…or, that “Old-Man Richins” sure is square.
by Jim Richins
The youth in my ward have developed a habit – I won’t call it bad, although I certainly do not feel comfortable with it. This (relatively) new behavior may not be unique to my ward, nor in fact, may it be a recent development across the Church. I’m wondering if this particular phenomenon with my ward is typical of most wards and their youth, or perhaps my ward is atypical. If this phenomenon is common, then perhaps it is an indication of the times in which we live. But, if the experiences in my ward fall somewhere out on the fringe of normal behavior, then I won’t feel so uncomfortable with my opposition to it.
This new behavior is the habit of youth addressing or referring to their adult leaders by their first names. For some of the youth in my ward, this even includes conversing with the Bishop using his first name. When I was growing up, this sort of behavior was never evident. I remember making the transition from returned missionary to young adult, and feeling distinctly uncomfortable using first names with other adults. Even today, I tend to refer to “Sister Hinckley”, “Brother Monson”, or “Bishop Faust”. Of course, these examples are hypothetical names only, but their source underscores what I think is the general behavior throughout the Church, wherein we always refer to General Authorities as “President”, “Elder”, or “Bishop”, or “Brother/Sister” as appropriate. I feel that the way we refer to GAs should be prototypical of the way we refer to local leaders, or even class instructors, advisors, and parents.
Our current Bishop is a friend of mine. He and I are the same age and have very similar families – even our two oldest children are in the same class together at school, and so we occasionally share homework assignments between households. I served with him in the EQ Presidency a few years ago. Back then, in casual settings, we were on a first name basis. In church, I would refer to him as “President Smith”, though in presidency meeting or some other private setting, I would call him “Steve”. Now, I refer to him almost exclusively as “Bishop Smith”, “the Bishop”, or even when addressing him directly, as “Bishop”.
Yet, several of our youth seem to have no compunction at all addressing him as “Steve”. This bothers me, and though I frequently correct them by saying “did you mean, *Bishop* Smith?” the problem is persistent.
Part of the problem is some youth leaders, in an effort to “befriend” the youth, commonly use first names between each other. They model close familiarity with each other, and are also comfortable with the youth using their first names. I’m certain modern social influences probably also have an effect (though I doubt that these youths’ school teachers allow first names. For me, it was always “Mr. Shaw” or “Ms. Agripedes”).
I know I may seem very backward, but I believe there are many important reasons to maintain proper titles, if not in the secular, then certainly within a religious context. One fundamental reason is I believe proper use of titles – including “Brother”, “Sister”, “Elder”, “Bishop”, or “President” – encourages reverence. The language we use helps to separate ourselves from the world and create a reverent space. I also believe that showing appropriate respect for adult leaders and/or Priesthood and Auxiliary officers is a form of worship, in that we show the Lord that we, too, recognize and are grateful for the Church, the Priesthood, and the Gospel He has given us.
I am confident that many General Authorities would support the proper use of titles in a Church setting. In particular, a couple of sermons come to mind that teach this very principle.
Is this phenomenon in my ward rare or common across the Church? Am I an old traditionalist, or could I stand to be more progressive? Do I need an infusion of young-Mormon-hipness into my life?
—————————–
Jim Richins has been trolling around the bloggernacle for about 1 year. He currently works as Senior Software Engineer for a motion control company with a very specialized application in robotics. He served in the Japan Sapporo mission, 1992-1993, and afterwards studied Computer Science, Organizational Communication, and Japanese at the University of Utah. He and his wife have 3 children. He has been told by his mother that he is the most intelligent man she has ever met, although his wife contends that he is only the most handsome. He naively continues to believe both statements, despite the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.
We welcome submissions from our readers. Find out how to submit your post for consideration: Guest Post Submission
I must admit, I have absolutely no problem with kids addressing adults they are close to by their first names.
When I was in YW, we called our presidency by their first names. We were a very tight-knit, close group and I feel that if I’d been told to call these women Sister so and so, it would have brought in an element of formality that may have been inhibiting.
For myself, I would really rather not be addressed as Sister. I find it stilted and distancing.
What I do like is the way the Brother and Sister titles were used with first names in the early Church, like Brother Brigham, Brother Joseph, etc. I wouldn’t mind something like that. It would combine familiarity with acknowlegement of all people as our brothers and sisters.
All of that said, when it comes to the bishop or stake president, I do think everyone should generally use these titles. This may seem arbitrary, but it’s just the way I feel.
I wonder what Brother Brigham and Brother Joseph would have thought of this phenomenon… 😉
Dang! Minvera beat me to it by seconds! 😛
Jim,
I’m not much older than the generation you speak of (I’m 26), and I agree with you 100%. There is something subtley respectful and reverential about the proper addressing of our elders and Church leaders, just as there is with our dress and general comportment in a chapel or other house of worship. Amen to all you said.
Brother Richins,
The flipside of the question is whether we should refer to ourselves by our titles. I have had bishops and stake presidents who have routinely identified themselves by their title, e.g., on the telephone, “Hello, this is President [or Bishop] so and so.” I have had other such leaders who identify themselves simply by their name and, if the circumstance requires, adding a description of their office. “I’m John Doe, and I wanted to visit with you in my capacity as bishop of the ward.” As I have grown older, so that those serving in those capacities are my contemporaries, or even my “juniors” in age, I have decided I like the second approach better. It sounds less self-important, even more humble, to refer to oneself by name rather than title. [I would make the same observation about doctors.]
I don’t think I have ever heard an elders quorum president refer to himself as “President so and so”, nor have I heard an auxiliary president refer to himself or herself that way.
Brother Richins,
I think people ought to be called “brother” or “sister” at church and church activities- chalk it up to the ceremonial aspects of church. Then, if they are friends, go on a first name basis in other venues.
As for kids, well, who knows. I am not offended when a child or a teenie-bopper calls me “Jordan”, but then again I am not in your exact generation, having served a mission from 94-96 instead. Perhaps in about 2 years I will demand more respect for myself.
I try to teach my kids to call others “brother and sister” or “Mr. and Mrs.”, but all my teaching goes down the drain when some friendly soul tells my son, “call me [insert first name].” How to teach my kids to use titles for people which the people themselves don’t seem to want, I don’t know. I am afraid if my kids were to then keep addressing the person with the appropriate salutation, that the person might get offended. On the other hand, I would like my kids to learn that there is a difference between adults and children, and that one of the ways we respect that difference is by using honorific salutations.
Brother Fowles
I’m 29. My parents always taught me that the titles showed respect. I too found it odd coming home from my mission, being an adult, and calling people by their first names. I still prefer calling people Sister or Brother so-and-so.
I’m also a Bishop. It’s been very interesting seeing/hearing the way members address a Bishop. Whenever someone calls me Bishop, it feels like they are respecting the calling. When I know someone on a personal basis, and they call me by my first name, it feels right because I still am Graham. When someone who I don’t know on a personal basis calls me by my first name, it seems out of place and really irks me. I’m not sure why.
I often comment to people that I’d like the Brother Brigham or Brother Joseph method to return. Bishop Wing was my Dad. Bishop Graham is me 🙂
I guess I don’t like the way the title Bishop seems to raise a Bishop above others. As I mentioned, I’m still Graham. I like the way President Monson conducts conference, “President Hinckley presides at this conference, and has asked that I, Brother Monson, conduct this session.”
I’m rambling, but this has been one of the peculiar experiences of becoming a Bishop..
Bro. Faulconer,
Also there is a growing trend to call one’s own parents by their first names. I don’t bump into this often but I do hear of it occasionally.
“Bro. Faulconer?” Did I miss something?
Jim,
You obviously went to Davis High; what year did you graduate?
Whoops … why did I think this post was by Jim F. when it is by Jim Richins? Sorry ’bout that. 🙂
Don’t forget to address the old people in your ward as Father or Mother, as in “Mother Smith.”
Well I’m sure neither Brother Richins nor Brother Faulconer is offended, Brother Bartholomew. So no worries.
Brother Fowles
Oh, and except it graciously when they start calling you Father or Mother.
Oops- I am forgetting my generations here. I meant “neither Brother Richins nor Father Faulconer.”
Bishop Wing 😉 wrote:
When Pres. Faust spoke at our regional conference a couple of years ago, he told a story of trying to keep up with a very active Pres. Hinckley, who walked ahead very quickly, then turned back and said, “Come on, Jim! Slow walk is no walk!” So while the Brethren are very formal in formal settings like General Conference, in other settings they are on a first-name basis.
Some time ago I wrote a potential post that dealt with this issue to a certain degree. I was studying 1 Nephi Chapter 1 and I was impressed that the word “father” appeared twelve times. When I examined this a little more closely I saw that Nephi used either the phrase “my father” or “my father Lehi.” He never merely referred to his father by a first name only but preferred these more formal approaches. The same is true in other places where he speaks of his mother … he always refers to her as “my mother” or “my mother Sariah” but never as just plain Sariah.
As I pondered this it occurred to me that in writing on the plates there was the issue of economy of space. Nephi easily could have rationalized that in order to preserve space he would refer to his parents as merely “Lehi” or “Sariah” but that is not what he did. I like that about him.
Like Bro. Richins, I also prefer the more formal titles. In some ways too, they aren’t so formal. To refer to someone as “brother” or “sister” is respectful but also familial, warm and affectionate to a certain degree. I always have liked that about this Church tradition.
When I was serving in the Primary recently, I was often referred to as Sister + my first name. Which, as I said above, is fine with me. Except that the married women in the Primary (I am single)were called Sister + their last names.
I guess the point of this anecdote is to show that these titles can be used further for purposes of stratification and compartmentalization, and this is not always positive.
Also, I think there is a difference between children under 12 using titles and teenagers being asked to use them with their youth leaders. For kids, such as I was, who have formal or not very close relationships to parents, there is something very liberating about being able to talk to an adult openly and seriously. This liberation may not occur if the teenager is asked to put a reverential title between herself and her YW president.
I think that there’s a benefit from the use of titles in formal settings, but that the degree of formality might influence the way that the title is used. At church meetings, I think it’s appropriate to call people Brother/Sister, President, or Bishop Thus-and-so. In leadership councils or day to day interactions, I tend to call the Bishop ‘Bishop’ and other’s by their first name if we’re familiar or Brother/Sister Thus-and-so if we’re not.
My wife has always been Sister Pollyanna to the kids (she’s spent a *lot* of time in Primary callings), and I love being called Brother Pat by the hispanic families I interact with (I wish a could get away with that in church without it sounding affected).
Then again, my teen-aged daughter tells me (quite frequently) that I’m getting old.
We recently moved from a ward where most everyone referred to each other by their first name (including the youth- all 7 of them), except when addressing the Bishop. The Bishop would refer to everyone as Brother or Sister [first name]. The only real exception was one EQ president who insisted everyone call him “President [last name]”. The joke then became when speaking to the EQ president to refer to EVERYONE by title- for example I referred to my friend as “2nd Counselor Lewis” because he was the 2nd counselor in the Sunday School. When he bacame a pilot I called him “Captain 2nd Counselor Lewis.” It was a fun and friendly ward with a large mix of different national origins, educational and income level. Very diverse in many ways.
The new ward we moved into constantly use titles- Brother, Sister, President, etc. It has felt very stuffy and impersonal to both me and my wife. We both have had the following experience:
Sister in the ward (sitw) to my wife: “so you are new? What’s your name?”
wife: “Carrie”
sitw: “what’s your last name?”
wife: “Smith”*
sitw: “Well it’s good to meet you Sister Smith, I’m Sister Jones”
We appreciate the introduction, but it just comes accross as a little stuffy- like maybe you didn’t like my answer to your first question.
Our current ward is about as non-diverse as you would expect a ward in St. George, Utah to be. I’m not sure if the diverse vs. the non-diverse ward has anything to do with the titles usage or if it is just coincidence. We are warming up to the new ward, but we still don’t use titles other than when address the Bishop (probably more out of habit than being snotty). “Good to meet you Brother Jones, I’m Ryan.”
*Not our real last name.
“Brother” and “sister” aren’t titles, are they? I think it’s just something weird we say to make ourselves seem more Amish. I try to avoid it.
Having said that, children should not refer to adults, especially their leaders, by first name. Of course, I must admit that I’ve called my dad Keith since I was 12. But that was wrong, not least because his name is Larry.
“Brother” and “Sister” are titles. They are honorific titles. Or you could call them salutations. But they actually have a name and a place in sociolinguistic study- more than just being “weird” and “amish”.
Grasshopper,
Sweet, now I have prophetic proof that my wife needs to walk as fast as I do. Thanks!
Along these lines, my favorite is the moment of uncertainty I always have when calling the Bishop on the phone to discuss ward business and his wife answers…”Hi, this is Matt, can I speak to: the Bishop?, Bishop first name?, Bishop last name?, First name? Nothing seems quite right, so I usually just punt and say “Your husband”, which doesn’t seem quite right either.
Grasshopper, I wonder if Jim yelled up to President Hinckley and said, “Come on Gord, I’ve got a bad back!”?
I always refer to my couselors by their first name (why don’t we have a title for bishopric counselors?) and I wish they’d do the same to me.
I think this is more a symptom of our casual society and culture. I work for a large US corporation base in CA and everyone here uses first names to address each other, even when addressing their boss or even the CEO. Business associates in Asia have commented that North Eastern US companies are much more formal than companies based in the West. I travel a lot on business visiting suppliers and when I go to Japan I wear a suit and use last names but when I go to Malaysia or Singapore I dress casual and use first names. In other words, I try to adapt to the culture of each region. I don’t anticipate the casual US culture changing any time soon. In fact, I see it spreading to other regions of the world.
Matt P., I have found that situation awkward as well. This was a big deal to my parents and I now live in the ward where I grew up and still can’t call the adults who were around then by their first names. Also, the counselor in the bishopric who I work with for Primary insists I call him by his first which is painful for me.
I think it’s important for youth to call adult leaders Brother or Sister so and so, but sympathize with those who complain of it’s formality. In the south, the chldren refer to adults as Miss or Mr. (first name). That’s what I have had my kids refer to non-member adult neighbors as. I think we should go back to the first names after brother or sister. It’s the best of both worlds, respectful and familiar and personal.
When I read Brother Richin’s post I say, Amen to that!
I wonder if the real dividing line here is between people who grew up in respectful homes and those who didn’t. I would never dream of calling my parents by their first names or treating them like were just roomies. Lots of my friend would and did.
Now, of course, when some little kid calls me Adam and I correct them, their parents glare at me like I’m the second coming of Attila the Hun (well, only sometimes).
It’s America, not the church that has changed. I am 34. I’ve been married 13 years. I must say that I don’t feel like Mrs. Last Name, anymore than I feel like Sister Last Name. Both sound weird to me when someone is referring to me, simply because it is so rarely used.
40 years ago a married woman would have been called Mrs. Last Name at the doctor, at the grocery store, at parent teacher conference, on the phone, by her husband’s boss, by everyone except family and close friends. And of course by the children.
These days, I expect children to call me by my first name, because that is the expect form of address. I NEVER referred to an adult by a first name until age 13 and even then it was by duress. Everyone in YW did it, but my mother raised me differently and I felt uncomfortable.
Americans have changed to a first name basis because it makes them feel younger and they worship youth.
“Mrs. Last Name is my mother-in-law” became the motto a couple decades ago. No one views it as a sign of respect because age and its benefits (wisdom, etc.) is no longer valued.
From Finding Nemo:
I’m amused by the number of comments addressed to me that now begin with “Brother Richins”, whereas they used to begin with “hey you”. Just for the record, “Old-Man Richins” or perhaps simply “Square” would probably have been just as appropriate.
(I graduated from Davis High in 1989).
I look at the use of titles in the Church on two levels. On one, Brother/Sister specifically refers to our membership in the Church and denotes a special relationship between conversants. On the other, I feel a certain amount of (minimal) respect should be paid across generations. This is the “traditional” context that could also include Sir/Maam, Mr/Mrs/Miss, etc. It is also the social context that is changing with the times. Many arguments have been made about the lack of polite manners in society, and this is just one aspect of that decline.
For LDS Youth, I feel that both levels are relevent, and thus the youth are doubly-justified in using correct titles when referring to their leaders.
For adults who are currently in callings of responsibility, I think it is important to reverence the calling. The use of Bishop or President acknowledges a sort of superior/inferior relationship (although a “superior” in the Church is properly the servant to the “inferior”).
In my Stake, there is quite a lot of emphasis on referring to EQ Presidents by their title. The rationale is an additional reason for using titles for certain Priesthood Leaders, as it connotes that those men hold Keys. This rationale could also be used to justify addressing the Deacon’s and Teacher’s Quorum Presidents by title.
Nevertheless, in a formal setting, I would prefer to use “Brother Wing”, or informally “Graham”, as his keys do not provide him with the position of presiding over me personally. Furthermore, I would reverence those keys by not drawing undue attention to them. In a work setting, for example, we do not use the title Bishop when referring to a co-worker.
For peer adults, I have no problem with first names. In fact, in certain settings such as a Scout Committee Meeting, conspicuous use of first names can denote a special informality or intimacy in a setting that could otherwise be “stuffy”.
However, Varsity Committee Meetings are designed to include the boys (Teacher-age Scouts) – a vital difference to the Scout Committee (Deacon-age boys). So, it would be important for adults to model appropriate behavior in front of the boys.
It is also important to remember that a “superior” (again, I am using the term clinically – I don’t really believe that one individual is superior to another in the Church by virtue of their calling) can abuse his/her power by using first names. If a personal relationship does not exist between adults, such that the “inferior” does not feel comfortable using a leader’s first name, yet the leader persists in using the member’s first name, this describes an unbalanced power relationship. In this case, the unbalanced power relationship is underscored by assymetrical use of language, and I might feel that the leader may be approaching unrighteous dominion.
Ultimately, I think reverence is the key. In settings where the utmost reverence is called for (e.g. Sacrament Meeting), titles should generally be used. In informal setttings (e.g. a ward party), first names for peers is acceptable.
’89 is when our brother, Braden Bell graduated from DHS. Are you related to Peter Richins?
I think that the whole issue is one of ettiqute (sp?) and that maybe a little LDS parenting could use brushing up. I’ve always been taught when addressing adults (as a child) or a collegue, etc… it is proper to address them using a formal title, and only in the informal if invited. Example: address a new member in your ward as “Brother Smith” unless he invites you to call him by his first name, or otherwize. Generally the decision to be addressed by the first name or in the informal is up to the individual. Some people prefer to be called by their first name, and other do not. But to avoid putting people in the awkward situation should the prefer the latter, start off formally.
How many Bells blog around here anyway. Sheesh!
Jim Richins: This rationale could also be used to justify addressing the Deacon’s and Teacher’s Quorum Presidents by title.
I’m in the young men’s, and I do refer to both the teachers and deacons quorum president as president so-and-so. They are one of few callings in a ward that actually have active priesthood keys. Moreover, the fact that I’m not in the deacons or teachers quorum is a function of the church’s current priesthood organization–not the fact that I hold the Melchizedek priesthood. Brother Brigham, for example, organized all priesthood holding men into deacons quorums during the City of Joseph period of Nauvoo.
But if it weren’t for The Dead Poet’s Society, I might find it quite natural to refer to other men and Mr. [lastname]. It could easily become quite natural and quickly take on a Dickensonian brand of joviality.
HL — too many.
When we look at other factors that have been affecting our youth – ie RM’s not wearing white shirts and ties etc., the other changes in apparel worn to Church (and our justifying it), is it any wonder that formal titles go out the window too. We have a slippery slope that has really started to manifest itself.
hmmm…
interesting, Larry.
I don’t think I have a problem with released missionaries wearing “stylish” clothing, so long as it is still reverent. Up until a few years ago, I used to try to imitate the GQ covers with colored shirts, sports jackets, etc. (although with my body-type, I probably could have achieved the same net effect if I had worn Fredericks of Hollywood instead of Men’s Warehouse).
scary…
I get the sense the Braden prefers the more formal use of his name, although I knew him as “Brady”. I remember he played French Horn in Mr. Essenfeld (sp?)’s wind ensemble in Jr. High. He has probably blocked all recollection of me, however, those memories now all unrecoverable.
If presented with irrefutable evidence, and only under oath, then I must admit to sharing some DNA with Peter.
Jim,
It wasn’t really stylish clothing that I referred to.
It was more of the casual look, with open collared shirts no ties, casual slacks, and often sandals. It denotes an attitude of casualness with, and at, Church that sets an example for the youth who look up to them. The concepts of awe and reverence for things sacred and for priesthood authority is greatly affected by such casualness.
I understand… and completely agree.
Sandals in the Chapel? Not unless you are attending in Fiji, my friend!!
If I were Bishop in your Ward, I would be inclined to do some chastising.
Adam, I have faithfully and patiently awaited the long-prophecied-return of Attila (see comment #28). Could you be the One? 🙂
I wonder how much of this debate has to do with North-South cultural differences. As I am aware, in the South it is very disrespectful for younger people to call older ones by their first name. In the North (where I grew up) it was common by the time I was 14. I knew parents who wanted their children to call them and their friends by their first names.
Marty stared at her for a moment more breathing hard before his eyes bingo [url=http://www.bingo-allstars.com]bingo[/url] earlier Marty let out a deep sigh of relief though he knew the ordeal bingo free [url=http://www.bingo-allstars.com]bingo free[/url] silver jacket of Martys bingo online [url=http://www.bingo-allstars.com]bingo online[/url] The appropriate question to ask is when the hell is he! You see Shemp bingo game [url=http://www.bingo-allstars.com]bingo game[/url] Colonel Nordell turned away from the window before the smoke cleared on bingo internet [url=http://www.bingo-allstars.com]bingo internet[/url] photograph The frown on the Professors face changed to a smile and bingo play [url=http://www.bingo-allstars.com]bingo play[/url] and the meter jumped The whole thing started to make a humming noise play bingo [url=http://www.bingo-allstars.com]play bingo[/url] Your simple objective as a player is to predict the balls final restingplace when the wheel stops spinning online bingo [url=http://www.bingo-allstars.com]online bingo[/url] Me neither Ive always wondered whether they slept together before .
I call most of the clerks I work with in my stake by their first names. They almost uniformly call me “Brother Taber”, even though almost all of them are older than I am. (And sometimes quite a bit older.) One of these days I’m going to send them an email saying that “Brother Taber” is my father, and my name is John. (But then, some of them know him as “Bishop Taber”.)
I moved down to North Carolina when I was 25. I came back to Delaware three and a half years later calling far fewer members older than myself by their first names. It still put me off that my elders’ quorum president when I first got back insisted on being called “President Cluff”.
I tend to call people by titles if they hold that position, or I knew them when they once did. (And that doesn’t include “Patriarch”, or “President” for an elders’ quorum president.) I also won’t automatically call any former bishop “Bishop”, unless, again, I remember him as a bishop. (Some of the ones I do call that give me a double-take.) What I will never do is call someone I know as a member by “Mr.” or “Mrs.”, unless the setting would make that very inappopriate (like court, or public school).
Then there’s my sister, who hates calling people by titles, and wishes she could call even her stake president by his first name.
Instead of a “decaying” society, I prefer to think of it as a blue-cheese society. Maybe Roquefort.