- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Have you ever noticed or even thought about the way the brethren say (and print) their names? (especially when they are sustaining the leaders of the Church, or even in your ward or stake conferences? and the way the names of your ward and stake leaders are pronounced.) Once you are in a leadership position you get to use an initialand “punch it” (if you will) in the way that your name is said. It’s President Thomas “
S. ” Monson, Elder Boyd “ K. ” Packer, Elder “ L. “Tom Perry… There is a sober tone and a cadence.
Now, when a Sunday School teacher, Relief Society teacher, Young mens advisor, or whomever is called, and sustained in Sacrament meeting, they’re just called brother “Phillip Richins”, or sister “Ida Snow”: there isn’t that somber inflective pronouncement to their names.
When did this start happening? Let’s see, there was Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Willford Woodruff…
Please don’t take this the wrong way, I don’t mean to be insensitive or disrespectful, but, I remember on occasion hearing a vulgar person take the name of the Lord in vain. It could be “God,” God followed by damn. It could be “Jesus,” or “Jesus Christ.” But what I also remember on occasion when this type of vulgarity would seem extra vehement with the supreme stamp of disapproval by their saying “Jesus H. Christ.” Why?
I do think that you have “arrived” in leadership when they decide to use your initials, both in Church speak and in Church text.
I think we are going down a path at odds with the purpose of this community when we start proliferating threads and posts that fill the site with a tone that seems less than earnest. The underlying concern of yours is earnest. And good humor is important. But disrespect is bad humor. I don’t have any special respect for Brother Packer or Monson because of their position. But I respect them as divine human beings who are earnestly filling a calling to the best of their ability. Now, as to the middle initial. Of course I find it a bad sign in the culture, just like white shirts and ties and other things that violate the spirit of Mormonism and the religion of Jesus. I feel I am being disrespectful if I even say Thomas Monson.
What I believe has worked pretty well for me in trying to observe the spirit of “Call no man your father” has been to simply call the leaders “Brother Monson”. The one exception I have made to that is that I have always called a bishop a bishop. All others I at least occasionally call simply brother (hmm, “sister” doesn’t apply to this topic). I think (hope) that is a respectful, but conscientious way of relating in the church.
What say you?
Well, I too am no fan of the middle initial thing. It seems a little corporate and sort of stuffy I guess. But strangely, it does seem to matter to some people, and not always in a prideful way. Since it’s not important to me, I see the potential negatives (creating a stir of pride when someone gets the middle initial added), but I’ve seen converts who think it’s cool to have such professional, successful leaders, and the initials do add an air of respectability. For example, Warren Jeffs might sound like a skeevy old man to those of us who don’t consider him a prophet, but Warren G. Jeffs would sound much more upstanding. It’s the same reason bringing a defendant into court with a nice haircut and new suit works. Obviously part of that is our Mormon conditioning, but I think it’s mostly an Americanism and an artifact of an older generation in the church. I don’t know. I guess I thought the initials started to distinguish Joseph F. Smith from Joseph Fielding Smith. There were probably a few others — wasn’t there an Ezra T. Benson from the early days? My impression is it sort of evolved out of necessity to distinguish the many similar or same names. Interesting points and thanks to Tom for reminding me of the purpose of this forum. Even though there are other forums, I find this one most helpful because it helps me focus on myself rather than the faults in others. I wonder if the naming conventions come from the leaders or those who surround them…my guess is the latter doing their best to establish a tone of reference and respect. The funny thing is, I often add my middle initial to things where it isn’t needed.
In the spirit of soul searching, I have to confess that some of the more hefty introductions of GAs make me feel uncomfortable. I wonder if this makes the GAs uncomfortable as well. Part of me gets cynical to the point that I miss out on the message. I don’t like this because I’m the only one that gets hurt, aside from those affected by my bad mood. Oddly enough, I probably wouldn’t have the same feelings if the conductor was introducing a non-LDS dignitary. Somehow, when it’s tied to the Church I get defensive. I wonder if this is my inner-self screaming out when I feel trapped.
Tom, good words of advice. I aught remember them when I start getting cynical.
Tom Haws wrote:I don’t have any special respect for Brother Packer or Monson because of their position. But I respect them as divine human beings who are earnestly filling a calling to the best of their ability.
I’ve always wondered about this exact subject. Whan asked what the members of the newly-founded church should refer to him as (president, reverend, etc.) Joseph Smith replied, “Brother Joseph suits me”.
If it was good enough for him, why all this “Bishop this”, or “President that”?
It does seem a bit pompous.
I’m not a big fan of titles, not just church ones, but all types. To me, titles a leftovers from long ago, when we had class systems. Our societies were very unequal not that long ago, and the use of titles seemed to fit into that. That doesn’t mean I would disregard this cultural norm if I was speaking to someone like the President of the Church or the President of our Country. Even though I’m not a fan of titles, I don’t have an issue with the use of middle initials. For whatever reason, it just doesn’t bother me. It creates a level of formality that isn’t as prominent with local leaders, and maybe that’s part of the point, to signify the importance of the calling. I don’t think that it’s necessary, but I also don’t think its a big deal. Am I right in reasoning that it all started rather innocently when Joseph F. Smith found it necessary to use his middle initial? Once it was started, it just became tradition. I would have to go back and look specifically (and I just don’t care enough to do that – *GRIN*), but that sounds plausible, Tom. Culture and habit are inexorably mixed in all organizations, and this probably is a simple case of that. One simple example:
In our contact manager at work, we now are asking people for their middle initial – since our database is becginning to include multiple people with the same first and last names. In one case of common first and last names, there are 19 people in our database with that exact combination. To give us a chance to distinguish a new contact from someone already in the system, adding the middle initial really helps.
Tom Haws wrote:
Quote:I think (hope) that is a respectful, but conscientious way of relating in the church.
What say you?
Brother Haws, I agree, and have always shown exactly the same respect from my youth until my tipping mid-life.
But, if you had used the name Tom
R.Haws, or Tom W.Haws, etc., on this site I might have picked-up on some pretentiousness. Now, I’m not saying that the General Authorities are pretentious, but to an “untrained” ear or “eye” it could be seen as such. I think that if I showed my Ensign with the talks from General Conference to a non-member friend, and asked them to see if they noticed anything peculiar about all the speakers names, that they would readily notice the middle initials.
For those of us who are inactive, we’ve learned the difference between being trained to think a certain way, and are protective of using what modes of free thinking that we find to be more reliant.
It’s ridiculous to present this as an historical, doctrinal, or spiritual problems worthy of debate. It’s an observation.
We’re a comparably young Church. What is the first thing that the newly chosen Pope does before being installed as the Pontiff? He changes his name, partly to promote the historical aspects of that name to be continued into the future.
How about this thought: What if, some day, the President of our Church decided to change his name to Joseph Smith?
Sounds crazy, but over centuries, that is basically what the Catholics are doing.
Last point: I think that our leaders, perhaps unconsciously pronounce, cantor and display their names to imbue them with just a little extra meaning. I remember many years ago when the Bishopric wrote a ward letter, which all three signed, and it was only then that I knew each of their middle initials. I don’t think that it would have sounded Church wise official enough if they hadn’t done so.
Orson wrote:I don’t know. I guess I thought the initials started to distinguish Joseph F. Smith from Joseph Fielding Smith. There were probably a few others — wasn’t there an Ezra T. Benson from the early days? My impression is it sort of evolved out of necessity to distinguish the many similar or same names.
This was also part of my initial thoughts on the subject. There was quite a trend towards certain family relations in the high leadership of the Church, which brought along with it the custom of naming people after relatives, which made things somewhat confusing. Like Orson said, there were many people in different generations with the same or almost the same name and initials.
I think it has morphed a little into what the OP pointed out.
I agree that it started as one thing but it’s now become something else. It’s not that big a deal to me, but it is kind of corporate. I suppose that’s better in some ways than the alternative. But I can see the downside, too. As a thought on callings at the ward level, I have been in wards/stakes that announced new callings with the members full names. I’m sure my present stake does this currently.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.