LDS etiquette

[dahlia]

We have a new bishop.  He is a young guy (I think my son's age, late 30's). Here's the question: his wife was my VT right after I was baptized and we've stayed friends, so I am used to seeing him in informal situations and calling him by his first name. Not only that, but because of our jobs, I have occasion to talk with him about job-related issues.

 

I have no problem calling him 'Bishop X' at church. I'm just not sure how informal I can be when we aren't at church. Should I call him 'Bishop' in his home? If I run into him on campus?

 

Also, now we have a former bishop. Is my understanding correct that he is still supposed to be called 'Bishop Y'?  He was bishop when I was baptized, plus he is an older gentleman, so our relationship was more formal.   It's what to do when I've known someone in a completely different context that is causing me to question when and if I ever call him by his first name again.

 

Thanks.

[Guest]

I've never really known a bishop on that level of friendship.  But as a matter of general etiquette, I'd say  just call him Bishop X in church settings.

[estradling75]

A bishop is always bishop after being called...  There fore the use of the title bishop is still acceptable, although it might fade out as time passes.

 

For the new Bishop... as far as the church is concerned the title of Bishop is always appropriate.  Many in the church see it as a sign of respect for the office (and hopefully the man filling the office).

 

However it is a simple reality that members of the church wear multiple hats, titles can be a way indicating which role the discussion is addressing.  So Bishop for church matters and professional titles for professional issues should not raise any issues.

 

For the friendly name and address that is going to be worked out between the two (three with the wife I suppose) of you.  Now if you all choose to go informal some other might get heartburn over the issue, but unless you are corrupting impressionable youth I wouldn't worry about it.

 

Its been my experience with Bishops that they are willing to respond to whatever as we struggle to figure out the way of addressing them that works best for us.

[LeSellers]

A Staff Sergeant was the Branch President, the Elders' Quorum President was a captain in the same battalion. When the Branch President called the Elders' Quorum President about both military and ecclesiastical business, he'd follow this template:

SSG: Good morning sir, I'm calling about the recoil pads you ordered.

CPT: Yes, Sergeant, we needed two dozen by last week, but now we need three dozen. I'll send the requisition this afternoon.

SSG/BP: Fine, sir. Now, President Carson, I'd like the quorum to make sure Sister Williams has her walk shoveled this weekend. She's fallen twice this week, ….

CPT/ EQP: Yes, President. We already have it done, but it looks like more snow this afternoon.

BP/SSG: Great. Keep me posted. Now, captain, when I get that requisition, we'll expedite it, but it will still take three weeks. Division supply is back-ordered.

CPT: We'll get along, but I'll have to send my report up channel this afternoon. Do you have a contact at Division we can talk to?

SSG: Talk to SGT Nelson or Lieutenant Samson, Sir. Either one can help.

CPT: Roger, thanks.

SSG: Out.

Lehi

Edited December 25, 2015 by LeSellers

[Vort]

 

We have a new bishop.  He is a young guy (I think my son's age, late 30's). Here's the question: his wife was my VT right after I was baptized and we've stayed friends, so I am used to seeing him in informal situations and calling him by his first name. Not only that, but because of our jobs, I have occasion to talk with him about job-related issues.

 

I have no problem calling him 'Bishop X' at church. I'm just not sure how informal I can be when we aren't at church. Should I call him 'Bishop' in his home? If I run into him on campus?

 

My last two bishops have been younger than me. My current bishop is probably almost 20 years younger; my previous bishop was about nine years younger. If I met these men in a work situation, I would have addressed them by their first names. If we had been in an open social (non-LDS) situations, I probably would have done the same. In any Church-related or personal context, I would always have called them "Bishop", as a sign of respect and love for them and for their office.

 

Also, now we have a former bishop. Is my understanding correct that he is still supposed to be called 'Bishop Y'?  He was bishop when I was baptized, plus he is an older gentleman, so our relationship was more formal.   It's what to do when I've known someone in a completely different context that is causing me to question when and if I ever call him by his first name again.

 

A former bishop can properly be called "Bishop", but there is no official expectation of such. Again, it's a term of respect and endearment. Most ex-bishops get called "Bishop" by a lot of people for a year or so after being released, and then sporadically (or never, if they move). When my previous bishop got released, I immediately went back to calling him by his first name.

[askandanswer]

Same with me - at church and in church situations, I call him Bishop. When I see them in a work situation, I call them by their first name. When they are released, its back to their first name straight away. Usually they seem to be somewhat relieved to be called by their name rather than be called Bishop.

[Guest]

A lot of it has to do with your personal relationship with the individual.  And you have to kind of feel your way around it.  I had a mission president whose wife called him "President" all the time.  In their relationship, it was her way of saying she still had a lot of respect for him as a man who honored his priesthood.

 

Most of us missionaries thought that was weird.  She is his wife after all. In public settings in front of the missionaries and staff, sure.  But privately too?  Whatever.  That's between the two of them.

[Guest]

A little out of topic but thought I'd share.

 

My eldest son doesn't call me Mom.   He calls me by my "pet name" that my parents and siblings call me.  My son asked my mom why she calls me by that name and my mom told him it's their "loving name" for me.  So my son started calling me by that name.  I like being called that name so I don't correct him.  But when we're out in public, he calls me Mother - which is not Mom either.  He says Mother to him is more respectful than Mom.  So, I like that too.

 

It took a while for my husband to stop reprimanding my son for calling me by my "pet name" even after I insisted that I like it.  My husband has his own word that he calls me but he's the only one allowed to use it.

 

So, as it relates to Bishops - I think it depends on your relationship with the Bishop and your intention for calling him by that title.

[Guest MormonGator]

A lot of it has to do with your personal relationship with the individual. 

 Right. I call my former bishop by his first name, and the current bishop "Bishop ____ ". 

[David13]

No, I think you call them Bishop or President forever.

At Sacrament meeting the other week, in front of the door an old timer said to the Bishop, "oh, hi, Ken, I mean Bishop Bradley".

But even in each others house, they all say Bishop, President, etc., forever.

Mark Twain had written about it.  His brother was Secretary of the State of Nevada for a year or two, and filled in as acting Governor for one weekend when all the others, Gov, Lt. Gov and all the others were out of state.

For the rest of his life his valet at least called him Governor.

I think that's the way to do it.

 

I had a friend a lawyer, Conservative, he always wore a white shirt and tie, and usually the jacket was near by, even at home, and any time I ever heard he or his wife, it was always Mr. ----- and Mrs. -----.  And I was around them a lot.

Very formal.

 

It's protocol.  It doesn't matter how old they are.

dc

Edited December 25, 2015 by David13

[bytebear]

I was lucky enough to have my cousin's son over for Christmas dinner as a missionary.  Most of my family out here is not LDS and know him by his first name.  I called him Elder X, and everyone else switched between calling him by Elder or by his first name, although they called his companion Elder Y since we never knew his first name.

[Blackmarch]

We have a new bishop. He is a young guy (I think my son's age, late 30's). Here's the question: his wife was my VT right after I was baptized and we've stayed friends, so I am used to seeing him in informal situations and calling him by his first name. Not only that, but because of our jobs, I have occasion to talk with him about job-related issues.

I have no problem calling him 'Bishop X' at church. I'm just not sure how informal I can be when we aren't at church. Should I call him 'Bishop' in his home? If I run into him on campus?

Also, now we have a former bishop. Is my understanding correct that he is still supposed to be called 'Bishop Y'? He was bishop when I was baptized, plus he is an older gentleman, so our relationship was more formal. It's what to do when I've known someone in a completely different context that is causing me to question when and if I ever call him by his first name again.

Thanks.

If i am unsure, then ifall back to brother/ sister ( last name). Edited January 8, 2016 by Blackmarch

[Jamie123]

In the parish where I was confirmed, everyone always addressed the vicar and curates as "Father [Their First Name]", or else just "Father", and I would have felt uncomfortable doing otherwise. Many years and several parishes later, I call all priests just by their first names. (Many of them are women now, and to call them "Mother" would just sound weird.)

 

But the world as a whole has become less formal. When I was a student I called my tutor "Dr. [His Surname]"  and he called me "Mr. [My Surname]". Now that I'm the tutor, most students just call me "[My First Name]" though oddly enough many of the same students also call me "sir" - which I don't understand at all.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Jamie123

[Guest MormonGator]

 

 

But the world as a whole has become less formal. 

 Goodness yes! Remember before the market crashed when Wall Street guys would wear khakis and no tie to business meetings? Now it's white shirt, black tie...

[Laniston]

Bishop is an Aaronic Priesthood office like Deacon, Teacher, and Priest.  A Priest is also a Teacher and a Deacon.  An Elder is also a Priest.  Thus, once a Bishop..

[bytebear]

Conferred, ordained, set apart

 

The priesthood is conferred (Aaronic or Melchizedek).

The office is ordained (Deacon, Teacher, Priest, Elder, Bishop, Seventy, Apostle, etc.)

 

Once ordained, you continue to hold the office.

 

But, then you are set apart as bishop, and have the mantle of authority over the ward.  Once released, you are still a bishop, but have no more authority over the ward.  But if called again, one is not re-ordained.

 

It's really no different than, say, being called as Elder Quorum President.  You are still an Elder after being released. The only difference is there is no Bishop's Quorum, because the "Quorum" for a Bishop is the ward.

 

Side note (and feel free to correct me):

 

If one is a Levite, as I understand it, if called as a bishop, one would be set apart, but the priesthood office is ordained by bloodline, and no separate ordination is needed.  (This only applies to Aaronic priesthood offices). If not, one must also be a High Priest to be an acting bishop when no Levite is available (which is pretty much the norm).

Edited January 13, 2016 by bytebear

[Vort]

Conferred, ordained, set apart

 

The priesthood is conferred (Aaronic or Melchizedek).

The office is ordained (Deacon, Teacher, Priest, Elder, Bishop, Seventy, Apostle, etc.)

 

Once ordained, you continue to hold the office.

 

But, then you are set apart as bishop, and have the mantle of authority over the ward.  Once released, you are still a bishop, but have no more authority over the ward.  But if called again, one is not re-ordained.

 

It's really no different than, say, being called as Elder Quorum President.  You are still an Elder after being released. The only difference is there is no Bishop's Quorum, because the "Quorum" for a Bishop is the ward.

 

Side note (and feel free to correct me):

 

If one is a Levite, as I understand it, if called as a bishop, one would be set apart, but the priesthood office is ordained by bloodline, and no separate ordination is needed.  (This only applies to Aaronic priesthood offices). If not, one must also be a High Priest to be an acting bishop when no Levite is available (which is pretty much the norm).

 

Good post. A couple of minor corrections, as per my understanding:

• A bishop is ordained to the office, because bishop is actually an office in the Aaronic Priesthood. We are set apart to callings. I don't know, because I have never been a bishop, but maybe the bishop is actually set apart for his role as the presiding high priest in the ward. But the actual office of bishop would be an ordination.
• The bishop's quorum is the priest quorum in the ward, of which he is the president. The bishop retains his membership in the stake's high priest quorum, as well. That is the only situation I know of where a man holds membership in two quorums.
• My understanding of the Levite requirement is that the Levite must still be baptized and then ordained to the Priesthood, just like anyone else. The difference appears to be that he has a hereditary right to the office of bishop, and so does not need counselors (though why anyone would want to be a bishop without counselors escapes me). Two issues in this regard are worth noting:
  1. The callings of bishop and of ward presiding high priest are separable, at least in principle. I see no doctrinal reason why a ward could not have a "ward president" who took care of most of the duties we generally ascribe to the bishop, such as extending callings, performing worthiness interviews, and general counseling, while another man served as "bishop" in taking leadership of the Aaronic Priesthood and caring for the tithing and temporal (welfare) needs of the ward.
  2. I believe the whole "Levite" thing in the Doctrine and Covenants applies to the office that we today would identify as the Presiding Bishop of the Church, a General Authority position, and not a ward-level bishop.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Vort

[bytebear]

I think people get confused because one can be ordained, but not be in a quorum or be set apart.   There are 15 apostles, but only 12 are in the Quorum of 12 apostles.  (The remaining three make up the First Presidency).  I believe, however one does not need to be an apostle to be a counselor to the Prophet.  Also, decades ago, each stake had a quorum of 70s.  Those quorums were dissolved but everyone ordained as a 70 at the time, as far as I know, remained as such.  And then there was the short lived Council of 50, which was more of a political organization than religious, and didn't require (as far as I know) any priesthood ordination.

[askandanswer]

All former bishops that I know seem to be pleased and relieved when, after their release, people here immediately go back to calling them by their first name. I think it helps to remind them that they no longer carry the heavy burden of responsibility that comes with being a bishop.

[hzdbl5]

I am a bishop but am not of the tribe of Levi.  At the time of my calling I was already an ordained high priest so that didn't need to take place.  After being sustained by the congregation I was ordained a bishop and immediately set apart as the bishop of the ward as part of the same laying on of hands.  This was done by the stake president under delegated authority from the First Presidency.  (I have the letter giving him the authorization to carry out the ordination / setting apart).  The two counselors in the stake presidency and my father also stood in for the ordinance.  When the time comes I'll be release as the bishop of the ward, but will still be an ordained bishop.  The ordination to this office does not affect my priesthood line of authority which continues to be driven by my ordination as a high priest.  If I am ever called to serve as the bishop of a ward in the future I would need only be set apart for that particular calling.

As for how folks address me, just about everyone refers to me as "Bishop..." pretty much all the time.  I play golf with one of my counselors and our financial clerk.  I have to repeatedly ask them to use my first name while on the golf course.  They've only known me as bishop so it must be odd for them.  For my longer-term friends they typically use my first name when we interact socially and "bishop" when we're interacting related to church items.

My wife and I are very good friends with our YM president and our RS president who are husband and wife.  We were all friends for years prior to any of us being in our current callings.  When I call, text or e-mail them I will start with "Brother ..." or "Sister ...." and identify myself or sign with "Bishop..." if it's church related.  If my communication is not related to church I use their first names and sign with my first name.  They follow the same standard as it gives each of us immediate clues as to what the communication is about.

When I'm released, I expect those who have known me only as "Bishop..." may continue to call me that for a bit simply out of habit, but otherwise I would expect to revert to "Bro. ..." or my first name pretty much immediately.