As for Mormon women who I admire and look up to, that’s easy — Kristine Haglund Harris, Julie Smith, Rosalynde Welch, Melissa Proctor . . .

If my little daughter turns out like any of them, I’ll be quite happy. She doesn’t need to become Sheri Dew. Church callings are strange and unpredictable and (dare I say it?) political. Meanwhile, going to school, earning a degree, raising a family (or preparing to do so) — those are things that require personal initiative.

But I don’t think this is the Brethren’s desire or design, but merely the natural result of certain social conditions. First, Mormon women aren’t “prominent” within the Church because they don’t hold the priesthood. This is not a rant, complaint, or call to action, but a mere observation: most prominent men in the church are prominent because of their priesthood offices, or because of the work they’ve done in or for the church, which is closely connected to priesthood authority. Second, Mormon women are not generally “accomplished” because they have children. Again, not a rant, complaint or manifesto, just an observation: it’s much, much more difficult to attain high-level accomplishment without long blocks of uninterrupted time to work. Mothers of children don’t have these, particuarly during the decades of the twenties and thirties, which is when mental and physical faculties (with the exception of writing!) are at their sharpest.

I think most Mormons, the priesthood hierarchy included, would be highly pleased to see “great”–that is, prominent and accomplished and faithful–Mormon women emerge. But under the current conditions, which don’t seem likely to change soon, I don’t think this will happen.

It is true that I would say great men include Gordon Hinckley and Neal Maxwell while great women are the unknown mothers of the church. As some have suggested, that seems to suggest a different criteria in assessing the greatness of each gender. But it’s not.

Hinckley and Maxwell are great, not because of their callings, but because of who they are – they’re faith, humility, etc. They would be equally great if they were not apostles, or if they were unknown altogether. There are an equal number of Hinckley and Maxwell women out there too, but we just don’t know them, because they don’t have apostolic callings.

The issue seems to be, not that women aren’t great, nor that they are given patronizing criteria for greatness, but that we simply don’t know who all the great ones are.

Rosalynde: doesn’t it point out an inconsistency to say that “most Mormons, the priesthood hierarchy included, would be highly pleased to see “great”…Mormon women emerge” and yet point out that conditions at present do not permit this? How can we say that our leaders want great Mormon women if our organization does not promote their growth?

Or are we saying that “great” mormon women are mints on our pillow — a nice touch, but not important?

I really enjoyed reading your comments and since I just recently read some of the issues surrounding Ulrich’s “disinvitation” to Women’s Conference, I think you make a good point.

During the discussion, I struggled with the definition of “great”, but now I am wondering about the term “Mormon woman”. Can we even agree on anything other than a woman who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? (Critics note the small “d” here! :) )How do we define her as different from a “Mormon man” other than her physiology?

Oh, and I don’t even know what to say about Eve being a “Great American Woman”.

Also, it’s interesting to note that many of the people mentioned as possible great women are those whose achievements have focused on women or feminism. Is this because women who achieve notable things only do so in fields related to feminism or women’s issues, or because we are unwilling to pay attention to women accomplishing things in the infinite other fields of endeavor?