The Loneliness of Leadership: speeches.byu.edu/talks/gordon-b-hinckley/loneliness-leadership/

To clarify, I don't think that they're referring to "the church" teaching this, so much as it being an incorrect yet pervasive and infrequently addressed perspective. Actually, she mentions numerous times that this is more an effect of culture than it is the church's doctrine - the doctrine itself is actually quite beautiful when it comes to marital intimacy. Regardless, I think you bring up some good points: Being a world wide church, I agree, these are pretty broad brush strokes to be painting with. Just because it may be a pervasive part of a church culture in one area, doesn't mean that it also that way in another. I also agree with your assessment that this seems to be what the world is teaching more than what the church is teaching. Right on point! I'd like elaborate on that with a question, if I may: how often does the world's teachings find its way into our church meetings - sometimes in the most subtle of ways. I learned as a missionary that what I was teaching was much less important than what was being understood and I had to approach teaching with a focus on truly understanding my investigator if there was going to be any progress. If we and our and youth are listening to the Doctrines of the church through the lens of the world, the things being brought up in this interview are actually likely to be unspoken undertones (from the world) to what is understood. As Paul taught, "we see through a lens darkly." As a result, there needs to be both some exploration and correction of these undertones. Unless they are addressed and clarified with true doctrines, anyone could go on for years without realizing how much more joy they could have had OR how much pain could have been avoided if only they understood the doctrine correctly. If anything, some of my take aways from this interview were more along the lines of: "Holy cow! I didn't even realize ... 1-this was the problem! (but it makes total sense) 2-that there was something much better (in the form of true doctrine, understood) and 3-that I'm not the only one experiencing the effects of this." That has left me wanting to share with all my worldly friends: "there's a much higher and holier way than what the world has taught us." (I definitely don't shout that from the rooftops but now I'm more open to those conversations). You're right, we don't teach this in church but maybe we don't realize that it's part of what is being understood and is going on uncorrected. Talking about marital sex and intimacy is a bit of a taboo topic in many church cultures I've experienced, particularly among men. There are probably a myriad of reasons for that but, to me, it seems that this podcast represents one of the most under-addressed and simultaneously most important topics to have addressed within a gospel context. I'm not saying "pull out all the stops and let's make this our 5th Sunday lesson." I am saying is that, perhaps leaders should be more conscientious about it as they go about their duties. This should be taught by true gospel doctrines in the right settings, in the right ways, not left to be taught by the world and left a mystery to people. To leaders this is one of the most difficult paradoxes of living in the world but not of the world. Part of guiding the flock includes being able to recognize what worldly influences are affecting them so we can teach the appropriate healing and directing doctrines clearly enough that they hopefully choose a better life. If we're oblivious to the world's influence while we're leading, maybe we should try to be "in the world" a little more while still holding strong to our resolution to "not be of [it]." If awareness is an interest, I'd recommend looking up a group called "Axis," a non-profit Christian organization that emphasizes connecting parents and adults to the lives of youth (particularly in regard to worldly influences.) I've loved that their approach has been informative, firm, and connective in ways that teens respond well to. Adding a restored gospel lense to it I'm sure would greatly enhance it's effects. Here's a link to the Axis website: axis.org/?A%252F%252Fsearch.brave.com%252F

Your experience is not anything like mine. I've also been in the church 40+ years and in leadership callings. I was explicitly taught that women had to manage mens sexuality. Modesty standards were enforced with the explanation that her short skirt or low cut shirt would tempt me, and she would be responsible for the temptation. Pres Oaks told YW that they became walking pornography to the men, which is again women being responsible for mens sexuality. Nursing mothers were asked to leave the chapel so as not to tempt the YM instead if educating them. Missionaries talk about how the number of baptisms he performs is directly correlated to how beautiful his wife would be, which objectified her before she ever met him. This is the best info on sexuality and the church that I've heard yet. This should be mandatory training for all church leaders and available to the membership in general through an endorsement by the 1st Pres.

This should be required. www.youtube.com/@TheMarriageFoundation

I don't think it's the number that is the problem. The YW, RS, and Primary have been lead by women for generations, but something has changed in the culture of the church to focus on the female aspects of the gospel. I hear that focus coming from male leaders at least as much as female leaders

I prefer informative, well-prepared lectures, not volunteer, impromptu discussions. Informative lectures are not boring to me.

Technically even today being an ordained Priesthood holder is not a requirement, just a very strong recommendation. Women are only to be called as Sunday School Presidents if there are not enough ordained Brothers, and even then the recommendation is non-ordained brothers before sisters. Councilors are supposed to be the same gender as the president, so a male Sunday School President is not supposed have female councilors or secretary. Which is not to say that Bishops and Stake Presidents always followed those guidelines. I know back in the 90s while I was on my mission a letter from the First Presidency came out about trying harder to find worthy Priesthood holders to fill the role. A Branch had the same female Sunday School President since it was organized back in the 70s. She was the widow of the original Branch President. I have talk to people who knew female Sunday School Presidents in rural Canada and in Branches in South America. This was also the same time that an effort was made to keep missionaries out of Branch Presidencies, which in the 60s, 70s, and 80s had become fairly common. From different records it seems it was far more common before the Sunday School organization was reorganized back in the 50s under Bruce R McConkie. Apparently, there was not even an official recommendation as to the gender of Sunday School Presidencies until McConkie became the Sunday School Superintendent, what is now known as the General Sunday School President. He seemed to be the one who felt that women should be the exception and not just an option. As far as I can tell, by 1980 there were no longer any sister Sunday School Presidents in the USA, although there would have been those who had served in such callings within living memory.

Gee, I thought that's why RS, YW and Primary are part of Ward Council...

Why even bother... You can have 0 hour church if you want...

Less callings because.....

​@@stevenshields754 A girl said it best in her primary prayer the other day she said "Please bless that it doesn't take so long so we can get home to our families."

@@csmusix so less meeting. Super down with that! To me, meeting and callings are different.