Another example: About 20 or so years ago, a scholar by the name of Shockley came out with a controversial book (called “The Bell Curve,” I think?) using statistical analysis to conclude that blacks were, as a group, less able than whites in certain areas. As you can imagine, the book provoked plenty of anger. What I find surprising is that Shockley failed to move on to the next question, which is, “So what?” Even assuming (for the sake of argument) that he was right, it doesn’t really matter. Each individual person, black or white or otherwise, deserves equal opportunities to excel or fail in the areas they choose. It doesn’t make any difference if one group is, as a group, better at something.

So I suppose our stereotypes of men being, on the whole, less compassionate, less empathic, and less charitable than women, may have some foundation in fact. I can’t say for sure. But it doesn’t matter. Both men and women need to develop those qualities, and the Priesthood is able to bless both men and women in their effort to do so.

I fully agree that the priesthood betters everyone equally. As I stated earlier, there is no inherent difference between men and women when it comes to compassion, empathy or charity, and the existence of the priesthood does not change that.

So you’re saying that the priesthood allows men and women to become better equally as they participate fully in the blessings of the priesthood?

However, there are some men who hold the Priesthood who aren’t kind, compassionate and Christlike.

But yes, the Priesthood can help them become more so. That’s if they use it properly.