President Monson Goes FMH

September 29, 2007 | 34 comments
By

President Monson told the following joke at the General Relief Society meeting:

A man walked into a bookstore and asked the female clerk, “Do you have the book titled Man, the Master of Woman?”

The clerk replied, “Try the fiction section.”

34 Responses to President Monson Goes FMH

  1. Jack on September 29, 2007 at 9:46 pm

    And you fem’s that you were breaking new ground. Ha!

  2. Jack on September 29, 2007 at 9:49 pm

    Sheesh, that was stupid. Let me try again:

    And you fems *thought* you were breaking new ground.

  3. Jack on September 29, 2007 at 9:50 pm

    Ha!

  4. se7en on September 29, 2007 at 10:04 pm

    Cute.

  5. Matt W. on September 29, 2007 at 11:04 pm

    My wife said that Julie Beck really kicked some major behind and her counselors were also very tough. I think her exact words were that Julie wasn’t “fluffy” or “sweet”.

  6. Julie M. Smith on September 29, 2007 at 11:23 pm

    Matt W., I don’t think I heard much of the “you’re doing so well!” that I normally hear directed toward women at general meetings. The tone was definitely more of “here is what you should be doing.” I really appreciated it.

  7. Gina on September 29, 2007 at 11:30 pm

    I had the same impression as Julie. There was more direct counsel from both the RS Presidency and President Monson and I also appreciated it.

  8. Rosalynde Welch on September 29, 2007 at 11:36 pm

    Here’s what I thought of President Monson’s joke: http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2888

    I enjoyed Sister Beck quite a lot, and I think the second counselor (what’s her name?) is a real find.

  9. Julie M. Smith on September 29, 2007 at 11:40 pm

    I tried your test:

    A woman walked into a bookstore and asked the male clerk, “Do you have the book titled Woman, the Master of Man?”

    The clerk replied, “Try the fiction section.”

  10. Ray on September 29, 2007 at 11:59 pm

    Yep, Julie. It works either way – although many men probably would have responded with the non-fiction section. I know I accept the “Yes, Dear Theory.” (As evidenced by the fact that I just edited that title because my wife told me to change it.)

  11. manaen on September 30, 2007 at 5:03 am

    I watched this session on BYU-TV — now you know how we men get “touched up” in our Priesthood session: not “you’d really be happier if you’d…” but, “Now, brethren…”

  12. chronicler on September 30, 2007 at 2:58 pm

    I don’t know. I am just pointing out my “splitting hairs” observation. I find the idea that someone couldn’t take a minute to google someone’s name just as offensive as Pres. Monson’s joke. We are all individuals and like to be recognized. By calling someone “what’s her name” is as belittling as assuming she’s the wife of…. in an introduction.

  13. Ardis Parshall on September 30, 2007 at 4:37 pm

    chronicler (if you used a name, I would use it in return), I can split hairs, too. There is an enormous difference between calling someone “what’s her name” in a belittling manner and asking “what’s her name?” in a moment of forgetfulness. The question mark makes all the difference.

  14. Ray on September 30, 2007 at 6:00 pm

    chronicler – You found the joke and someone not remembering someone else’s name offensive? Seriously? I’m sorry – truly, I am, but I just don’t get being offended at either of those things.

  15. Tona on September 30, 2007 at 6:22 pm

    Decent thread on this meeting over at Exponent II, also.

  16. chronicler on September 30, 2007 at 10:39 pm

    You read it wrong Ray. If I were splitting hairs, I would have found them equally as offensive. What bothered me was the reference to Pres Monson’s joke as quite possibly being disingenuous to women and then using “what’s her name” as a way to identify a keynote speaker at the same event.

    Ardis, I did note the question mark. I just thought it odd that you didn’t take time to tab a new page and find out her name prior to making your comment. I think using a person’s name is important when speaking about their performance at any venue. I don’t use my name in public for personal reasons, If you send me an email, you’ll find out my name if you would like.

  17. Ray on September 30, 2007 at 10:52 pm

    Got it, c. Thanks for the clarification.

  18. Rosalynde Welch on September 30, 2007 at 10:53 pm

    Chronicler, I take your point; I apologize for offending you. The second counselor’s name is Barbara Thompson.

  19. Non-Arab Arab on October 1, 2007 at 12:11 am

    I referred to my future wife as “what’s her name” to friends before I met her in person (she has a unique spelling to her name that I had only seen in writing up to that point), she found out later, and boy howdy I’ve still not heard the end of it! “Now Brethren, don’t go calling your future wives what’s her face”.

  20. chronicler on October 1, 2007 at 12:59 am

    I made the comment to enlighten, not to be correct. Thank you Rosalynde. Now, I got your name correct too. Please accept my apologies as well.

  21. Peter LLC on October 1, 2007 at 7:03 am

    There is an enormous difference between calling someone “what’s her name” in a belittling manner and asking “what’s her name?” in a moment of forgetfulness. The question mark makes all the difference.

    Sure, and blogs are transcriptions of off-the-cuff remarks delivered under pressure.

  22. Adam Greenwood on October 1, 2007 at 8:26 am

    Jumping all over Rosalynde W. because she asked what the second counselor’s name was is idiotic. People who were really that concerned with the poor woman’s name would supply the requested information instead of casting stones.

  23. Roger on October 1, 2007 at 12:00 pm

    How come the Relief Society session is only 90 minutes and the Priesthood session is two hours? Do the brethren need more counsel? I babysat that night so my wife could attend, and would think the women would lengthen it out to have more respite from the children. I did flip over and watch portions of this conference and found it very enlightening, but couldn’t miss the BYU game at the same time.

  24. Julie M. Smith on October 1, 2007 at 12:19 pm

    “How come the Relief Society session is only 90 minutes and the Priesthood session is two hours?”

    My husband asked the same question. Answer: The 30 minute “no porn” talk is missing.

  25. Ray on October 1, 2007 at 12:26 pm

    Classic, Julie – and probably true.

  26. CS Eric on October 1, 2007 at 12:59 pm

    Julie,

    Sometimies it is the “no poker” talk, too.

  27. Janet on October 1, 2007 at 6:23 pm

    I think the women’s meeting is shorter because most stakes insist on preceeding it with a dinner, which eats up (sorry, couldn’t resist) the extra time.

    I missed the meeting this year due to travel. Glad to hear it was less fluffy than usual–now I’ll actually download it to the nano and listen! I appreciate the heads up.

  28. Y Stephenson on October 1, 2007 at 7:11 pm

    I think it is shorter because they have changed the format. There are only talks by the RS Presidency and none of the other organizations headed by women even though they are present and seated on the stand. Out here where we watch at the Stake center by satellite it is good to get home a little early as the meeting doesn’t start till much later than 6:00 p.m.

  29. Naismith on October 1, 2007 at 7:35 pm

    “I think the women’s meeting is shorter because most stakes insist on preceeding it with a dinner, which eats up (sorry, couldn’t resist) the extra time.”

    Since most LDS live outside of the mountain time zone, a dinner would not be appropriate for the time of day on which they are watching it.

    Plus, we had fast Sunday the next day, so we wouldn’t do a dinner, anyway.

  30. Janet on October 1, 2007 at 8:21 pm

    Nai, I’ve only lived in Utah for two years but we always had some sort of meal when I lived in other time zones as well. I wasn’t trying to be Utah-centric (I am NOT a Utahn; I just live here). But I actually really like the meal thing–even if I do then view the meeting while battling baked potato coma ;)

  31. Maryanne on October 2, 2007 at 9:00 pm

    #23 When your wife is home with the kids, is she “babysitting”? You just happened to hit on something that really bugs me, but why do we often hear men getting asked over the pulpit to “babysit” their children so their wives can attend enrichment, etc? Fathers are not babysitting, they are fathering. Or at least we hope.

  32. Téa on October 3, 2007 at 5:25 pm

    Apparently my comment noting that Roger must have been watching someone else’s children during the General Meeting was deleted. I agree, Maryanne, a father does not babysit his own children.

  33. Sussi Gilbert on October 7, 2007 at 1:09 am

    We had the actual experience in a bookstore, when asking for the book–Potty Training in a Day, and having the clerk (male) tell us to look in the Science Fiction Section.

    At the meal following the session, everyone spoke of the new presidency and how they seem like our real world of women. Great

  34. queuno on October 7, 2007 at 1:28 am

    Elders on missions = 24 months
    Sisters on missions = 18 months (or 75% of the time)

    Priesthood session = 120 minutes
    RS session = 90 minutes (or 75% of the time)

    I see a pattern emerging…