That’s three. :)

Having a few women speak in GC does not indicate that the women’s organizations are involved in GC. When Barbara Winder was General RS President, she visited our stake and I congratulated her on having a woman speak in General Conference and asked her how she selected the sister. Well, I might as well have grown an extra elbow, for the look on her face. She gently broke the news to me that she has nothing to do with the selection; she was merely informed or learned about it in some way.

I do not argue that women need to be ordained–only that women need to be involved in decision-making and taken seriously. And further, that the Church and men need for women to be taken seriously.

My former stake president (we had had numerous conversations on women in the church, when I was his stake RS president) was delighted to report to me that he attended the Solemn Assembly when President Hinckley was sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator; he described how after each of the Priesthood quorums sustained the Prophet, for the first time in the history of the Church, women were also asked to participate by standing and sustaining the President of the Church. This was presented to me as yet another breakthrough for women. However, having the advantage of not being born in the Church, I was candid with him. I was dumbfounded and thought he must be joking–that this practice was NEW. I asked him, no disrespect intended, but just to be clear–did he mean that throughout the entire history of the Church, women, along with Baptists, and Buddhists, and Catholics, and dogs and cats were NOT allowed to sustain the Prophet? Did he really mean this? And was he saying that now finally women COULD participate?

Getting back to the initial post in this thread, unfortunately we hear far too little from women in General COnference and thus they are under-represented in our Relief Society lessons. The tragedy is that as a result, all too many women feel that they have less to offer than men, simply because of their gender. I am a scholar of organizations and public policy, and I know and can explain the dynamics of the workings of religious institutions. I also have been very pleased and blessed to work with some of the best people I have ever known–priesthood leaders on the ward, stake, and General Authority level. They have been intelligent, wise, loving, and humble. In this post I am not commenting on individuals at all, but on an organizational system and culture of expectations which do not, in my view, serve the organization or the cause well.

Do we disagree? I think I largely agreed with Karen, though I thought she was swinging at shadows.

And certainly I agree when Laura said:

“For those listening for the voice of God, there is value, inspiration and revelation in all God-revealed Truth, whether it is spoken by a man, a woman, a child or Balaam’s ass.”

Who could disagree with that? In fact, except for adding a donkey to the list, it’s pretty much what I had already said.

I am fine with using any of the GC talks for Teachings for our Times if that is what the Stake wants to do. Perhaps we disagree because you think there should be a positive effort to include the women’s talks in ToT, whereas I am perfectly willing to leave it up to the Stake or Ward.

On that I am perfectly willing to agree to disagree.

There is no bemusement or lack of interest. But there is a hierarchy.

I don’t think anybody has said that the “non-keys” talks are not important, valuable, adn useful. If anybody has said that those talks are unimportant, than I join you in disagreeing with them. But I think it is probably a non-existent (or small) view around here. Well, Rosalynde and Kris said they hadn’t been impressed with recent ones, but I don’t think that was what you were talking about.

I certainly agree that even those without the keys making their talks potentially more relevant can preach great sermons. But at that point the issue becomes the talk itself and not who they are. I’d love to have a favorite talk from one of the RS presidency or Primary presidency at conference. I just haven’t heard one I’d really consider going back and reading over and over again. That is not a function of gender, just the talks that happen thus far to have been given by women. Hopefully that’ll change in the future. But it really isn’t a gender issue.

Other than that, I will just have to agree to disagree with you. Amen, to what Karen and Laura have said.