I’m thinking of putting up a new post in a few days focused on a different but related question: Do women come to earth with a Certain Unnamed Something that differs from men and that is in some respects analogous to the priesthood? The Elder Cowley quote above suggests it; other sources suggest it. Think about it and we’ll discuss soon.

It doesn’t look like it is, at least not in those words. Here is the closest I could find in 14:120:

The men are the lords of the earth, and they are more inclined to reject the Gospel than the women. The women are a great deal more inclined to believe the truth than the men; they comprehend it more quickly, and they are submissive and easy to teach, and if we cannot save the men, let us save the women for God’s sake, and do not find fault with us.

You can look around here, if you want to check it out some more.

But we also ought to remember that Brigham Young was all over the place on this issue. We could easily find citations where he appears to express the opposite opinion.

As daughters of God, you cannot imagine the divine potential within each of you. Surely the secret citadel of women’s inner strength is spirituality. In this you equal and even surpass men, as you do in faith, morality, and commitment when truly converted to the gospel. You have “more trust in the Lord [and] more hope in his word.” This inner spiritual sense seems to give you a certain resilience to cope with sorrow, trouble, and uncertainty.
(James E. Faust, “What It Means to Be a Daughter of God,” Ensign, Nov 1999, 100)

I also found this one:
Elder Matthew Cowley: “[M]en have to have something given to them [in mortality] to make them saviors of men, but not mothers, not women. [They] are born with an inherent right, an inherent authority, to be the saviors of human souls … and the regenerating force in the lives of God’s children.” (Matthew Cowley Speaks (1954), 109.)

First, to answer the question, I think we would need to agree on the definition of \”spiritual.\” In general though, I think generalizing is dangerous (is that contradictory?). There are always exceptions. I find it hard to believe that Heavenly Father would, as a blanket rule, make one gender more \”spiritual\” than another.

Based on my limited experience, I think women are often more sensitive, more caring, and more generous than are men, and perhaps some construe this or other traits as spirituality. More dangerous generalizations….

Regarding KLC\’s home teaching comments, I would say that the disparity in VT/HT results is at least partly to what each organization considers as a visit. At least in our ward, a VT visit is counted even if contact is made by phone, whereas a HT visit is generally counted only when a visit is made to the home.

KLC obviously performed much service for the family he was assigned to, and in my opinion, he should consider his home teaching as being completed. The church needs more home teachers that are willing and able to take care of such needs.

A wise stake president once counseled us that home teaching (same would be true of VT, I suppose) is never really \”complete.\” The criteria for \”counting\” home teaching was \”have you strengthened your family and invited them to come unto Christ?\” This could be done by babysitting the kids so that the couple could attend the temple or through various kinds of service and not necessarily a sit-down visit as we usually do.

Wow and ow. Such a condemning generalization. I don’t know about anyone else, but this is the way I view VT as well: “being a resource, a person you can call on to get help doing something that you can’t accomplish on your own.” Along with the visits that allow us to talk about the gospel and feel the Spirit, which is also important, IMO.

But FWIW, I doubt that the ‘women are more spiritual than men’ comment that some might make has much to do with VT or HT at all. I really would be interested to know what that BYU prof was thinking about, however.