When Pres. Nelson asked the RS Presidency to edit is GC talk

[Nofear]

A very interesting anecdote about his first general conference talk as President of the Church to the Relief Society.
 

 

[JVW]

I watched about half of this video last night and it started off promising but kind of fizzled out. For those who don't want to watch the video this is the story, "I got an unexpected meeting notification on my calendar with President Nelson, so did the other two sisters in the RS presidency. We went to his office and he gave us a pencil and a copy of his women's session talk and asked us for feedback on it. We gave him feedback and chatted for awhile and had a good time. I was so nervous at first!". Interviewer asks, "What feedback did you give? What did you talk about?". Sister says, "That's the craziest thing! I don't remember. Sorry."

What I thought was the most interesting part was when my wife said, "Did you know that Sharon Eubank invited a queer lesbian on stage and interviewed her during 2021 BYU Women's Conference?" So I looked it up and that was a lot more interesting to watch and we had a nice conversation about it discussing different angles on what was good and bad about what she said and what she represented. But the OP interview just didn't really have anything juicy in it although this Sister is very sweet and I like her a lot.

[Rain]

7 minutes ago, JVW said:

I watched about half of this video last night and it started off promising but kind of fizzled out. For those who don't want to watch the video this is the story, "I got an unexpected meeting notification on my calendar with President Nelson, so did the other two sisters in the RS presidency. We went to his office and he gave us a pencil and a copy of his women's session talk and asked us for feedback on it. We gave him feedback and chatted for awhile and had a good time. I was so nervous at first!". Interviewer asks, "What feedback did you give? What did you talk about?". Sister says, "That's the craziest thing! I don't remember. Sorry."

What I thought was the most interesting part was when my wife said, "Did you know that Sharon Eubank invited a queer lesbian on stage and interviewed her during 2021 BYU Women's Conference?" So I looked it up and that was a lot more interesting to watch and we had a nice conversation about it discussing different angles on what was good and bad about what she said and what she represented. But the OP interview just didn't really have anything juicy in it although this Sister is very sweet and I like her a lot.

The big part of it was that he asked for the women leader's perspective and used their suggestions on his talk. That may not sound like a big thing, but from everything I've read it was just not a thing done at all - at least for many, many years.  

[JVW]

6 minutes ago, Rain said:

The big part of it was that he asked for the women leader's perspective and used their suggestions on his talk. That may not sound like a big thing, but from everything I've read it was just not a thing done at all - at least for many, many years.  

I agree, that's really nice. It's just not worth 10 minutes of my life to learn, I'd rather get that snippet from a 30 second short.

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, JVW said:

I watched about half of this video last night and it started off promising but kind of fizzled out. For those who don't want to watch the video this is the story, "I got an unexpected meeting notification on my calendar with President Nelson, so did the other two sisters in the RS presidency. We went to his office and he gave us a pencil and a copy of his women's session talk and asked us for feedback on it. We gave him feedback and chatted for awhile and had a good time. I was so nervous at first!". Interviewer asks, "What feedback did you give? What did you talk about?". Sister says, "That's the craziest thing! I don't remember. Sorry."

What I thought was the most interesting part was when my wife said, "Did you know that Sharon Eubank invited a queer lesbian on stage and interviewed her during 2021 BYU Women's Conference?" So I looked it up and that was a lot more interesting to watch and we had a nice conversation about it discussing different angles on what was good and bad about what she said and what she represented. But the OP interview just didn't really have anything juicy in it although this Sister is very sweet and I like her a lot.

I feel like the 'juicy' part is just that he would invite the RS presidency to give him feedback and make edits (and not on what the edits were).

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Rain said:

The big part of it was that he asked for the women leader's perspective and used their suggestions on his talk. That may not sound like a big thing, but from everything I've read it was just not a thing done at all - at least for many, many years.  

Great minds think alike.   

[the narrator]

I have my issues with some things Nelson did, but he was genuinely interested in increasing the roles of women in the Church. I recently learned that there were also some MAJOR updates to the temple in that regard that he wanted to implement (and were even filmed), but unfortunately others in leadership were not as excited about them, and they have been dropped for the moment. Who knows if future leaders will soon take them up again.

[JVW]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I feel like the 'juicy' part is just that he would invite the RS presidency to give him feedback and make edits (and not on what the edits were).

That juicy part was covered in the first 3 or 4 minutes of the interview. I gave it a few more minutes after that and then stopped watching cause there wasn't anything else interesting being talked about.

[Rain]

7 minutes ago, JVW said:

I agree, that's really nice. It's just not worth 10 minutes of my life to learn, I'd rather get that snippet from a 30 second short.

I get that.  For many women who have felt like their input didn't matter in the church this is a huge thing, especially after they have read about how the Proclamation on the Family came about.

[MustardSeed]

🤪

Edited October 8, 2025 by MustardSeed

[Peacefully]

Sad really, when we have women CEOs and leaders of countries, yet we are supposed to be excited that a man in power asks our opinion. How far behind are we? 

[Rain]

49 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Sad really, when we have women CEOs and leaders of countries, yet we are supposed to be excited that a man in power asks our opinion. How far behind are we? 

I think she said this was in 2017.  I was curious to know if that continued or not, but she didn't say.

[JVW]

54 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Sad really, when we have women CEOs and leaders of countries, yet we are supposed to be excited that a man in power asks our opinion. How far behind are we? 

Depends on how much you believe the man in power is a prophet of the God of Israel akin to Moses, Elijah, John the Baptist, and Paul. I think it would be very exciting to be asked my opinion by a prophet of God, and I think my wife would be too, i don't think that gender matters in this case.

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

Depends on how much you believe the man in power is a prophet of the God of Israel akin to Moses, Elijah, John the Baptist, and Paul. I think it would be very exciting to be asked my opinion by a prophet of God, and I think my wife would be too, i don't think that gender matters in this case.

[Peacefully]

3 hours ago, JVW said:

Depends on how much you believe the man in power is a prophet of the God of Israel akin to Moses, Elijah, John the Baptist, and Paul. I think it would be very exciting to be asked my opinion by a prophet of God, and I think my wife would be too, i don't think that gender matters in this case.

Yet the premise of the article was that he wanted a woman’s opinion and how extraordinary that was. My comment stands. 

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

Yet the premise of the article was that he wanted a woman’s opinion and how extraordinary that was. My comment stands. 

I personally don't think it was extraordinary at all. God often inspires His servants (be they the prophet, bishop, RS pres, etc. etc.) with something that He wants done and sometimes a specific message for those in their stewardship. It is much less common for the Lord to tell us how we are to achieve that goal or much less how to present that message. Reading between the lines of the 2018 talk this seems to be one of those cases. God wanted the sisters to have greater participation in the gathering of Israel. I personally don't think Christ told Pres. Nelson what he should say specifically as to how to encourage that. He brought his own wisdom to the table there. Recognizing the potential bias of his gender in influencing his perspective, he asked for feedback on what and how to deliver that message. The point is that knowing our leaders can be cognizant of potential short coming that our mortal experience can bring to the table is something we all should be aware of, irrespective of position in the hierarchy of the Church. One of the reasons councils are so emphasized---they can and ought to be venues that help overcome that.

Edited October 8, 2025 by Nofear

[JVW]

6 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Yet the premise of the article was that he wanted a woman’s opinion and how extraordinary that was. My comment stands. 

Uh... if the lady being interviewed was excited, I don't think she was excited because "how could he want to get my opinion, a mere woman". I think she was excited because she really respects and admires him and views her own opinion as insignificant in contrast to his. I could be wrong because she mentioned how she was an immigrant and stuff. So she did place some emphasis on how her labels bring her a sense of humility in contrast to the prophet. But there are many people who practically worship the prophet, male and female, who would all feel like they were meeting with a giant among mortals if they were invited to a meeting with him.

If you look at the church pipeline I'm pretty sure all church leaders counsel with women. Bishops in counsel settings have women present and get their input on running ward affairs. I imagine Stake Presidents have female leaders at the Stake level that they counsel with. It is not a rare commodity for a women to participate in giving their opinions about how to run the church. IDK about Seventies and stuff like that, I haven't been exposed to it. Women get to express their opinions all over the place, I'm not sure what your on about here.

[Rain]

8 hours ago, JVW said:

Uh... if the lady being interviewed was excited, I don't think she was excited because "how could he want to get my opinion, a mere woman". I think she was excited because she really respects and admires him and views her own opinion as insignificant in contrast to his. I could be wrong because she mentioned how she was an immigrant and stuff. So she did place some emphasis on how her labels bring her a sense of humility in contrast to the prophet. But there are many people who practically worship the prophet, male and female, who would all feel like they were meeting with a giant among mortals if they were invited to a meeting with him.

If you look at the church pipeline I'm pretty sure all church leaders counsel with women. Bishops in counsel settings have women present and get their input on running ward affairs. I imagine Stake Presidents have female leaders at the Stake level that they counsel with. It is not a rare commodity for a women to participate in giving their opinions about how to run the church. IDK about Seventies and stuff like that, I haven't been exposed to it. Women get to express their opinions all over the place, I'm not sure what your on about here.

This was in 2017 and it has got better, but I can tell you that not all leaders counsel with women. I specifically saw a difference in the stake presidency over my area now and the prior one.  The prior one didn't have intervews with women leaders.  It did not have stake council. Some of the women leaders were very frustrated because they were not listened to. The current one welcomes and listens to the women with open arms. They aren't perfect at it, but they welcome council from their women leaders and coumcil from their men leaders when they are missing something from the women.

I've also seen a big difference from bishops as to counciling with their women leaders.

One thing that is important is the idea of counciling with wives.  Some leaders seem to think that if they council with their wives they are doing what they need to.  Counciling with their wives is a good thing, but when running a church organization the more important thing is to council with the women leaders who are actually put to lead. When some leaders council with wives they seem to believe they counciled with women so they don't need to council with the female leaders.  

Even if you assumed that male leaders have the required meetings with women (you can't as I have experienced) you have to assume they know how to listen and take council from women leaders, which you definitely can't.  Some leaders don't even know how to take or get council from their male leaders.

It's getting better, but you can't just assume all male leaders council with women or women's leaders.

[Peacefully]

9 hours ago, JVW said:

Uh... if the lady being interviewed was excited, I don't think she was excited because "how could he want to get my opinion, a mere woman". I think she was excited because she really respects and admires him and views her own opinion as insignificant in contrast to his. I could be wrong because she mentioned how she was an immigrant and stuff. So she did place some emphasis on how her labels bring her a sense of humility in contrast to the prophet. But there are many people who practically worship the prophet, male and female, who would all feel like they were meeting with a giant among mortals if they were invited to a meeting with him.

If you look at the church pipeline I'm pretty sure all church leaders counsel with women. Bishops in counsel settings have women present and get their input on running ward affairs. I imagine Stake Presidents have female leaders at the Stake level that they counsel with. It is not a rare commodity for a women to participate in giving their opinions about how to run the church. IDK about Seventies and stuff like that, I haven't been exposed to it. Women get to express their opinions all over the place, I'm not sure what your on about here.

If you don’t understand, I don’t have the time, patience, or inclination to explain to you what I’m “on about”. Feel free to scroll on by. 

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, JVW said:

Uh... if the lady being interviewed was excited, I don't think she was excited because "how could he want to get my opinion, a mere woman". I think she was excited because she really respects and admires him and views her own opinion as insignificant in contrast to his. I could be wrong because she mentioned how she was an immigrant and stuff. So she did place some emphasis on how her labels bring her a sense of humility in contrast to the prophet. But there are many people who practically worship the prophet, male and female, who would all feel like they were meeting with a giant among mortals if they were invited to a meeting with him.

If you look at the church pipeline I'm pretty sure all church leaders counsel with women. Bishops in counsel settings have women present and get their input on running ward affairs. I imagine Stake Presidents have female leaders at the Stake level that they counsel with. It is not a rare commodity for a women to participate in giving their opinions about how to run the church. IDK about Seventies and stuff like that, I haven't been exposed to it. Women get to express their opinions all over the place, I'm not sure what your on about here.

I don’t completely agree with Peacefully’s perspective but I agree with parts and I think I understand what she’s trying to say (maybe).

In all the examples you shared, the “power” in the relationship resides with the man. They get to decide if and how much they want to counsel with the women in the church. If they decide they don’t want to counsel with any women at all, they could probably get away with it. Women leaders must wait in the wings, hoping their male leaders want to hear from them and will listen. 

In ward, stake, and general leadership, men get to express their views by virtue of their leadership callings while women get to express their views by invitation.

This means that women’s voices are dependent on male allowance. In some circumstances, and with some leaders, it can feel infantilizing.  Especially if a man expects women to be grateful that they were allowed to share their opinions.

Thankfully, I think that such men in the church are very very few and far between now. This was not the case even 40 years ago, but things have gotten much better. And I don’t believe that President Nelson was of that mindset at all.  But still, the baggage goes deep and in a lot of ways has never been dealt with.  These kinds of topics can really touch that nerve because in many women (not all women) it’s still raw.

(and to be fair to the men, I don’t think most of them enjoy being in the position that they are in regards to women. I don’t think they want to be the arbiter of their voices or the final voice of authority by virtue of their gender.  They are as caught up in the organization of the church and the gendered aspect of priesthood leadership as much as the women are.  And if they truly and sincerely believe that this is how God has set it up—as many women do—they would be apostate to take it upon themselves to change it. It would be wrong for any woman to pressure any man to act against God’s commandments. No matter how noble the cause.

At the same time, men’s willingness to acknowledge, recognize, and validate the inequalities in church and the effect they have on women and girls, would create an unmeasurable amount of goodwill and healing.)

[Peacefully]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don’t completely agree with Peacefully’s perspective but I agree with parts and I think I understand what she’s trying to say (maybe).

In all the examples you shared, the “power” in the relationship resides with the man. They get to decide if and how much they want to counsel with the women in the church. If they decide they don’t want to counsel with any women at all, they could probably get away with it. Women leaders must wait in the wings, hoping their male leaders want to hear from them and will listen. 

In ward, stake, and general leadership, men get to express their views by virtue of their leadership callings while women get to express their views by invitation.

This means that women’s voices are dependent on male allowance. In some circumstances, and with some leaders, it can feel infantilizing.  Especially if a man expects women to be grateful that they were allowed to share their opinions.

Thankfully, I think that such men in the church are very very few and far between now. This was not the case even 40 years ago, but things have gotten much better. And I don’t believe that President Nelson was of that mindset at all.  But still, the baggage goes deep and in a lot of ways has never been dealt with.  These kinds of topics can really touch that nerve because in many women (not all women) it’s still raw.

(and to be fair to the men, I don’t think most of them enjoy being in the position that they are in regards to women. I don’t think they want to be the arbiter of their voices or the final voice of authority by virtue of their gender.  They are as caught up in the organization of the church and the gendered aspect of priesthood leadership as much as the women are.  And if they truly and sincerely believe that this is how God has set it up—as many women do—they would be apostate to take it upon themselves to change it. It would be wrong for any woman to pressure any man to act against God’s commandments. No matter how noble the cause.

At the same time, men’s willingness to acknowledge, recognize, and validate the inequalities in church and the effect they have on women and girls, would create an unmeasurable amount of goodwill and healing.)

Thank you, BB. I am not impugning President Nelson, at all. I greatly loved and respected him as the prophet. I’m sure I would have been excited and nervous if I met him personally. What I find sad is some in the church are excited and amazed when women are asked for their opinions at a high level. Short of a revelation, women will always be just shy of equal, no matter how hard male leaders try to include us. 

[JVW]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don’t completely agree with Peacefully’s perspective but I agree with parts and I think I understand what she’s trying to say (maybe).

In all the examples you shared, the “power” in the relationship resides with the man. They get to decide if and how much they want to counsel with the women in the church. If they decide they don’t want to counsel with any women at all, they could probably get away with it. Women leaders must wait in the wings, hoping their male leaders want to hear from them and will listen. 

In ward, stake, and general leadership, men get to express their views by virtue of their leadership callings while women get to express their views by invitation.

This means that women’s voices are dependent on male allowance. In some circumstances, and with some leaders, it can feel infantilizing.  Especially if a man expects women to be grateful that they were allowed to share their opinions.

Thankfully, I think that such men in the church are very very few and far between now. This was not the case even 40 years ago, but things have gotten much better. And I don’t believe that President Nelson was of that mindset at all.  But still, the baggage goes deep and in a lot of ways has never been dealt with.  These kinds of topics can really touch that nerve because in many women (not all women) it’s still raw.

(and to be fair to the men, I don’t think most of them enjoy being in the position that they are in regards to women. I don’t think they want to be the arbiter of their voices or the final voice of authority by virtue of their gender.  They are as caught up in the organization of the church and the gendered aspect of priesthood leadership as much as the women are.  And if they truly and sincerely believe that this is how God has set it up—as many women do—they would be apostate to take it upon themselves to change it. It would be wrong for any woman to pressure any man to act against God’s commandments. No matter how noble the cause.

At the same time, men’s willingness to acknowledge, recognize, and validate the inequalities in church and the effect they have on women and girls, would create an unmeasurable amount of goodwill and healing.)

Ok, that makes sense, thank you for explaining. I understand what you're saying. The church has grown and changed so rapidly that it seems like there is a variety of baggage from each generation still living. I know that my mom, born in '63 in Seattle in a family of 11 who believed that their mom was a prophetess, believed that breaking the law of chastity was as bad as murdering someone, and that if she was raped then she was going to hell for it. And, to me, that view sounds like a different sect, but I know there were many, many people who grew up believing that and probably still do.

I imagine there are probably plenty of younger women who feel like male priesthood stuff sucks, but I imagine the baggage is different, and deeper, for older generations because they grew up in a time before women were really part of the workforce, or their grandmother was in a polygamous family, or whatever. Less removed from the old misogynistic church if that makes sense.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Thank you, BB. I am not impugning President Nelson, at all. I greatly loved and respected him as the prophet. I’m sure I would have been excited and nervous if I met him personally. What I find sad is some in the church are excited and amazed when women are asked for their opinions at a high level. Short of a revelation, women will always be just shy of equal, no matter how hard male leaders try to include us. 

I hope I did not give the impression that I thought you did think that of President Nielson!  I understood where your ire was aimed. And I think it’s valid.  I personally don’t have a problem with men being ordained and women not being ordained, but I get why a lot of women do. 

[Peacefully]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I hope I did not give the impression that I thought you did think that of President Nielson!  I understood where your ire was aimed. And I think it’s valid.  I personally don’t have a problem with men being ordained and women not being ordained, but I get why a lot of women do. 

No, I didn’t think that:) I just wanted to make it clear to everyone, including JVW that I have no problem with whoever the prophet is, although I may disagree on some things. It isn’t even priesthood ordination, per se, it is just the fact that there are amazing women in our church who are every bit as qualified as men to be bishops, stake presidents, and even prophets, but there is no path for that. It seems very old-fashioned and out of step when women are in places of power everywhere else. I think if Joseph Smith lived today he would welcome women leaders, but maybe I think of him as being more progressive than he actually was. I need to do more study there. 

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, Peacefully said:

What I find sad is some in the church are excited and amazed when women are asked for their opinions at a high level. Short of a revelation, women will always be just shy of equal, no matter how hard male leaders try to include us. 

We ought not be amazed. Seeking counsel from the sisters  should be the norm from branch leadership to the quorum of the First Presidency. Seeking counsel won't change the gender disparity in the administration and bureaucracy* of the Church, but we have been told more than once that the Lord wants the counsel of the women in the councils of the Church, formally and informally. What's nice is that this is an explicit example of the President of the Church doing so. If he can do it, we all can and should.


* I don't use bureaucracy as a bad word here. It's necessary.