Branch President vs Stake President

[Guest ArchangelKid]

Just in case this is a dumb question, I was baptized 5 months ago...so just putting that out there.

When I was investigating, I was paired up with a man named Richard during Priesthood. Richard is a good man, has a wife, and a daughter. He even allowed me to call him Richie. Just last Sunday, I heard someone call him President. I thought I heard wrong but then I heard someone else call him President too.

Now from what I know, we have a Branch President, and that is usually the only president I know of when people refer to President. So I asked a missionary, and he said "Richie" was the Stake President, and that I should refer to him as President as well because it could be seen as disrespect to refer to him by a nickname.

I'm just curious as to why Richie doesn't sit in the front with our branch president. What exactly are the differences between the branch president and the stake president? Which one has more authority? (dumb question I know) I know a Branch president can release someone from their calling, so could a branch president release a stake president from their calling or vice versa?

Sorry for the numerous questions...I would ask someone from Church but I'm embarrassed to.

[Anddenex]

As a member of 5 months these are not dumb questions. These are important questions. If "Richie" was the stake president you do not need to refer to him as President.

Stake Presidents have more authority than Branch Presidents. You mention he "was" a Stake President which would mean he has been released and no longer is required to sit on the stand. A branch president is not able to release a stake president, but a stake president is able to release a branch president.

[Smudge]

When a stake president is attending their branch or ward they sit in the congregation and are like any member ofthe congregation, it is when they are on official business that they sit on the stand with local leadership. At least that has always been the case where I live.

[Gwen]

A lot of ppl can be called President. Not to confuse you but you have.....

Stake pres.

Branch pres.

Mission pres.

El quorum pres.

Temple pres.

Prophet/president of the church

There are probably more I'm not thinking of. lol

See here for more information.

How the Church Is Organized

Back to your question. lol

Once a person has been in one of those callings ppl tend to keep calling them "president" out of habit more than anything. If he told you to call him Richie then that is what you should call him. If talking about him in a discussion or in a formal setting (like introduction in a meeting) and he is no longer in one of those callings then "Bro. Richie" or "Bro. last name" are both appropriate and show respect. If he is currently in one of those callings then calling him "president" is a good idea.

It is NOT disrespectful to call someone by the name THEY request to be called.

In fact I find it rude not to. The only time I have changed what someone asked me to call them was with my kids. If an adult says for my kids to call them by their first name I will ask if it's ok to have them call them "Mr/Ms first name". It's a matter of manners I'm trying to teach my kids and I've never had anyone say no to that request. But I will call them by their first name as they requested.

If someone has not given it to you yet request a copy of "True to the Faith - a gospel reference". It is a small book that defines commonly used church phrases and referenced doctrines. It was intended to help new members get a handle on the unique language that we sometimes use without realizing it's a foreign term to others.

True to the Faith: A Gospel Reference - store.lds.org on the right side it has "other options" and you can download or read online. There may be another way to get to it but that was the first I found. lol

Edited July 18, 2013 by Gwen

[Traveler]

Just in case this is a dumb question, I was baptized 5 months ago...so just putting that out there.

When I was investigating, I was paired up with a man named Richard during Priesthood. Richard is a good man, has a wife, and a daughter. He even allowed me to call him Richie. Just last Sunday, I heard someone call him President. I thought I heard wrong but then I heard someone else call him President too.

Now from what I know, we have a Branch President, and that is usually the only president I know of when people refer to President. So I asked a missionary, and he said "Richie" was the Stake President, and that I should refer to him as President as well because it could be seen as disrespect to refer to him by a nickname.

I'm just curious as to why Richie doesn't sit in the front with our branch president. What exactly are the differences between the branch president and the stake president? Which one has more authority? (dumb question I know) I know a Branch president can release someone from their calling, so could a branch president release a stake president from their calling or vice versa?

Sorry for the numerous questions...I would ask someone from Church but I'm embarrassed to.

Greetings ArchangelKid and welcome to the society of Saints and want-to-be-saints. Sometimes non-members and new members get a little confused with terms used in LDS doctrine and how the structure and organization of the "Church" assists in establishing and maintaining covenants with G-d. I will begin with "authority".

The authority of G-d is in the Melchizedek priesthood. Everyone ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood holds the same authority. However, there are specific callings directly related to the Melchizedek priesthood that also have associated "Keys" so that the church of G-d has order. These priesthood keys are not authority but rather provide structure and order so that all the saints know who presides.

Within the structure and order of G-d's organized church those that preside and hold keys also have titles associated to their call to preside. Branch presidents preside over branches and with that call hold the presiding keys for that specific branch. Likewise bishops hold the keys to preside over a specific ward and Stake Presidents hold the keys to preside over specific stakes comprised of wards and branches. There is more but this is the simple answer for now.

As far as addressing those that preside - one should use their title out of respect whenever they are utilizing their presiding keys or in other words - presiding. This is not necessary but rather a protocol of recolonization of the presiding keys and not an address of the person. It is quite unlikely that the wife and daughter address your stake president as "President" except on very rare occasions. That does not make them or him less saints. If Richie prefers that because you know him on a personal level that in personal settings you call him Richie; you ought to respect that and so honor his as a personal friend.

To be technical, whenever Richie sits on the stand during meetings you should refer to him as President but if he sits in the congregation there is nothing wrong with calling him Richie unless you are addressing him as the Stake President and not really as your friend. The bottom line is that all this does not really matter and G-d will not hold anyone to account for whatever respect they show in their associations weather they be personal friendships or ecclesiastical relationships - our covenants are to love one another. Loving, forgiving and helping one another is the real mission of G-d's church and the core purpose of his priesthood - the rest is just fluff so there is not so much chaos and confusion.

The Traveler

Edited July 18, 2013 by Traveler

[Anddenex]

When a stake president is attending their branch or ward they sit in the congregation and are like any member ofthe congregation, it is when they are on official business that they sit on the stand with local leadership. At least that has always been the case where I live.

This isn't correct. If a member of a stake presidency, even counselors, attend any sacrament meeting within their stake, they preside at every sacrament meeting and are required to sit on the stand.

[Just_A_Guy]

On the difference between a stake and a branch:

Local congregations are usually called "wards", but if there aren't enough church members in the area for a full-blown ward the congregation may be designated as a "branch" instead. Wards are led by a bishop; branches are led by a branch president.

A stake is a larger local unit that is made up of several wards and/or branches. It is led by a stake president.

(Gwen's link is great, but at first glance I didn't see it explaining how branches fit into the organizational structure.)

There is a Mormon custom of continuing to refer to bishops and stake presidents by their titles even after they have been released from their callings; but if Richie has asked you to call him by his first name then I'd stick with that.

[Guest Doctrine]

Also a branch is under the mission president

[applepansy]

There is a Mormon custom of continuing to refer to bishops and stake presidents by their titles even after they have been released from their callings; but if Richie has asked you to call him by his first name then I'd stick with that.

I agree. Ritchie has made a friend, you, and if he has asked you to call him by a nickname do it. Most Stake President's I know and have known like to have friends who don't call them by their title all the time. They are people too.

[Traveler]

This isn't correct. If a member of a stake presidency, even counselors, attend any sacrament meeting within their stake, they preside at every sacrament meeting and are required to sit on the stand.

Are you sure? I believe there is an exception when they attend their home ward or branch of record. Kind of like Jesus being baptized by John.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Also a branch is under the mission president

I believe this is when the branch is not part of a stake.

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

I believe this is when the branch is not part of a stake.

The Traveler

It appears from the Church Handbook that there are branches which are created by the stake president and branches which are created by a mission president.

[Just_A_Guy]

Are you sure? I believe there is an exception when they attend their home ward or branch of record. Kind of like Jesus being baptized by John.

The Traveler

FWIW, our stake president lives in our ward boundaries, and when he's attending our ward he sits up front.

Not sure if this is pursuant to Church policy, or just our SP's personal preference; but he has young kids and I imagine he'd sit with his family if he felt he had the option to do so . . .

[MarginOfError]

Also a branch is under the mission president

I believe this is when the branch is not part of a stake.

The Traveler

It appears from the Church Handbook that there are branches which are created by the stake president and branches which are created by a mission president.

I don't think you'll find it in Handbook 1 (I think it's in the Mission President's Handbook) but the Mission President only presides over branches that do not exist in a stake. If a branch does not exist in a stake, it is part of a district. There are no wards in districts, nor do districts have high priests groups (little bits of trivia).

When I was in Kyiv (Ukraine) we had three districts in the mission. Two of those districts had district presidents, as they were preparing to becomes stakes. The district presidents reported to the mission president who reported to the area presidency. The third district had no district president and was directly presided over by the mission president.

Shortly after I left, the Kyiv Ukraine stake was organized. The moment the stake was organized, the stake president no longer reported to the mission president. Instead, he reported directly to the area president.

If you want to get really technical, the mission president receives his authority to preside as an extension of the Quorums of the Seventy. Stake presidents receive their authority to preside from the Quorum of the Twelve. Bishops receive their authority to preside from the First Presidency, but whereas the office of bishop is an office of the Aaronic Priesthood, they are assigned to be overseen by the stake presidents, who operate through an office of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Confused yet?

[Anddenex]

Are you sure? I believe there is an exception when they attend their home ward or branch of record. Kind of like Jesus being baptized by John.

The Traveler

Yep, positive. No exception, if so, they are not following their keys of presiding. This is subject to the keys they hold as they are to preside over the stake. As they attend their home ward they still hold keys and are to sit on the stand just as Apostle and Prophets when they attend their home ward. They sit on the stand.

The first stake I attended, upon marriage, a stake president was called out by a visiting general authority to sit on the stand and not to sit with his family in honoring his calling and keys to preside.

Also note, when a stake president attends his home ward, or any ward in his stake, the bishop no longer presides in that ward, the stake president or a member of the stake presidency presides; as such, they are to sit on the stand the same as the bishop and his counselors.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Anddenex

[Anddenex]

I don't think you'll find it in Handbook 1 (I think it's in the Mission President's Handbook) but the Mission President only presides over branches that do not exist in a stake. If a branch does not exist in a stake, it is part of a district. There are no wards in districts, nor do districts have high priests groups (little bits of trivia).

Church Handbook 1 specifies the reasons for a branch to be created in a stake and for a mission branch.

[MarginOfError]

Church Handbook 1 specifies the reasons for a branch to be created in a stake and for a mission branch.

I stand corrected.

[Smudge]

This isn't correct. If a member of a stake presidency, even counselors, attend any sacrament meeting within their stake, they preside at every sacrament meeting and are required to sit on the stand.

Just going my experience :)

[Guest ArchangelKid]

Yep, positive. No exception, if so, they are not following their keys of presiding. This is subject to the keys they hold as they are to preside over the stake. As they attend their home ward they still hold keys and are to sit on the stand just as Apostle and Prophets when they attend their home ward. They sit on the stand.

The first stake I attended, upon marriage, a stake president was called out by a visiting general authority to sit on the stand and not to sit with his family in honoring his calling and keys to preside.

Also note, when a stake president attends his home ward, or any ward in his stake, the bishop no longer presides in that ward, the stake president or a member of the stake presidency presides; as such, they are to sit on the stand the same as the bishop and his counselors.

I apologize, it was really late when I made that post...I meant to say that he IS the Stake President.

Also, the Stake President lives in our branch boundaries but he never sits at the front, and I don't think he ever presided over our branch. After reading everything, I'm feeling obligated to call him President now...I think he found it better to introduce himself as "Richie" to an investigator then President to not get me confused.

[Anddenex]

I apologize, it was really late when I made that post...I meant to say that he IS the Stake President.

Also, the Stake President lives in our branch boundaries but he never sits at the front, and I don't think he ever presided over our branch. After reading everything, I'm feeling obligated to call him President now...I think he found it better to introduce himself as "Richie" to an investigator then President to not get me confused.

:) No apology needed. If he is the Stake President then refer to him as President (last name).

However, if you are not in a Church setting, calling a person by their first name, or the name they introduce themselves as, isn't a problem either.

[Gwen]

I think it's been cleared up but our branch is under the stake leadership not the mission pres.

As for where they sit, what I've always seen, is sacrament meeting they sit on the stand and preside but all other meetings they sit with the group and whoever is teaching that meeting is in the front. However, when our stake leaders come they almost always take over sunday school and priesthood (and sometimes relief society) and do their own lessons. We just skip the scheduled lesson that week. So it is possible that he sat next to someone in priesthood but still presided in sacrament.

One of the coolest things I've seen was when our newly called stake pres left the front (we don't have a stand) to share his hymnal with a sister he noticed didn't have one. After the song was over he left his book with her and returned to the front.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Gwen

[Drpepper]

There is a Mormon custom of continuing to refer to bishops and stake presidents by their titles even after they have been released from their callings; but if Richie has asked you to call him by his first name then I'd stick with that.

Just a quick note, this is true however Stake president is a title where as Bishop is an office within the Aaronic Priesthood. I'm not sure why we often refer to a Bishop by his office after he is released. We don't refer to an Elder, as Elder after he has finished his mission.

[Just_A_Guy]

Just a quick note, this is true however Stake president is a title where as Bishop is an office within the Aaronic Priesthood. I'm not sure why we often refer to a Bishop by his office after he is released. We don't refer to an Elder, as Elder after he has finished his mission.

I've had temple workers refer to me as "elder", fwiw. But generally - I agree with you.

[MarginOfError]

Just a quick note, this is true however Stake president is a title where as Bishop is an office within the Aaronic Priesthood. I'm not sure why we often refer to a Bishop by his office after he is released. We don't refer to an Elder, as Elder after he has finished his mission.

It's mostly emotional. I still refer to all of my past bishops as Bishop [insert name]. It's just a force of habit. Though I have gotten better at using their names in recent years.