Part 2: FPR on how the BYU AVP's unfettered discretion undermines academic freedom and merit hiring. Example: publish in Dialogue and you can't even get an interview. (Dave) ... See MoreSee Less
"Our society’s information environment steers the public to view conflicts as just a part of a bigger culture war, a battle of winner-takes-all in which there is only ever one right and one wrong, and where the only answer to any question is either “yes” or “no.” Such polarizing only hardens our hearts and coarsens our reason." (Julie) ... See MoreSee Less
FPR looks at BYU's Statement Against Academic Freedom. (Dave) ... See MoreSee Less
Not doctrine, not history -- just a touching story and a good seminary teacher. (Dave) ... See MoreSee Less
This is what happens when you put the Missionary Department in charge of LDS historical sites. (Dave) ... See MoreSee Less
A 4-part series on corporatism, the organizational imperative, and Correlation, by a former Ensign editor. (Ben S) http://mormonomics.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-most-powerful-idea-in-universe-part.html ... See MoreSee Less
A Chicago newspaper editor visits Temple Square. You won't believe what happened next. (Dave) http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83091729/ ... See MoreSee Less
Cyclone Pam leveled Vanuatu, but all LDS missionaries now accounted for. Great photos. (Dave) ... See MoreSee Less
My summary of feedback from bishops and stake presidents: In theory, you can publicly support gay marriage and maybe even OW and keep your membership and temple recommend. Just not generally in practice. But they all affirm inerrancy of the Brethren (not a doctrine of the Church) and expect you to as well. (Dave) ... See MoreSee Less
John Dehlin's appeal to the First Presidency. (Dave) ... See MoreSee Less
At SL Trib: Gospel topics essays teach the messy part of Mormon history. And no, you can't talk to the authors. (Dave) ... See MoreSee Less
Dr. Tom Roberts publishes a letter to Christian leaders about Mormonism, encouraging dialogue and acceptance. He also suggests we Mormons get around to figuring out our doctrine. (Dave) ... See MoreSee Less
Elder Holland on Mark Twain's cats (and a few other things like religious liberty). Julie ... See MoreSee Less
Fiona Givens and Terryl Givens on doubt (and why it doesn't have to be so dangerous) at Meridian Magazine Expand. (Nathaniel) ... See MoreSee Less
The link between talents and service beautifully explained. (Julie) ... See MoreSee Less
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.”
And you fem’s that you were breaking new ground. Ha!
Sheesh, that was stupid. Let me try again:
And you fems *thought* you were breaking new ground.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
I tried your test:
A woman walked into a bookstore and asked the male clerk, â€œDo you have the book titled Woman, the Master of Man?â€
The clerk replied, â€œTry the fiction section.â€
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.)
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…”
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.
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.
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.
Decent thread on this meeting over at Exponent II, also.
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.
Got it, c. Thanks for the clarification.
Chronicler, I take your point; I apologize for offending you. The second counselor’s name is Barbara Thompson.
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”.
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.
There is an enormous difference between calling someone â€œwhatâ€™s her nameâ€ in a belittling manner and asking â€œwhatâ€™s her name?â€ 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.
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.
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.
“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.
Classic, Julie – and probably true.
Sometimies it is the “no poker” talk, too.
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.
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.
“I think the womenâ€™s meeting is shorter because most stakes insist on preceeding it with a dinner, which eats up (sorry, couldnâ€™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.
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 ;)
#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.
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.
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
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…