Using titles vs. first names


Recommended Posts

Hi there,

 

If this topic has already been discussed elsewhere, feel free to direct me that way, and thanks in advance.

 

If it makes a difference to anyone, I am a convert to the LDS church, and I understand perfectly well that there are many titles used for many reasons. I don't find them confusing, but I often find them cumbersome. At home, when I am talking with my husband, we often refer to general authorities by their first names. It's just easier. I don't respect them any less or think less of their special witness.

 

I apparently made the mistake of bringing this habit to my Relief Society lesson the other day and was quietly told after the meeting had ended that we always refer to the authorities in the church by their proper title, not by their first names, out of respect. (To be honest, I felt a little chastised, but that's just my pride.) On the one hand, of course I know that the majority of people use the proper titles, but it doesn't come naturally to me. On the other, it is not my wish to actually go about offending others via my preferences.

 

I guess I'm just looking for input on how this subject goes over when it's out in the open. Obviously the sister who came to me after church did so with the intention of not singling me out, but I almost wish she would have spoken up so that I could have gotten the reaction of the room to this topic.

 

Anywho, thanks for any thoughts/comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find how to refer to people "respectfully" is very dependent on culture.  I don't think there's any *right* way to do it, just different culture/habits people have.

 

My personal habits are:

* When thinking/talking informally to myself or friends, I use just the last name: "Monson", "Packer", etc.  It's easy for shorthand and I know too many "Tom"s, "Dave"s, and "Robert"s.  

*  When talking slightly more formally, like at a church lesson, I will use a person's title, especially when first referencing them.  I find it pleasantly precise and respectful.  If a person is referenced more than >3 times in the conversation, I'll just use last names for connivance. 

*  When a very formal setting, like giving a talk in Sacrament Meeting, I'll just the title just for formality.

 

Again, I don't think there's any *right* way to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a matter of respect. Or showing or indicating respect.

However there is some variation in society.  California style is all first names, but not for important people.

And basically only with people who have okayed that first name stuff.

I worked for years with a very formal attorney of the same political party as myself and we always referred to each other as Mr.  His wife also.  We were Mr and she was Mrs ****.

When you are speaking of a person for whom we might/should/do have respect we would say Senator ***** or Elder Monson.

If you wanted to be disrespectful and critical you would use a first name and something funny.  Senator Bobbie Boy says ...

So far here (not long for me) it is instantly Brother first name or Sister first name.  Indicating fast friendship.

In court I was always Mr Last Name, and the Judge was Your Honor, but if I saw the Judge at a lunch or dinner and we were political compatriots, I was instantly Dave and after a bit then they were Doug etc.  If we were political opposites we usually remained Mr. to each other.

dc

dc

Edited by David13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always thought it interesting that we've gone from saying "Brother Joseph" and "Brother John" to "President Smith" and "Brother Doe". I chalk it up to changes in culture. That doesn't mean dismissal, though. I think that in this case, we're bound to follow cultural expectations when it comes to showing respect. 

 

I still can't call our last bishop "Brother Benson". I still have to call him Bishop, out of respect. I can't bring myself to say the GA's first names without last names and/or titles. I was raised in the Church, though. I can see how it would be an adjustment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that she took you aside and told you privately indicates she was trying to be sensitive to your feelings. Kudos to her for that, however hamfisted her attempt might have appeared to you.

 

I personally don't think it's wrong to call Church leaders by their first names, but I do think that, in Mormon culture, it's traditional to show respect. My last two bishops have been younger than me; the previous bishop was my friend, and the current bishop was a brand spanking new RM when we first moved into the ward. Yet as long as they hold the office of bishop, I avoid calling them by their first name and call them Bishop Lastname. I don't necessarily think that's what everyone is supposed to do, but it's what I do. It is my way of telling the bishop, myself, and anyone who might overhear that I hold their office and their work in sacred respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't even imagine calling any of the general authorities by their first name even in a casual conversation with a friend or a spouse.  For some reason that just seems disrespectful to me.  It would have to be President Monson or Elder Perry for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only place I've ever seen people call GA's by casual names is from anti-Mormons ("Joe Smith, Tom Monson", etc.) That may have been part of the reaction of the lady in the OP's ward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it depends on your relationship to them and the context in which you are referencing them.  If you know of them because of their call and through your priesthood covenants - it is proper to call them by their title.  If you know them on a more personal level and are referring to them because of your personal relationship - then the given names is not improper. 

 

I find it interesting that this progression existed in many ancient cultures concerning their reference to deity or G-d.   It was also common in ancient culture for G-d to change the name of someone in respect to covenant - especially the proctor of the covenant which presides over the congregation of the covenant.  In these ancient cases the last syllable in the name given to the proctor of the covenant was the same last syllable  of the name or title by which G-d also according the covenant.  Thus Abram was changed to Abraham to reflected the name "I am".  With Jacob, his name was changed to Israel which reflected the name of El.  BTW El shows up in many ancient places - including the ancient worshipers of the demigod Baal whose father was El.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Bishop is also my Dentist. I call him Dr Brother Bishop [last name] Or Dr Bishop [last name] for kicks sometimes. He has too many titles :) 

 

I personally like it when people use my first name. I had an older gentleman in my last ward say Brother Earl instead of Brother Jibbs. I loved it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My church's nomenclature has changed in the last few years.  The "District Superintendent" is now the "Network Leader."  Our top fellow is still the General Superintendent.  In private conversations will usually use the full name.  In a public setting, even a church class, we'd probably say, "Our Network Leader."

 

Then again, I was THAT GUY, back in the 80s, when all the profs invited us to call them by first name, who'd still say, "Dr. Last Name."  I just couldn't bring myself to address them that casually.  Ironically, I was never chastised for that.

 

So, when in doubt, go formal.  Even if you are wrong, you'll never be rude.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a counsellor in our stake presidency who was also a lawyer. When I was talking to him in a church context, it was President last name. When I was seeing him in his legal offices, it was, as his request, first name. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For lifelong members calling someone by their "Christian Name" is not a big deal. For new members and recent converts it is both a sign of respect and a teaching moment. When face to face, be it Bishop, Stake President, Missionary or General Authority, etc, it should be done out of respect. Either way...it is a good habit to acquire, lest making an error when addressing in a teaching moment. However the First President and the Apostles, most will know who you are referring too...with the Seventy, most would not know you are quoting a General Authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share