Comments on: Saturday Morning General Conference

By: Steve Evans

Steve Evans — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:18:23 +0000

Tracy is right.

By: Scott B.

Scott B. — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:12:36 +0000

You may find the following instructive:

In past Conference editions of the Ensign, the table of contents lists all General Authorities by Elder/President. It lists all others by name only–no title at all–not even “Brother” or “Sister.” The same form is used for each individual talk throughout the reports.

Thus, if the Ensign’s editorial decisions are taken to be a reflection of proper form (which I do not assert myself), then the use of “President” is not a male/female thing, but Priesthood only. The Sunday School General President gets the same treatment as the General Relief Society President.

Make of that what you will.

By: DavidH

DavidH — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 05:06:09 +0000

I always call auxiliary presidents “President”, except for the young women president in our ward who told me she prefers “Empress”.

By: Tracy M

Tracy M — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 03:15:30 +0000

I’ve got it on good authority for RS that it’s PRESIDENT _____.

By: Ray

Ray — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 03:13:45 +0000

I just got back from the Priesthood session, and when I read the last few comments, it struck me that my own experience has been forged by a father and mother who used the titles when speaking of women in our wards growing up. A RS Pres. is “President _________” to me because that’s what I grew up hearing. I’ll have to step back and think about if I’ve heard it from others, but that’s what I say and think, so I’m probably not as aware of others not saying it.

I had never stopped and thought about that. Thanks for making me do so.

By: Seth R.

Seth R. — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 02:34:43 +0000

Ray, I’ve never heard a Relief Society President called by her title in regular usage (i.e. any time one isn’t being formally introduced from a pulpit setting).

It’s always been “Sister Jones.” Not “President Jones.”

By: Alison Moore Smith

Alison Moore Smith — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 00:27:27 +0000

As I just posted on Mormon Momma:

**********

I once heard it in a ward and once in a general meeting. That’s all I can recall. If you google “President Packer” on lds.org, you get over 500 hits, over 160 for “President Uchtdorf.” None of “President Dalton” or “President Lant.” You get three for “President Beck,” but only two are about her and none actually contain her name with the title.

On the flip side, there are 91 of “Sister Dalton,” 48 of “Sister Lant,” and 167 of “Sister Beck.”

I think it’s safe to say that using “president” isn’t the norm for females–even for the general presidents.

By: Ray

Ray — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:54:39 +0000

#279 – I’ve heard female leaders referred to by their titles all my life. I think it’s important, even as I use first names almost all the time in private communcations with people – like e-mail.

By: bookwisewin

bookwisewin — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:47:07 +0000

Sister Lifferth said, “calling priesthood leaders by their titles” was important.

I know you’re all so over this thread, but can someone tell me why don’t we call female leaders by their titles? I have, I think, heard a female leader called by her title two times in my life. If they are meaningful, let’s use them consistently. If not, why make an issue of it?

By: queuno

queuno — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 21:17:19 +0000

In the Press Conference…Elder Andersen directly said he would and will sustain those who are not from the US when the time comes.

Then he certainly did that when we sustained the First Presidency and general leadership of the Church.

Let’s stop focusing on who didn’t get called, and celebrate the ministry and leadership and experience of who DID get called…

Personally, I would have preferred that Kevin Barney be called to be an apostle, but my hopes were dashed, yet again.

(Seriously – wouldn’t you love one of his talks in GC?)