Replies

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, while Mitt Romney is no longer an active "bishop", is he not (by definition) still a "retired bishop"/"former bishop"/"released bishop" (sort of like Pope Benedict XVI is still referred to as Pope Benedict XVI Emeritus, even though he is no longer the actual currently reigning Pope), and don't many Mormons still show great deference and respect for former Mormon "bishops", and still call them "bishop" when they address him?

While I do not know a whole lot about Mormonism, it seems apparent to me that many Mormons still refer to former bishops as "bishop", even though they have been "released" or "retired" from their active Mormon office, (as affirmed in various online Mormon discussions here, and here, and here, and here, etc.), and they often tend to put extra weight on what a bishop - active or retired - might say about something. Am I wrong about that?

You've mixed a couple things up. A released Bishop has no authority as a Bishop. Whether someone refers to a released Bishop by that title, for what ever reason, might be out of respect or even habit, has no bearing on that persons authority.

A released Bishop has no station. He might be called into the nursery next.

An LDS Bishop probably puts in 20 to 30 hours a week besides doing a regular job and taking care of their own families. It's a huge and important calling and worthy of respect. They will serve in that calling around 5 years and then released to whatever the Lord wants them to do next. Usually it's something light, like the nursery. They seriously deserve a rest.

It would be inappropriate for me to refer to Mitt Romney as Bishop Romney, because he's not a Bishop and he doesn't carry anything with him after he was release. He has the same status as every other man in his ward. Make sense?