"Gender Equality" in the Church - Slides Leaked

[ALarson]

I've seen these discussed elsewhere, but not here.  They are some slides that were leaked yesterday regarding gender equality in the church.  I put "Gender Equality" in quotes in the title of this thread, because they are used in the title of the first slide.  They were reportedly made by a mission president.

I'd like this discussion to be about the slides and not about MormonLeaks or how they obtained these slides and so on, I hope we can keep it to the information contained on the slides.

They were posted yesterday with this explanation:

Quote

A PowerPoint slide deck created in 2014 that was meant to illustrate gender equality issues in the Mormon Church. This document was originally released by MormonLeaks™ September 23, 2017.

Here's a link to them (but if mods want it removed, just google "Gender Equality" MormonLeaks):

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/3/3d/Gender_Equality_in_the_Church-2014.pdf

I showed them to my wife this morning and she just kind of chuckled and said she isn't surprised about what is on them (and was not offended).  The only thing she did mention was that the continual use of the figure showing man at the head and women at the feet could be offensive to some, but she understands there are scriptural references supporting that teaching.

I see it as expressing that genders are not equal, but that they are equally valued in the church. 

Any thoughts?  

Edited September 24, 2017 by ALarson

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've seen these discussed elsewhere, but not here.  They are some slides that were leaked yesterday regarding gender equality in the church.  I put "Gender Equality" in quotes in the title of this thread, because they are used in the title of the first slide.

I'd like this discussion to be about the slides and not about MormonLeaks or how they obtained these slides and so on, I hope we can keep it to the information contained on the slides.

They were posted yesterday with this explanation:

Here's a link to them (but if mods want it removed, just google "Gender Equality" MormonLeaks):

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/3/3d/Gender_Equality_in_the_Church-2014.pdf

I showed them to my wife this morning and she just kind of chuckled and said she isn't surprised about what is on them (and was not offended).  The only thing she did mention was that the continual use of the figure showing man at the head and women at the feet could be offensive to some, but she understands there are scriptural references supporting that teaching.

Any thoughts?

Looks like a draft due to the two nearly-identical slides and the blank slide. I'm supposing that Cyril Figuerres is the same as the former Japan, Fukuoka Mission President 25 years ago... I'm also wondering about the source of the data for the slides. It is interesting that both viewpoints are shown to lead to the same place, that men and women are equally valued... is this a conclusion of research or an objective? 

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Looks like a draft due to the two nearly-identical slides and the blank slide. I'm supposing that Cyril Figuerres is the same as the former Japan, Fukuoka Mission President 25 years ago... I'm also wondering about the source of the data for the slides. It is interesting that both viewpoints are shown to lead to the same place, that men and women are equally valued... is this a conclusion of research or an objective? 

The source for the slides is reported to be a mission president from 2014.  There very clearly is two different sides (views) being discussed within the slides.  It appears the one on the right is what is being stressed (with scriptural support), but maybe I'm reading them wrong.

- Again, I'd like to discuss what is on the slides.-

Is it an accurate portrayal (no matter where they came from) regarding what the church has taught and what members believe?  If so, is that changing or shifting or likely to remain the same?  If not, why not?

Edited September 24, 2017 by ALarson

[CV75]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

The source is reported to be a mission president from 2014.  There very clearly is two different sides (views) being discussed within the slides.  It appears the one on the right is what is being stressed (with scriptural support), but maybe I'm reading them wrong.

Again, I'd like to discuss what is on the slides. 

Is it an accurate portrayal (no matter where they came from) regarding what the church teaches and what members believe?  If so, is that changing or shifting or likely to remain the same?  If not, why not?

My questions relate to being able to discuss the slides. I am asking about the data to help me ascertain whether it is an accurate portrayal, or at least within the scope of the study--or even whether it is based on a study. From my personal observation there are other viewpoints among members as well, and not all point to the same place, so I'm wondering what the scope and intent of this material is.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

My questions relate to being able to discuss the slides. I am asking about the data to help me ascertain whether it is an accurate portrayal, or at least within the scope of the study--or even whether it is based on a study. From my personal observation there are other viewpoints among members as well, and not all point to the same place, so I'm wondering what the scope and intent of this material is.

I think the two views are pretty accurate (regarding evolving beliefs on the left side and then the opinions or beliefs of some members on the other side)  I don't know what or if any data was used or if this is just the mission president's thoughts put into a slide presentation.

I actually see many members who believe somewhere in between the two sides (or views) now.  That is my personal observation.

I also see many of the youth falling in the category on the left.  There is much more emphasis for women to get a good education, careers and be prepared to support themselves and not be dependent on a man to take care of them.  (I believe education has always been encouraged by the church, just to clarify.)

I have also seen a few families now where the woman is the full time bread winner and the man stays home with the kids (this is the case with a few younger couples in my ward).

 

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think the two views are pretty accurate (regarding evolving beliefs on the left side and then the opinions or beliefs of some members on the other side)  I don't know what or if any data was used or if this is just the mission president's thoughts put into a slide presentation.

I actually see many members who believe somewhere in between the two sides (or views) now.  That is my personal observation.

I also see many of the youth falling in the category on the left.  There is much more emphasis for women to get a good education, careers and be prepared to support themselves and not be dependent on a man to take care of them.  (I believe education has always been encouraged by the church, just to clarify.)

I have also seen a few families now where the woman is the full time bread winner and the man stays home with the kids (this is the case with a few younger couples in my ward).

 

I'm seeing that the author of the slides once worked as a researcher for the Correlation Department. Perhaps these slides represent an effort to develop lesson and other materials that have a common appeal to all (both) viewpoints.

Edited September 24, 2017 by CV75

[Bernard Gui]

Looks like it is copyrighted.

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm seeing that the author of the slides once worked as a researcher for the Correlation Department. Perhaps these slides represent an effort to develop lesson and other materials that have a common appeal to all (both) viewpoints.

Perhaps.  I think it may be a good discussion to have (that may be of interest to some....but not to others, of course).

 

[JulieM]

45 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The source for the slides is reported to be a mission president from 2014.  There very clearly is two different sides (views) being discussed within the slides.  It appears the one on the right is what is being stressed (with scriptural support), but maybe I'm reading them wrong.

- Again, I'd like to discuss what is on the slides.-

Is it an accurate portrayal (no matter where they came from) regarding what the church has taught and what members believe?  If so, is that changing or shifting or likely to remain the same?  If not, why not?

I think it's actually quite accurate (from my perspective and experience).  I really do believe the leaders proclaim that the genders are equally valued, but that's not what is always shown or felt by the women in the church.  

I do think it's evolving.  Women now can pray in general conference and things like that which is progress.

I serve in the YW now and I really do see more emphasis (from the girls mainly) on wanting careers and earning enough money where they could support a family if needed.  They don't think about being dependent on men as much as say my generation did when I was their age.

[Tacenda]

The thing that bothered me most was the slide on the left, showing how little the women are involved in the Priesthood authority. The other slide on the right doesn't bother me so much. But don't know why they need to explain it to each other, the leaders. I wonder if there are men in the church that feel they are in charge of the women, or they are superior. 

Edited September 24, 2017 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I've seen these discussed elsewhere, but not here.  They are some slides that were leaked yesterday regarding gender equality in the church.  I put "Gender Equality" in quotes in the title of this thread, because they are used in the title of the first slide.  They were reportedly made by a mission president.

I'd like this discussion to be about the slides and not about MormonLeaks or how they obtained these slides and so on, I hope we can keep it to the information contained on the slides.

They were posted yesterday with this explanation:

Here's a link to them (but if mods want it removed, just google "Gender Equality" MormonLeaks):

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/3/3d/Gender_Equality_in_the_Church-2014.pdf

I showed them to my wife this morning and she just kind of chuckled and said she isn't surprised about what is on them (and was not offended).  The only thing she did mention was that the continual use of the figure showing man at the head and women at the feet could be offensive to some, but she understands there are scriptural references supporting that teaching.

I see it as expressing that genders are not equal, but that they are equally valued in the church. 

Any thoughts?  

If the slides are copyrighted or obtained illegally, that is germane to the discussion, I think. Particularly if these were just a preliminary draft or a theory that has now been abandoned. 

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The thing that bothered me most was the slide on the left, showing how little the women are involved in the Priesthood authority. The other slide on the left doesn't bother me so much. But don't know why they need to explain it to each other, the leaders. I wonder if there are men in the church that feel they are in charge of the women, or they are superior. 

That's a good point or question, Tacenda.

 I do think some men believe they are "in charge", but I don't know if they actually believe that they are "superior".  That's pretty much in the past (I hope!).  

I see it more that some men believe they are to preside over women (as the head vs. the feet may symbolize).

 

 

Edited September 24, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

I do think many will be watching to see how many women speak or give prayers next weekend in GC.

I know it won't ever be equal, but it's always nice to hear the women's voices and views.

[JulieM]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If the slides are copyrighted or obtained illegally, that is germane to the discussion, I think.

We don't know that they were "illegally" obtained.  I think the owner of that site posts here now sometimes so maybe he can comment.

But quotes from copyrighted books and material are regularly posted here and links to websites containing copyrighted material are posted often here too for discussion.  So I think this is at least a topic and views we can discuss. I don't know the laws on that, but if we can't, then should we be discussing people's blog posts, views or links?  How about quotes from books that are copyrighted?  We shouldn't discuss the author's writings and views if they are copyrighted?

Edited September 24, 2017 by JulieM

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I do think many will be watching to see how many women speak or give prayers next weekend in GC.

I know it won't ever be equal, but it's always nice to hear the women's voices and views.

That's funny.  My wife mentioned this too after she looked at the slide.  "Let's see how many women we hear from in the Saturday and Sunday sessions of GC."   I agree that their voice is important and should be heard.

I always enjoy hearing a woman's perspective (here and elsewhere) 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

That's a good point or question, Tacenda.

 I do think some men believe they are "in charge", but I don't know if they actually believe that they are "superior".  That's pretty much in the past (I hope!).  

I see it more that some men believe they are to preside over women (as the head vs. the feet may symbolize).

 

 

I re-read my post...I need to correct it. I mentioned the slide on the left twice.

I think that it is a problem with some men in the church feeling superior. And the slide was for leaders to go out and teach them not to. I know in general conference I've heard over and over that men are not to use their PH power to lourd over their wives. 

ETA: Listening to Sister Eubank's talk right now and like that she mentioned that Jesus hung out with the sinners. ETA again, oops, wrong thread. 

Edited September 24, 2017 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, JulieM said:

We don't know that they were "illegally" obtained.  I think the owner of that site posts here now sometimes so maybe he can comment.

 

That's right, we don't know. So the matter bears discussion 

Quote

But quotes from copyrighted books and material are regularly posted here and links to websites containing copyrighted material are posted often here too for discussion.  So I think this is at least a topic and views we can discuss. I don't know the laws on that, but if we can't, then should we be discussing people's blog posts, views or links?  How about quotes from books that are copyrighted?  We shouldn't discuss the author's writings and views if they are copyrighted? [\quote]

if they were obtained and posted illegally, that is an offense. Discussing and linking to them could be seen as consenting to and supporting such an offense, whether doing so is legal or not. 

So I think that too bears discussion, especially when the Church is the victim. 

Edited September 24, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That's right, we don't know. So the matter bears discussion 

Then maybe start another thread on that?  I think this one is focused on the thoughts or statements on the slides and we should discuss those at ALarson's request (he started the thread).  Some are interested in that too.

[JulieM]

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I re-read my post...I need to correct it. I mentioned slide on the left for each comment. I don't think that all men feel superior, not that that is what you thought, but maybe a problem with some men in the church feeling this way. And the slide was for leaders to go out and teach not to. I know in general conference I've heard over and over that men are not to use their PH power to lourd over their wives. 

I actually do see less and less of that happening too but it's still sometimes felt. I know my YW president has expressed that she feels "second class" sometimes in ward counsel meetings.  I think that's just her interpretation though really.  Nothing done on purpose.

Just look at the first thread started here about the women's session.  It wasn't about anything from a woman's talk! 

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I actually do see less and less of that happening too but it's still sometimes felt. I know my YW president has expressed that she feels "second class" sometimes in ward counsel meetings.  I think that's just her interpretation though really.  Nothing done on purpose.

Just look at the first thread started here about the women's session.  It wasn't about anything from a woman's talk! 

Right!

I accidently thought I was on the thread about Women's conference by Scott L. when I posted about the talk by Sis. Eubanks.  I am really not with it today. Maybe it's not good that I'm the feet, I'm going to make the man trip for sure.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Tacenda

[rchorse]

There are really only two slides, that I can see, as the 2nd slide is just repeated 3 times. There's also nothing to indicate it's an official church publication, how it was used, and by whom it was used. It really seems like something salvaged from the recycle bin on someone's computer.

It also appears to be no more authoritative than the musings of some random guy or maybe a presentation in a local ward meeting. The fact that it shows a copyright by someone other than the corporation of the first presidency seems especially odd to me. Who bothers to put a copyright symbol on something like this unless they're planning to publish it? But then it would clearly not be an official church publication, as the copyright would be wrong. Bottom line, I see absolutely nothing to indicate official approval or that it was even reviewed by the church or discussed at anything other than perhaps a local level. It's like leaking the minutes of an odd ward council discussion and then trying to generate controversy because weirdo Brother X said something crazy like he always does.

I'm having trouble understanding why I should care about one guy's opinion about gender equality in the church, even if the man was a mission president. Maybe you can help me understand.

 

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

We don't know that they were "illegally" obtained.  I think the owner of that site posts here now sometimes so maybe he can comment.

But quotes from copyrighted books and material are regularly posted here and links to websites containing copyrighted material are posted often here too for discussion.  So I think this is at least a topic and views we can discuss. I don't know the laws on that, but if we can't, then should we be discussing people's blog posts, views or links?  How about quotes from books that are copyrighted?  We shouldn't discuss the author's writings and views if they are copyrighted?

Good points.  Copyrighted material is regularly posted and sourced here.

I just wasn't sure about posting the link (and will remove it if the mods request me to).

As far as I know, they have ruled that the information in the leak can be discussed.

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, rchorse said:

There are really only two slides, that I can see, as the 2nd slide is just repeated 3 times. There's also nothing to indicate it's an official church publication, how it was used, and by whom it was used. It really seems like something salvaged from the recycle bin on someone's computer.

It also appears to be no more authoritative than the musings of some random guy or maybe a presentation in a local ward meeting. The fact that it shows a copyright by someone other than the corporation of the first presidency seems especially odd to me. Who bothers to put a copyright symbol on something like this unless they're planning to publish it? But then it would clearly not be an official church publication, as the copyright would be wrong. Bottom line, I see absolutely nothing to indicate official approval or that it was even reviewed by the church or discussed at anything other than perhaps a local level. It's like leaking the minutes of an odd ward council discussion and then trying to generate controversy because weirdo Brother X said something crazy like he always does.

I'm having trouble understanding why I should care about one guy's opinion about gender equality in the church, even if the man was a mission president. Maybe you can help me understand.

 

I don't think anyone has stated this officially came from church leaders (the source was given).  It certainly does express how many feel or believe about gender roles or equality in the church though.  I guess those that are interested can discuss it, others don't need to.  It's something I know that I care about for me (and for my girls and for the YW I serve who care about this too).

Edited September 24, 2017 by JulieM

[rchorse]

Just now, JulieM said:

...  It certainly does express how many feel or believe regarding gender roles or equality in the church though.  ...

Do we know that, though? It expresses more of a fringe view on equality in the church based on the members I've interacted with. I've never once met a member that would say men are the head and women are the feet. Saying women are the feet seems almost calculated to offend.

I'm sure there are people out there that feel this way, but I don't think any of us really has any idea how prevalent this type of thinking is.

It just seems odd to me to give any weight at all to a couple of random slides from a largely unknown member of the church. And that's assuming they're even authentic and not a fabrication. There's really no way to know.

But I've said my piece, and I'll bow out now.

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, rchorse said:

Do we know that, though? It expresses more of a fringe view on equality in the church based on the members I've interacted with. I've never once met a member that would say men are the head and women are the feet. Saying women are the feet seems almost calculated to offend.

I'm sure there are people out there that feel this way, but I don't think any of us really has any idea how prevalent this type of thinking is.

It just seems odd to me to give any weight at all to a couple of random slides from a largely unknown member of the church. And that's assuming they're even authentic and not a fabrication. There's really no way to know.

But I've said my piece, and I'll bow out now.

I think your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's here. I know as a woman growing up in the church, I've certainly felt it and still do at times (the inequality or head/foot).  I see much progress though.

Edited September 24, 2017 by JulieM