Avatar4321 Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 Who interviews Him for His temple recommend?
mfbukowski Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: Who interviews Him for His temple recommend? His Bishop for the ward, he signs his own for the stake. Converse for the bishop Each signs their own, according to the organization I was a bishop both to a stake pres and a temple pres. Pretty intimidating Edited October 23, 2019 by mfbukowski 3
Scott Lloyd Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: His Bishop for the ward, he signs his own for the stake. Converse for the bishop Each signs their own, according to the organization I was a bishop both to a stake pres and a temple pres. Pretty intimidating Each signs <his> own. <Each> is singular, and a bishop or stake president will always be male. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: His Bishop for the ward, he signs his own for the stake. Converse for the bishop Each signs their own, according to the organization I was a bishop both to a stake pres and a temple pres. Pretty intimidating Not so intimidating when you consider that some stake presidents have been guilty of serious sin in the past. Not sure about temple presidents. 1
MustardSeed Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Each signs <his> own. <Each> is singular, and a bishop or stake president will always be male. I've noticed that you have been correcting a lot of grammar lately. 1
LoudmouthMormon Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 8 minutes ago, MustardSeed said: 35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Each signs <his> own. <Each> is singular, and a bishop or stake president will always be male. I've noticed that you have been correcting a lot of grammar lately. [insert Book of Abraham joke here] 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, MustardSeed said: I've noticed that you have been correcting a lot of grammar lately. Yet I only call out a fraction of what I notice. For decades, a substantial part of what I was paid to do was detecting and correcting textual errors. Maybe it’s engraven upon my consciousness. Edited October 24, 2019 by Scott Lloyd 1
Tacenda Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Yet I only call out a fraction of what I notice. For decades, a substantial part of what I was paid to do was detecting and correcting textual errors. Maybe it’s engraved upon my consciousness. I caught a spelling error on your part the other day, but let it go or thought you'd edit soon, haha!
Scott Lloyd Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I caught a spelling error on your part the other day, but let it go or thought you'd edit soon, haha! If you had pointed it out, I would have cheerfully accepted the observation and made the correction. Even now, if I knew what you are referring to, I would go in and correct it. Often these days, I find that a lot of my errors are due to an over-zealous auto-correct function. (I don’t mention that as an excuse; it’s my responsibility to be sure I notice it and fix it.) For example, in my post you quoted above, I had written “engraven.” Auto-correct made it “engraved.” I hadn’t noticed until now. Edited October 24, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
JAHS Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 4 hours ago, mfbukowski said: 4 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: Who interviews Him for His temple recommend? His Bishop for the ward, he signs his own for the stake. Converse for the bishop Each signs their own, according to the organization I was a bishop both to a stake pres and a temple pres. Pretty intimidating I wonder does the President of the church get interviewed by his Bishop?
Popular Post The Nehor Posted October 24, 2019 Popular Post Posted October 24, 2019 I knew one guy who signed all three lines. He was called as a Stake President in a stake conference but would not be replaced as bishop until the following week. 5
Boanerges Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 Several years ago I was in the bishopric and the stake president was in my ward. He asked that I conduct his interview because he didn't need to have the bishop do it because it was a renewal. He also said he could sign his own but preferred to have an interview with one of his counselors. He said he liked to be asked and answer the questions because he could then reflect on them and feel like he wasn't any different from any other person. That was him, though, I think he was an unusual guy. FWIW, I also did the bishop's interview for him because he felt similarly (perhaps following the example of the stake president). 2
Rain Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, JAHS said: I wonder does the President of the church get interviewed by his Bishop? My husband knows one of the bishops of one of the prophets. He told us he did not do a temple interview with him, but the prophet did come in for tithing settlement. Whether that happens with other bishops or prophets I don't know. Edited October 24, 2019 by Rain
SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 (edited) 13 hours ago, MustardSeed said: I've noticed that you have been correcting a lot of grammar lately. The idea of “improper” grammar on an informal message board is hilarious to me. It begs* the question, doesn’t Scott have anything better to do? It’s not like a single person misunderstood the meaning here. And if language clearly conveys meaning, what exactly is the problem? Is there a style guide for mormondialogue.org that I am unaware of? *used “improperly” on purpose... Edited October 24, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding 1
CA Steve Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: The idea of “improper” grammar on an informal message board is hilarious to me. It begs* the question, doesn’t Scott have anything better to do? It’s not like a single person misunderstood the meaning here. And if language clearly conveys meaning, what exactly is the problem? Is there a style guide for mormondialogue.org that I am unaware of? *used “improperly” on purpose... I am fine with corrections to grammar on a board like this as long as it is being done with only the intent to point out the mistake. Too often I see it applied in order to show up the person who made the mistake. There I think it is out of line. If it is done consistently regardless of point of view, I am actually in favor of it because it help me to improve my own writing, which needs a lot of help. By the way the "raise the question" vs "begs the question" misuse is one Scott has pointed out over the years and is one I was consistently using incorrectly. So my thanks to him for that, though now I notice every time I see it misapplied and it drives me a bit crazy too. I suppose that raises the question of whether or not I am a bit like Scott. 😲
Scott Lloyd Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 16 minutes ago, CA Steve said: I am fine with corrections to grammar on a board like this as long as it is being done with only the intent to point out the mistake. Too often I see it applied in order to show up the person who made the mistake. There I think it is out of line. If it is done consistently regardless of point of view, I am actually in favor of it because it help me to improve my own writing, which needs a lot of help. By the way the "raise the question" vs "begs the question" misuse is one Scott has pointed out over the years and is one I was consistently using incorrectly. So my thanks to him for that, though now I notice every time I see it misapplied and it drives me a bit crazy too. I suppose that raises the question of whether or not I am a bit like Scott. 😲 Hmm. I think the last person I corrected was mfbukowski, and I agree with his views most of the time. As I said, by far, most of the infractions I notice I let go without comment. Typically I highlight the ones that are my pet peeves, things like “begs the question” used improperly and use of the singular they/their/them/themselves when the gender is determinate and obvious.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: The idea of “improper” grammar on an informal message board is hilarious to me. It begs* the question, doesn’t Scott have anything better to do? It’s not like a single person misunderstood the meaning here. And if language clearly conveys meaning, what exactly is the problem? Is there a style guide for mormondialogue.org that I am unaware of? *used “improperly” on purpose... So you decree that this is an “informal message board” and thus, mentioning English-language conventions is or should be off limits. It seems to me you are making your own rule, one that I find a tad too restrictive.
Amulek Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 2 hours ago, Rain said: My husband knows one of the bishops of one of the prophets. He told us he did not do a temple interview with him, but the prophet did come in for tithing settlement. Whether that happens with other bishops or prophets I don't know. Yeah, the prophet can sign his own temple recommend. In fact, back in the day, the prophet used to sign all of the temple recommends - a practice that was ultimately transitioned to bishops/stake presidents. Mission presidents can sign their own recommends as well.
rockpond Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 15 hours ago, MustardSeed said: I've noticed that you have been correcting a lot of grammar lately. It can be annoying ( ) but I will admit that I actually appreciate what I learn from @Scott Lloyd's little grammar lessons.
rockpond Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, Amulek said: Mission presidents can sign their own recommends as well. Yep... my dad was a mission president. MP's sign all three lines: their name, bishop, and stake president.
ksfisher Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 5 minutes ago, Amulek said: Yeah, the prophet can sign his own temple recommend. In fact, back in the day, the prophet used to sign all of the temple recommends - a practice that was ultimately transitioned to bishops/stake presidents. Mission presidents can sign their own recommends as well. My understanding is that the First Presidency and Quorum or the Twelve are not required to have recommends. Not sure about the Seventy.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, ksfisher said: My understanding is that the First Presidency and Quorum or the Twelve are not required to have recommends. Not sure about the Seventy. I can’t imagine a scenario in which the prophet would enter through the front door and approach the recommend desk. Typically, the temple president, expecting him in advance, would usher him in through another entrance and assist him as necessary. The temple president would not need to see a recommend because, well, he’s the prophet. Edited October 24, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
MiserereNobis Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I can’t imagine a scenario in which the prophet would enter through the front door and approach the recommend desk. Typically, the temple president, expecting him in advance, would usher him in through another entrance and assist him as necessary. The temple president would not need to see a recommend because, well, he’s the prophet. You mean there wouldn't be some officious worker who would deny President Nelson entrance because he forgot his wallet? I imagine some Catholic bishop somewhere not allowing the Pope to say Mass in his diocese because the Pope didn't bring his certificate of ordination (which some Bishops require of out-of-diocese priests, just to make sure): "I'm sorry, your holiness, but we are strict about the rules here..." 2
DispensatorMysteriorum Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 I am the bishop in our ward. I do not sign my own recommend. I have my counselor interview me just as he would anyone else in the ward who is renewing theirs. I am actually a little surprised to hear that some bishops or stake presidents sign their own recommend.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 24, 2019 Posted October 24, 2019 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: So you decree that this is an “informal message board” and thus, mentioning English-language conventions is or should be off limits. It seems to me you are making your own rule, one that I find a tad too restrictive. Not a rule. Just that I find it funny. Singular they and their is very accepted especially in the vernacular. Calling it a mistake is old fashioned. It's not like anyone is running around speaking Old English, Middle English or even EModE anymore and somehow we manage to get along just find. Somehow we manage without "whom" and "hither" and "thither." Such a shame we lost thee and thou while we are at it! Language changes and evolves.
Recommended Posts