Talk:Presiding Bishop (LDS Church)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject, an attempt to provide comprehensive and detailed information about the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism on Wikipedia. To participate in the project, edit this article, visit the List of articles about the Latter Day Saint movement, the project page, and/or join the discussion. For writing guidelines about contributing to the project, you may want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
[edit] Title
I believe that this should be at Presiding Bishop (LDS Church) since it is a title that refers to a specific person rather than to a group of people. Additionally there is precedent for other titles to be used this way in naming articles (e.g. Prefecture of Police, see also Category:Ecclesiastical titles where some titles are init caps and others are sentence caps for the article title). --Trödel 16:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I can agree to that (I was the one who moved it back). I'm not sure what my rationale was—I remember I had one yesterday, but either I can't remember it or else it doesn't seem as convincing to me today. Snocrates 20:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- LOL - well the rational for your position would be that the title should only be capitalized in conjunction with a person as in, Presiding Bishop Burton. Or Burton, the Presiding Bishop. Thus it would be Bishop Smith, or Joseph Smith, our Bishop. But elsewhere it would be your bishop is the one you should go to. etc. Which is the general rule but for higher offices where there is only one person it is commonplace, though not required practice, to use capitals for the entire name. The President, the Secretary of State, the Archbishop of Cantebury, etc. I think the Presiding Bishop meets that category. Lets wait a few days to see if someone else chimes in before making the move. --Trödel 15:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ha — yes, that was what I was thinking, I believe. I do agree with you point about use of capitals for some positions, and I think this one is borderline and could go either way. For now, I would say capitalize. Snocrates 20:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- LOL - well the rational for your position would be that the title should only be capitalized in conjunction with a person as in, Presiding Bishop Burton. Or Burton, the Presiding Bishop. Thus it would be Bishop Smith, or Joseph Smith, our Bishop. But elsewhere it would be your bishop is the one you should go to. etc. Which is the general rule but for higher offices where there is only one person it is commonplace, though not required practice, to use capitals for the entire name. The President, the Secretary of State, the Archbishop of Cantebury, etc. I think the Presiding Bishop meets that category. Lets wait a few days to see if someone else chimes in before making the move. --Trödel 15:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Start date of Burton's tenure
Hey Jgstokes, does your reference book specify a specific date in 1995 for the start of Burton's tenure? I was looking at H. David Burton, and there it's listed as January 1 (1996), but I think that's because (according to the ensign article referenced there) it says the previous presiding bishop, Merrill J. Bateman, started his tenure as BYU president on that date. It's unlikely that a new presiding bishop wasn't set apart until that date, though, so I think it's right that Burton became presiding bishop in 1995, I just thought we should update the exact date there. Snocrates 20:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Snocrates, you are correct. The Church wouldn't be without a Presiding Bishop that long. In every Church Almanac that has been put out for the last twelve years, Bishop Burton is listed as having been called on December 27, 1995, and sustained on April 6, 1996. The latest source saying so is found in the Deseret Morning News 2008 Church Almanac on pg. 62. While you're at it, if you have a copy of this particular Church Almanac, it might be wise to put an exact date on all of these listings. You'll find that information on pp. 107-109 of the same Almanac. For that matter, any Almanac since 1996 or so would give you the same information, since there has been no change in the PB since December 1995. I'd take care of this myself but have other things to do today. If you decide to do this, good luck with it. Should be fairly simple and straightforward. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! Yes, I have one for 2007, but someone's borrowed it. I'll make the changes on the H. David Burton page and the Merrill J. Bateman page to say the change happened on Dec 27/95, rather than Jan 1/96. I could add the dates for the others when I get my book back. Feel free to do it later if I haven't done it myself. Snocrates 21:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I tried to do it, but for some reason was logged off as a user midrevision, and it's too bothersome for me to try and do it again...unless I can find it in a previous edit. Wish me luck. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind. I found my revision by going back in my browser's history. Dates are fixed now and shouldn't need much more work. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I tried to do it, but for some reason was logged off as a user midrevision, and it's too bothersome for me to try and do it again...unless I can find it in a previous edit. Wish me luck. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! Yes, I have one for 2007, but someone's borrowed it. I'll make the changes on the H. David Burton page and the Merrill J. Bateman page to say the change happened on Dec 27/95, rather than Jan 1/96. I could add the dates for the others when I get my book back. Feel free to do it later if I haven't done it myself. Snocrates 21:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
