Bishop title after being released


Comp
 Share

Recommended Posts

How do you feel about calling a bishop "Bishop", even after he's been released? I remember being taught that it's a sign of respect, so I always do. Do you? Is it all the time, only at church, only in certain situations? What if the current bishop is in the same room? They are both "Bishop?"

I'm wondering if it's become old-school or if people still do it. What are your opinions and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is something people do in respect and recognition.  A Bishop is given certain keys, and though they may not be the current authorized individual with the keys, they still have those keys (at least from my understanding).  This means they are still a 'Bishop' in technicality, but not THE Bishop that is acting as the Bishop at that moment.

If I was called again to a calling that I have the keys to, then (once again, if I understand it right) I will not need those keys given to me once again, I already have them.  The ability to exercise them on the other hand would be given for that purpose as long as I was once again in that calling.

Members call former Bishops of the Ward...Bishop.  It is a sign of respect or recognition of the above.  I find it is normally those who were members when the Bishop was their Bishop of their ward who call the former Ward Bishop...Bishop (now that's a mouthful...isn't it).  New people who move in or are baptized who were not part of the ward when the Bishop was Bishop, most of the time will call the former Ward Bishop a Brother instead.

Of course, there are also many that will call the former Ward Bishop whatever the Bishop prefers...including his first name if they are well acquainted with each other.  Whether or not that is actually acceptable traditionally, I don't know, but it probably is a lot easier to call the guy Joe rather than Bishop if Joe really likes to be called by his first name. 

I find now days many will revert to calling the former Ward Bishop as a brother as well.  I don't see anything wrong with that, but I may also be mistaken.  I think being congenial and friendly to people is a good thing instead of trying to enforce the term or anything like that...plus...as I said...maybe the guy just likes his first name as well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Bishop" is an office in the Aaronic Priesthood. Strictly speaking, once ordained to the office of bishop, always a bishop (in the same way of once an elder, always an elder). 

This is not strictly the same as being set apart as the bishop in a ward. When set apart to that calling, keys are given that are necessary for the administration of the ward. When released, the individual will no longer hold the keys of the calling, but will still retain the office of bishop. 

My understanding is that some people continue to refer to released bishops as "Bishop So-and-so" on the understanding that this is appropriate given that they still hold the office of bishop. I don't follow this custom myself; my interpretation is that, once released, holding the office of bishop is irrelevant given their ordination to the office of high priest. 

But I might not be the best example. I have developed the practice of referring to my bishops by their first name in settings that are not strictly formal. I began doing so after one of the bishops I worked with commented that he felt like his individuality had been consumed by the calling. He was always "Bishop," as if that were his name, even in the most informal settings. He missed just being Jim. All of my bishops since then have expressed appreciation for being recognized this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always held to the tradition of calling ex-bishops “Bishop ________”.  The difference between calling someone “Brother ____” versus “Bishop ___” seemed negligible.

But I confess, as I get older and find myself on a first-name basis with the other brothers in the ward who are the same age as our ex-bishops, it starts to feel more awkward to single the ex-bishops out in that way.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As noted, once ordained a bishop, always a bishop.  If I were to be called to serve as a bishop again I would not have to be ordained, simply set apart and receive keys (physical and spiritual).  Being ordained a bishop does not affect your priesthood line of authority as it is an Aaronic Priesthood ordination so your line remains with your high priest ordination.

While I served as bishop pretty much everyone referred to me as "Bishop xxx" except when we were socializing with close friends.  Our Relief Society president was a good friend so I would start my texts with "Sis. RSP" or "Susan" so she would know immediately the context of my text.  Same thing with her husband who was later called as the ward Young Men president.  While playing golf with one of my counselors and our ward financial clerk I would ask them repeatedly to use my first name while playing rather than "Bishop xxx".

Most of the people who still refer to me as "Bishop xxx" are those who moved into the ward while I was serving and that was all they knew me as for some number of years.  Most others refer to me as "Bro. xxx".  Although if I raise my hand in a class I'm usually called upon as "Bishop xxx".  Not sure why that is; maybe doing so gives my comments added weight?

Bottom line for me?  I'll answer to just about anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mostly remember to address bishopric members as "Bishop Smith" or "Brother Jones" rather than as "Sam" or "Biff". When I started getting older than the bishops and those bishops were my personal friends, it took me a while to make the adjustment. But "Bishop P" is now just plain old "Adam" again and "Bishop S" is "Mike", so such things are temporary.

I remember watching some Church film or other, maybe the one about Lorenzo Snow reestablishing tithing among the Saints, in an Italian dub. I was struck by the usage of the formal, polite "Lei" between the President and his counselors, who doubtless were close friends and had known each other intimately for decades. I took that as a concession to an important position, one that doubtless would have continued throughout their lives had they actually been speaking Italian.

Language is just fascinating. I have three children who decided seemingly out of the blue to learn Japanese, and have actually gained some facility in that language. I don't know Japanese at all beyond a few words, a sort of general understanding of some grammar principles, and a passing familiarity with the syllabaries. But I have gleaned enough to know some of the "levels of respect" implicit in Japanese address and have observed how it materially affects how people interact. Japanese speakers seem actually ill at ease conversing with each other until they understand their social level with respect to the other person. Very not English, and in fact seemingly unAmerican, but actually quite a reasonable way of viewing social interactions. Not a way I appreciate, but then, I wasn't reared that way and don't speak the language. Still amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I usually call the most recent Bishop "Bishop", but anyone farther back than that I just use the term "brother". If a man was a Bishop in his ward 40 years ago, I'm not going to call him Bishop. Many folks want to continue showing a sign of respect and gratitude...especially if the man had a great impact on their life. If I was a released Bishop, I wouldn't care what folks called me by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

The first bishop I ever met asked us to just call him by his first name. It was weird, but not that weird. Growing up I called many Catholic priests “Father Jeff” or whatever. 

I suspect this was as much for his own comfort as for yours. Many people are uneasy being singled out.

I have no insights into your first bishop and no wish to cast judgment on him. As a general rule, though, I am sorry to see the precipitous decline in formality in our society. No doubt such formality has been used for centuries--millenia--to divide people into classes so they can be treated accordingly. I'm not at all sorry to see that go away. Except I don't see it going away; on the contrary, it seems to me that people are much more socially stratified than when I was a child. The informality seems not to affect that at all. It just gives people license to act uncivilly and take less care for the experience of others.

This is an example of the larger phenomenon of the decline of good manners. My daughter-in-law teaches my granddaughters to write thank-you notes for gifts they receive. I wish my own children had had a father who had taught them such, but I'm glad that at least some of my descendents of the next generation will be better bred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

I suspect this was as much for his own comfort as for yours. Many people are uneasy being singled out.

I have no insights into your first bishop and no wish to cast judgment on him. As a general rule, though, I am sorry to see the precipitous decline in formality in our society. No doubt such formality has been used for centuries--millenia--to divide people into classes so they can be treated accordingly. I'm not at all sorry to see that go away. Except I don't see it going away; on the contrary, it seems to me that people are much more socially stratified than when I was a child. The informality seems not to affect that at all. It just gives people license to act uncivilly and take less care for the experience of others.

This is an example of the larger phenomenon of the decline of good manners. My daughter-in-law teaches my granddaughters to write thank-you notes for gifts they receive. I wish my own children had had a father who had taught them such, but I'm glad that at least some of my descendents of the next generation will be better bred.

Understand. My mom was never comfortable with my sister or I calling priests “Father Jeff” or whatever so I get what you are saying. We also did the thank you notes too growing up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the first bishop* I ever met really was a great guy. Funny story-on our first get to know you guys meeting he offered us Reese’s Peanut butter cups. I said to him “I would have joined 20 years ago if I knew you handed out candy.” 
 

*out of the three bishops I’ve had, they have all been very nice guys. Just to be clear. 

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