The question of direct or indirect exercise of power and influence is thorny, and probably not usefully discussed at the bottom of a 200+ comment thread, so I’m going to close the comments at this point. Don’t worry, if you wait ten minutes, there’s sure to be another chance to spout off about women’s roles somewhere in the bloggernacle.

But, since I’m the boss around here, I’m going to wield my power to have the last word on the subject of women’s power: last week, a discussion of some arcane baseball rule came up at our dinner table. I explained the rule, gave three instances in which it had been invoked recently, and detailed the history of the rule’s adoption. My 10-year-old said, “well, I’m going to ask Dad.” I asked why, since we’re very clear that I’m the freakish baseball fan of the family. His response was “well, Dad was an umpire once [in Little League, 30 years ago]. He has a uniform.” You can have all the spiritual, moral, and intellectual power you want, but institutional power still matters.

The End.

There is eternal influence and power in motherhood.

She proceeds to give multiple ways in which mothers can have tremendous power, and that is by teaching, working with, nurturing their children, and by preparing them to make and keep covenants.

Admittedly this is not what some women would choose, but this is God’s way. And certainly there is much that women can and do contribute outside of the home, but given the tremendous power and influence that mothers have within the home, why do some seem so determined to seek that power and influence elsewhere, even to the exclusion of the power and influence that lies easily within their reach?

Whether man or woman, our power and influence (the type that Heavenly Father wishes us to develop) is limited by our own righteousness and desire to seek and do God’s will.