Comments on: “What’s with this ‘Joseph’ stuff? Can you imagine Lutherans calling their guy ‘Martin?’”

By: Jared T

Jared T — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:39:25 +0000

Robin, excellent reference!

#47,

This is late, but I had the opportunity to be at a meeting last year where 4 Apostles and the presidents of the Seventy were present and in a Q&A session, one apostle handed the microphone to another and, calling him by his first name told the more junior apostle to field that question. After another question later, that apostle had the microphone and said “good question” then without looking at the apostle to his left or saying a word just handed the microphone over. It was a real treat to see them interact as they did.

A friend of mine’s father was an area authority and he mentioned that one of the first things that his father was told was that between themselves they called each other by their first names as it was something of a brotherhood. I took it to mean that among the seventy. That impressed my friend as it has been one of the only things he’s ever mentioned about his dad’s service.

These little things just in reference to the part about being surprised if general authorities called each other by their first names in formal or informal settings.

By: Robin

Robin — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:39:56 +0000

Sorry I’m coming late to this discussion. Great insight by all. I only have a small bit of information to add to the early practice of some Mormons. At a meeting on 5 December 1834, Oliver Cowdery records a revelation, rebuking those gathered (no hint if this was just for the leadership or for the general church) “for [their] former low, uncultivated, and disrespectful manner of communication, and salutation, with, and unto each other.” The practice formerly was to call “President Smith…Joseph, or brother Joseph; President Rigdon, brother Sidney, or Sidney, &c.” But the revelation encouraged those gathered to give “unto every man the respect due the office, calling, and priesthood, whereunto…the Lord have appointed, and ordained [them].” (1834-1835 History, as found in PJS 1:22-23).

Of course, this revelation didn’t seem to take in Mormon “salutation”, but it is interesting to see the brief attempt to curtail the practice of a more informal “brother Joseph”.

By: SC Taysom

SC Taysom — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 19:16:16 +0000

Oh, I get it. (Slaps forehead)

By: Randy B.

Randy B. — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 19:04:11 +0000

SC, I didn’t mean to imply it was the regular bloggers behind it. Quite the contrary.

By: SC Taysom

SC Taysom — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:09:34 +0000

Ardis,
No need to apologize. In this instance, you’re advice is better than any I could give.

Randy,

We’re not that creative. This weirdness is 100% organic.

By: Randy B.

Randy B. — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 05:07:03 +0000

What is it with the JI lately? Some of the comments this week have the distinctive smell of the old Banner of Heaven. Makes me wonder.

By: ML Brown

ML Brown — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 04:34:11 +0000

Okay, please give me the same consideration. Don’t assume I think you’re apostates unless I say you are. I really do try to say what I mean. I speak honestly. I have no way to control how you or any other reader will respond. Maybe, don’t be so quick to assume the worst in me.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 04:32:53 +0000

Sorry for policing your blog, SC. I’ll be up in that balcony.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 04:30:35 +0000

ML Brown, I’m attempting to give you a gentle hint about the blogging world, about reading for a while and getting to know the flavor of a blog and its commenters. When someone doesn’t do that, there are quite often bruised feelings on both sides — in this case, we feel preached at by somebody who wrongly believes we’re all apostates, and you feel shut out by a rude and disrespectful clique.

No need to be snarky. I wasn’t being so — believe me, if I were, your eyebrows would be singed by the heat from my words on your monitor. Just get to know us a little before you preach, correct, chastise, and assume the worst of us.

By: ML Brown

ML Brown — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 04:17:32 +0000

Which talks can I “safely” assume you don’t know?

I will speak gently as to not offend the all-knowing regulars, please allow me to share something with you regulars.

You all may know 50+ years more of information than I do, okay. I accept that. I can’t possibly threaten you that badly that you are going to raise your hackles because I’m a lowly newcomer.

In future postings, maybe even this one, I probably won’t use correct grammar. I will make errors (I promise). I will never call you names or take offense at what you say.

Now, all of us know this information. Would it be okay if you snap out of your little click and open up.

I know what I know and you know what you know. I can be very snarky if I have to. I’d rather just see your blogs. As a convert I’m still learning and you will either have to excuse me for not knowing all the things you regulars already know or you can be rude and disrespectful to a fellow student.

In addition, if all I ever say is never new to you, keep quiet about and endure it. Even Jesus, all knowing as he was, held his peace…let me guess you already knew that? =)