As far as black men, mentioned by Keri and Michelle, I don’t think the author of this piece, whoever it was, intended to comment on race at all. I suspect, rather, that the idea of black members of the church wasn’t even on the author’s radar — if you had asked him or her about blacks directly, there would have been an instant recall of the priesthood restriction and all that it meant in that generation, but I suspect that in the absence of a direct reminder the whole issue simply never crossed the author’s mind. I have no way to prove that, of course, but that’s my instinct.

Anyway, it seems to me like the writer is confused, especially in the transitory phrases between paragraphs four and five. I find myself wanting to assume that the article was written by a man, but at that point, who knows?

I found that it rubs me wrong to hear it implied that only men can adjust to differing circumstances, that they are above society when it says, “the loss to women and to society is far more tragic than the loss to man himself.”

Whenever I read these types of historical documents I wonder, “What things that are being written now are going to be shocking to us and future generations?”

Fascinating, isn’t it?

The YW lesson I was referring to us the one I just taught this spring: http://lds.org/manual/young-women-manual-3/lesson-12-the-blessings-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

I don’t know if the other manuals are significantly different.

So men and women of good will have tried to answer questions that arise, such as why only men hold God’s priesthood. We will never know the truth unless God himself tells us. But as time passes and our culture changes, our explanations will change, too. I see nothing sinister in these changing explanations — indeed, I welcome them. If we ever did adopt a monolithic unchanging explanation, we would probably err. I love this flexibility, because one person can have his or her own understanding or explanation and another person can have his or her own differing explanation. This diversity of thought is wonderful.

In this context, I love reading how Latter-day Saints in the past thought of this matter, and other matters, too.

I’m still looking for a Primary lesson I saw before I started collecting these pieces that relates to HokieKate’s comment — the lesson contained advice to the teacher on how to handle questions from girls who asked why their brothers were being ordained and they were not.

As for my personal opinion, my lack of comment should not be taken either as approval nor as rejection of any particular comment or article. I’m still in the data-gathering stage.

Wow. Couldn’t help but think of George Banks in Mary Poppins…

I confess I’m happier with The Family, A Proclamation to the World’s more subtle phraseology” “By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.”