General authorities have a lot to say about the innate qualities of women and their divinely appointed role here on earth. What happens if we flip the sexes in what they have to say about the topic? Do we have a nonsensical statement because the logic is gender dependent, or do we end up with a statement that still agrees with LDS thought because gender is irrelevant?
"When at last the girl's father arrived, she started for the front door. Then suddenly she stopped, maybe remembering what a special time she had had with the young man.
"'Hey!' she asked. 'Are you Heavenly Mother's husband?'
The young man was startled - and sobered. At last he replied, 'No, but I am her son.'"
Elaine A. Cannon, "Voices," New Era, Jul. 1980, 13.
Besides being a sappy, poorly told story, there's nothing in this modified version that should offend LDS sensitivities. We might be caught off guard at first by a story about a naked little girl spending an afternoon with a young man, but I think that's mostly because American culture - disgustingly - has hyper-sexualized children. The most offensive aspect of this story is found in the original, where Heavenly Mother is called "Heavenly Father's wife". You know there's a problem with gender inequality when a woman's identity relies entirely on a reference to a man.