutes ago, Rain said: You are at least helping me narrow it down! It would have been after 1995, the year we moved to our first home. Now if I could only tell you which home then we could narrow it down to 7-10 years. Alas, I can't remember so it is in an approximate time frame of 1995-2013. My guess is it more like 2000-2013. But JAHS’s cite said it is appropriate to use the title even after the leader has been released — the opposite of what you said. And this was from a Church Public Affairs spokeswoman. And the earlier article was from the man who was then over Church Correlation Review. Two authoritative sources, tycker jag.
Hamba Tuhan Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Does your bishop attend EQ? No, he's with his priests quorum and sometimes with the Laurels during lesson time. That's precisely why I'd be confused if in an elders quorum lesson, the instructor called on 'Bishop Jones'. I'd immediately think, why is the bishop in here and not with his priests? Quote But the opening alone should give an indication of a bishopric member at least. A bishopric member, yes. And we're losing that advantage in exactly two weeks ... Edited December 23, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan
Thinking Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I haven’t read the entire thread. Had you already posted the link? Sorry. I posted the link and the article eight posts before JAHS (on the same page 2). You both missed it. Edited December 23, 2018 by Thinking
mbh26 Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 On 12/21/2018 at 10:31 PM, Rivers said: I had this argument with somebody the other day. In the church we often refer to a former bishop with the title "Bishop." So a Bishop Smith is still referred to as and called Bishop Smith after being released. I argued this was cultural and not something we really are supposed to do. But I'm not sure. Can somebody help me out on this one. It gets really confusing. People used to ask for Bishop "Smith" at the SMTC. I thought they meant the man who was currently bishop.
Scott Lloyd Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 1 hour ago, mbh26 said: It gets really confusing. People used to ask for Bishop "Smith" at the SMTC. I thought they meant the man who was currently bishop. What is the SMTC?
Bernard Gui Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 1 hour ago, mbh26 said: It gets really confusing. People used to ask for Bishop "Smith" at the SMTC. I thought they meant the man who was currently bishop. Money Python’s “Doctor. Doctor. Doctor. Doctor. Doctor......”
JAHS Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 3 hours ago, Thinking said: I posted the link and the article eight posts before JAHS (on the same page 2). You both missed it. Doh !!!!!!!!
Scott Lloyd Posted December 24, 2018 Posted December 24, 2018 10 hours ago, Thinking said: I posted the link and the article eight posts before JAHS (on the same page 2). You both missed it. My apologies to you as well. As I said, I didn’t read the whole thread.
Scott Lloyd Posted December 24, 2018 Posted December 24, 2018 (edited) 19 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Not many people in my current ward know I served as a bishop almost 40 years ago, so only a few old timers in my old ward call me Bishop Gui, but a few still do. I've always thought that old bishops are kinda worthless...but maybe that's the way it's supposed to be. I never get asked to share advice or wisdom from those years. I don’t agree that “old bishops,” by and large, are worthless. That much experience and perspective has to count for something. Of course some ex-bishops do go off the rails, seriously so, as recent events have shown. Edited December 24, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
JAHS Posted December 24, 2018 Posted December 24, 2018 20 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Not many people in my current ward know I served as a bishop almost 40 years ago, so only a few old timers in my old ward call me Bishop Gui, but a few still do. I've always thought that old bishops are kinda worthless...but maybe that's the way it's supposed to be. I never get asked to share advice or wisdom from those years. With the experience, faith and testimony that old Bishops have had they are very valuable to the strength of a ward, even if nobody specifically asks them for advice or wisdom. They also continue hold the confidence of many members who have confessed past sins and might continue to have a special bond and understanding with them. 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted December 24, 2018 Posted December 24, 2018 Our former bishop has spent the past two years as our seminary teacher.
Bernard Gui Posted December 24, 2018 Posted December 24, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, JAHS said: With the experience, faith and testimony that old Bishops have had they are very valuable to the strength of a ward, even if nobody specifically asks them for advice or wisdom. They also continue hold the confidence of many members who have confessed past sins and might continue to have a special bond and understanding with them. True, but it is the current bishop who wears the mantle, which I felt leave my shoulders the minute I was released. That’s why I said maybe that’s the way it is supposed to be. The one in the offfice is the one who counts. Edited December 24, 2018 by Bernard Gui
Scott Lloyd Posted December 24, 2018 Posted December 24, 2018 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: True, but it is the current bishop who wears the mantle, which I felt leave my shoulders the minute I was released. That’s why I said maybe that’s the way it is supposed to be. The one in the offfice is the one who counts. That doesn’t make former bishops worthless, though.
HappyJackWagon Posted December 24, 2018 Posted December 24, 2018 On 12/21/2018 at 10:30 PM, mfbukowski said: You often hear that being done but really it is different. I think people think that if Bishops are sometimes called that forever, so should SP's. And good for them- no problem- its a tough job! But the difference is that Bishop is priesthood office- not just a calling. You are ORDAINED to the office of Bishop and then set apart for a limited time in a particular ward and stake etc. Remember the old 70's deal? A few of us ordained 70's are still around. So pretend if you are a 70 we had a title for that!? Theoretically if I were to be called to be a GA (hilarious idea!!) I would just be set apart for the particular calling/stewardship to which I was called but would not have to be ordained a 70. Once ordained to be a 70 or a Bishop you are one forever. Frankly it bugs me a bit when people call me "bishop" because it has been 8 years or so since my release and I think that they think they have to keep calling me that. I think that they think it would kind of be an insult or something if they just called be "Brother"- which ironically is what everyone calls everyone in the temple. Regardless of the honorific tradition I would like it better if it was a custom instead to call everyone "Brother" or Sister unless they were presently called to a position requiring the title. I have often heard sisters who are presidents of organizations being called "president" and then the title is dropped when they are not, and for me personally, I would prefer that for myself. But of course if you are ordained to it you ARE a bishop forever just as being a 70 forever. We should just then by that logic call people "Seventy Jones" etc. but I don't see that happening I once had a notoriously clueless ward member who told me just a few months after my release that people will still call someone bishop based on the level of respect they have for the individual. So if you're still being called bishop 8 years later, it's a sign of respect so be happy. He then shook my hand and called me by my first name 1
mfbukowski Posted December 24, 2018 Posted December 24, 2018 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I once had a notoriously clueless ward member who told me just a few months after my release that people will still call someone bishop based on the level of respect they have for the individual. So if you're still being called bishop 8 years later, it's a sign of respect so be happy. He then shook my hand and called me by my first name Oh My Gosh, low blow! Well I don't know about that conclusion! Don't feel alone. I had one former Bishop tell me that typically every year the Bishop alienates 20% of the ward. And you are in for 5 years. Do the math. It is definitely a thankless job. The strange thing about it is that you find out that every single person in the Ward has major problems. And then they blame you for not fixing them 1
mfbukowski Posted December 24, 2018 Posted December 24, 2018 10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: That doesn’t make former bishops worthless, though. Nearly though. That's why we end up on the High Council.
Recommended Posts