In the early days of the church members were addressed as Brother or Sister with their first name. Later, this was switched to last names. Some people refer to leaders as always by their title, including after they are released. Other wards mostly use first names.
[poll id=”424″]
[poll id=”425″]
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
I don’t follow a consistent rule, so I voted other. Depending on my whim at the moment, a given person might be Firstname, Brother Firstname, Sister Lastname, Brother Lastinitial, Sister Firstinitial, Title Lastname, Titleonly, etc. However, I do think that if the Elders Quorum President is going to be President Lastname, the Relief Society President should be also.
By the way, one of the the choices has two sentences that are inconsistent with each other. Children are really the same thing for me. They might be Firstname, Brother Firstname, Sister Lastname, Title Lastname, etc., depending on my mood and the circumstance.
I thought the constant harping on “Do not do the same for women” was condescending to men and those in authority. As for myself, I never use brother or sister, and the only ones I use tiles for is Bishop, President for Stake President, or Elder/President for General Authorities with last name. Although I understand the theological reasons for extending the titles for those who have ended the term of a call, I don’t use titles after they leave. My personality is generally informal.
I had the opportunity to attend the last general conference in the tabernacle with a press pass and was seated in the balcony over the door reserved for Apostle entrance. When Monson entered Pres. Hinckley exclaimed “Good morning Tom!” And then Eyring, “Hal! How ya doing!” So sitting around ward or branch council saying president this and bishop that seems unnecessarily formal and rigid. If Brother Joseph was good enough for Joseph Smith surely we can call the people in our local unit by first names. My pet peeve: when wives call their husbands bishop or president even when addressing them directly at church. Totally weird.
If I know the person well at all it will always be with their first name unless in a large group. I generally address someone with their title when I am trying to make a point that I am talking to them now as part of their calling. So I might start by saying, “Hey Sue, my wife said the RS meeting the other day was great!”, but then switch to, “President Lastname, about the request you put in for using the entire building …”
Technically it is not correct to call a former member of a stake presidency “President.’ That was a calling, not an office, such as “Bishop.” But, if you want to be honorific–rather than friendly, use the honorific.
I call them Brother or Sister because I have no idea as to their name. I try to keep it reciprocal.
I have ward and stake leaders who somehow think it is important to call twerpy deacons “President Jones”. Drives me nuts. I cringe whenever I hear the bloggernacle wail that we should call the RS, Primary and YW presidents “President”. Instead of calling them president instead don’t call the EQ president “President” either. We need less titles not more. We need a spirit of sisterhood and brotherhood and friendship not hierarchical distancing with organizational honorifics.
KLC, I agree.
KLC, I agree with fewer titles. I frequently (but not always) refer to general authorities as “Brother Lastname.” They often refer to themselves and each other that way over the pulpit in general conference. I frequently refer to Brigham Young as “Brother Brigham,” but never as “President Young.”
However if we simultaneously reference two or more people who have the calling of “president” (say in a church program or in announcing speakers) common sense would indicate that we should be consistent in using titles, regardless of age or sex. You could introduce “John McCain” or “Mr. John McCain” or “Senator John McCain,” but it would be a faux pas to introduce “Senator John McCain and Ms. Mary Landrieu” or “John McCain and Senator Mary Landrieu.” If you decide to use a title on a given occasion, you should use it consistently for everyone who has it.
And I feel the same way about the AP style guide that says it’s okay for an MD to be called Dr. Jones, but not okay for a Ph.D. to be called Dr. Jones. Either us “Dr.” across the board for everyone who has earned it, or drop the title altogether.
I am willing to use titles when appropriate. But I’ve had friends from other stakes and wards that have specifically told me not to use their titles. I have a friend who is a Stake President, who I saw at the Temple and he introduced himself to some friend’s of ours by his first name. I thought that was nice.
The titles are a bit over used. But my pet peeve is the initials. Who calls themselves, Thomas S. Monson.
“hello, I’m Thomas S. Monson.” Makes no sense. No one would do that.
I’m with KLC on this one—we need fewer titles, not more. I think almost always titles lead to pride. They may start out as a sign of respect, but before long they lead to heirarchal pride. Alma was never called President, nor Nephi, nor Mosiah, etc. Joseph was Brother Joseph…… I had a VT companion for several years whose husband was bishop. She always referred to him as “Bishop” or “the Bishop” when we talked and visited. Weird. The initial thing seems prideful too. At Stake conference they sustain all the men by initials and names, like they do M. Russell Ballard, et al. I love how the Pope is just simply Pope Francis. I love how Mormon edited the records with prophets called simply by their given name. It’s the Book of Mormon, not Book of President Mormon Q. So-and-so. Maybe that’s why I feel much closer to them than leaders of today. I love and respect our Brethren today (another title), but I don’t feel particularly close to President Thomas S. Monson like I do Moroni and Ammon and Jacob and……..
Being a less formal person in general (favoring respect over formality), I generally use titles in official situations and first names for those with whom I am on a first name basis in other situations. When I refer to my bishop and stake president in a talk, lesson, or meeting, I’ll use a title. When we’re sitting around the campfire at the Father/Son, I’ll use first names – I’ve known both those men for more than a decade, and we’ve worked together in a number of callings before either attained their current lofty stations. If that bothers either, or their respective down-to-earth wives, they haven’t bothered to let me know. 🙂
Folks that I don’t know so well will be “Brother/Sister So-and-so” until we become better acquainted, but I’ll not bother with the honorific after that except in a more formal situation, like a talk.
If I know the person very well, it’s first name. Fairly well, brother or sister firstname. Not well, then sister or brother lastname. I refer to most GA’s as some version of brother lastname, such as “Dear Brother Scott” because he is such a dear, don’t you think? Occasionally I’ll refer to “Tommy” Monson, because that’s what he calls himself. Early icons get their first names restored, but still don’t rise above brother: Brother Joseph, Brother Brigham (sometimes accompanied by an exasperated sigh), Brother Parley. Early scoundrels get their full names with no title, i.e. John C. Bennett.
As a general rule, I despise titles; they negate warmth and love, and underscore the militarization of the church. It’s a body of Christ, people, not a platoon. Ever notice that with each war over the history of the latter day church, formality and structure increased? Note to any man who thinks I should use his title: You’re my Brother in Christ. Not my General.
I do, however, use the honorific “Bishop” Lastname for my current bishop, mostly out of kindness. It’s a difficult job, and the man needs some instant cred to be able to pull it off. Unless he is a pompous chauvinistic jerk, and then it becomes bishop firstname.