"Gender Equality" in the Church - Slides Leaked

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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.

I think the provenance of the stolen document is germane, because it is so old. It may or may not be authoritative or reflect current thinking. If it doesn't, then discussion of it at this point would be essentially moot. 

 

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think the provenance of the stolen document is germane, because it is so old. It may or may not be authoritative or reflect current thinking. If it doesn't, then discussion of it at this point would be essentially moot. 

 

Then don't participate.  I think information in a leak can be discussed. 

The thoughts in the slides do represent some feelings (on both sides).  Some will want to discuss and some won't like any topic here.

(And the document is not "so old", is it?  I thought it was from 2014?  That's the date on the slide.)

Edited September 24, 2017 by JulieM

[Pete Ahlstrom]

In my opinion, these gender equality issues will always be there as long as men are making the role defining choice for women.  Men choose who does what, ultimately, and the slide where the man is represented by the head and the woman as the feet is telling.  It may be getting better as agitation certainly works in any organization, whether inside or outside.

[Tacenda]

I'd like to see the day that women speak more in conference (minus a "primary voice"), and why not a woman speak in the General Priesthood Session, like Pres. Uchtodorf did in the women's conference? If women aren't allowed, why the men? Or maybe this isn't tolerable? Or maybe not and then men could stand to have a woman come speak to the men. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Then don't participate.  I think information in a leak can be discussed. 

The thoughts in the slides do represent some feelings (on both sides).  Some will want to discuss and some won't like any topic here.

(And the document is not "so old", is it?  I thought it was from 2014?  It's not?)

Why should I not participate when I feel I have something worthy of consideration to contribute. 

The stolen document is three years old. A lot of water could have passed under the bridge since then. Do these slides reflect the thinking of Church leaders today? We have no way of knowing, because it was obtained and posted without permission (and quite possibly in violation of the law). 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'd like to see the day that women speak more in conference (minus a "primary voice"), and why not a woman speak in the General Priesthood Session, like Pres. Uchtodorf did in the women's conference? If women aren't allowed, why the men? Or maybe this isn't tolerable? Or maybe not and then men could stand to have a woman come speak to the men. 

Why are you disparaging the way these women speak ("primary voice")? That strikes me as disrespectful, unkind and as sexist as some of the things I've seen men accused of. 

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why should I not participate when I feel I have something worthy of consideration to contribute. 

The stolen document is three years old. A lot of water could have passed under the bridge since then. Do these slides reflect the thinking of Church leaders today? We have no way of knowing, because it was obtained and posted without permission (and quite possibly in violation of the law). 

We don't know if it's stolen from what I can tell (and 3 years old isn't really considered an "old document", IMO) This is off topic from what has been requested by the member posting the OP.  Just start a new thread if you want to discuss how these leaked documents are leaked as I think many may want to discuss that.  You may even get input from the owner of the site who I've seen post here recently!

I read the ruling about leaks from the mods just how and discussing the information in them is allowed.  I think that's the purpose of this thread and you keep trying to go off topic.

Edited September 24, 2017 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, JulieM said:

We don't know if it's stolen from what I can tell.  This is off topic from what has been requested by the member posting the OP.  Just start a new thread if you want to discuss how these leaked documents are leaked as I think many may want to discuss that.  You may even get input from the owner of the site who I've seen post here recently!

I read the ruling about leaks from the mods just how and discussing the information in them is allowed.  I think that's the purpose of the thread and you keep trying to go off topic.

What is allowed and what is proper or decent are not always the same thing. 

And do you really think this thing was obtained and posted with permission? Come on! Why do you think they call it "Mormon Leaks?

I noticed the thread started by the owner of the site was summarily shut down without explanatio after he had been given a couple of warnings. He might not even be around anymore. 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why are you disparaging the way these women speak ("primary voice")? That strikes me as disrespectful, unkind and as sexist as some of the things I've seen men accused of. 

It’s a common complaint made by sisters in the church about the sisters who speak in conference.  In the past it often sounded like they were speaking to children. 

It’s been getting much better.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What is allowed and what is proper or decent are not always the same thing. 

And do you really think this thing was obtained and posted with permission? Come on! Why do you think they call it "Mormon Leaks?

I noticed the thread started by the owner of the site was summarily shut down without explanatio after he had been given a couple of warnings. He might not even be around anymore. 

What do you think the proper gender roles should be in the church, Scott?

[ALarson]

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think the provenance of the stolen document is germane, because it is so old. 

 

A document from 2014 is "so old"?  Hmmmm

Anyway,  I'd really like to stick to just discussing the information expressed in the material (slides).   As others have stated, maybe start your own thread to discuss whether the leaks have been stolen, etc.  I'm trying to stay within the board ruling here (and will remove the link If requested by mods).   But, the information they contain can be discussed and I'd like to stay on topic with just that.

Do you see anything on the slides that you believe is relevant to gender roles in the church today?  

I honestly think that both sides of the slide discussion may express different feelings views from members.  I know many women still feel this at times.

Edited September 24, 2017 by ALarson

[Pete Ahlstrom]

Scott, do you think having the man as the head and the woman as the feet is a fair representation of how the church treats gender roles?  If so, is it fair?  Is it fair when it's exclusively men that are assigning the roles?  Which role would you prefer, the head or the feet?  If I had to be at the feet, I would demand that we each take turns doing the foot role and the head role.  But, that's just me.

[Calm]

4 hours 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.

Do we know what mission president did this and to whom it was presented?  Without that context, it is hard to judge whether it is a "Church" thing or more localized to where he was from or him personally.

The one thing that must be said is if it hasn't happened already, someone is going to take advantage of Mormonleaks' lack of necessity to confirm sources and send in something fake, so everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt unless there is some way to confirm it.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Do we know what mission president did this and to whom it was presented?  Without that context, it is hard to judge whether it is a "Church" thing or more localized to where he was from or him personally.

The one thing that must be said is if it hasn't happened already, someone is going to take advantage of Mormonleaks' lack of necessity to confirm sources and send in something fake, so everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt unless there is some way to confirm it.

Regardless of your questions and answering them at some point is important, however, do you think the slides fairly represent gender roles in the church?

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do we know what mission president did this and to whom it was presented?  Without that context, it is hard to judge whether it is a "Church" thing or more localized to where he was from or him personally.

The one thing that must be said is if it hasn't happened already, someone is going to take advantage of Mormonleaks' lack of necessity to confirm sources and send in something fake, so everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt unless there is some way to confirm it.

The name and copyright are on them (if you continue reading the discussion there's more info).

I'm more interested in whether or not members still feel these views are representative or if they ever were and discussing that.  I'm not really too concerned with if or when the slides were ever utilized for anything.  From comments here, I can see many do feel the discussion is relevant regarding gender roles in the church.

Edited September 24, 2017 by ALarson

[JulieM]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What is allowed and what is proper or decent are not always the same thing. 

I think it's opened up a good discussion.  

What are your thoughts on the information or on gender equality in the church today? I'm sincere in asking.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Regardless of your questions and answering them at some point is important, however, do you think the slides fairly represent gender roles in the church?

No, they represent views of some people but there is no way to determine how many see it in either of these two very simplified, black and white approaches...and the feet thing, I have never heard it expressed that way (neck yes, gag, hands on occasion implying men propose and women get things done) though I would not be surprised to find some thought of the relationship that way.  If it is for real, it looks to me like he went looking for an appropriate scripture and latched on to this one and the 'conversation' between the "head" and the "feet" which forced the use of "feet" for women when in every other case I remember seeing this scripture used, women are portrayed as being part of the body and often there is a link with how we are all part of the body of Christ with him at the head.

Even discussions talking about women sitting at the feet, the feet are the men's (usually Christ's).  The analogy does not transfer.

Has anyone here actually seen women being labeled as the feet of the body of the Church other than this slide?  Am curious.

Given the majority of men serve in positions of nonpriesthood authority outside of giving blessings just as women due, they are as much the "feet" in this scripture as any woman is in terms of the Church in general.  The difference for most men, imo, is on the more personal level where some (hopefully fewer each year) see in their relationships to women the Priesthood as an excuse to dominate in some fashion or another rather than as a vehicle of communication and service.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The name and copyright are on them (if you continue reading the discussion there's more info).

I'm more interested in whether or not members still feel these views are representative or if they ever were and discussing that.  I'm not really too concerned with if or when the slides were ever utilized for anything.  From comments here, I can see many do feel the discussion is relevant regarding gender roles in the church.

Thanks, I missed that in the first viewing...was looking for the info at the end, not the beginning.

So this could be from a random person's blog or garbage can in the context of this thread and is only meant as a place to start?  You are not suggesting any weight should be given it due to the context of its presentation?

Edited September 24, 2017 by Calm

[Pete Ahlstrom]

I haven't seen the feet reference to women ever.  It does seem to be really tone deaf.

[Scott Lloyd]

48 minutes ago, ALarson said:

A document from 2014 is "so old"?  Hmmmm

Anyway,  I'd really like to stick to just discussing the information expressed in the material (slides).   As others have stated, maybe start your own thread to discuss whether the leaks have been stolen, etc.  I'm trying to stay within the board ruling here (and will remove the link If requested by mods).   But, the information they contain can be discussed and I'd like to stay on topic with just that.

Do you see anything on the slides that you believe is relevant to gender roles in the church today?  

I honestly think that both sides of the slide discussion may express different feelings views from members.  I know many women still feel this at times.

I don't want to start a new thread about something I have already expressed here. I've made my point, and all I've done since then is fend off the chiding of those who are upset about me having made it. 

Edited September 24, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

48 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It’s a common complaint made by sisters in the church about the sisters who speak in conference.  In the past it often sounded like they were speaking to children. 

It’s been getting much better.

I've not been conscious of any such "primary voice" in women who serve in Church leadership. I wonder if it may be a matter of hypersensitivity on the part of some listeners. 

[Scott Lloyd]

51 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

What do you think the proper gender roles should be in the church, Scott?

I don't have anything to say at this time on that subject. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I've not been conscious of any such "primary voice" in women who serve in Church leadership. I wonder if it may be a matter of hypersensitivity on the part of some listeners. 

Do you really believe this?  Maybe you should listen closely to some of the talks given in past conferences and then return and report to us?  I am confident you will change your mind, if you do.

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours 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?

I am not a lawyer, so if you need advice on Copyright law, feel free to consult a licensed attorney.  That said, I might know a thing or two about the topic.   Simple quotations intended to foster and to facilitate discussion (provided the work has already been published) do not violate Copyright law.  That's a doctrine called "Fair Use," and it exists because, presumably, one of the very raisons d'etre of the written word is that it be examined and commented upon (provided the material is intended for the public: The Super-Secret Diary of JulieM's Personal, Private, Most Intimate Thoughts is another matter entirely, and you have an absolute right to keep that as completely private as you wish.  If you share it with someone else with the intention that, otherwise, it remain private, and that person publishes it to the world, you would have a cause of action/a right to sue the person who published it).

[OFF-TOPIC RANT ON]Here's the problem with MormonLeaks.  The very name indicates that the organization exists to publish things that, in contrast to the types of things discussed in the foregoing paragraph, were never intended for public view, observation, or comment. MormonLeaks operates on the assumption that transparency is always a good thing. But even government agencies and entities which are subject to open meetings and open records laws do not conduct all of their business in public view.  (And, by the way, in case anyone's wonderin': Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  Like it or not, exempt from open meetings and open records laws ...) Often, even meetings of public/government entities are separated into closed executive sessions and open public comment periods.  If the former did not exist, the likelihood that open, honest deliberation which is key to the effective functioning of many organizations would occur would be virtually nil.  What if the information MormonLeaks releases is in draft form?  What if it's simply the work product or the opinion of one person?  

And there are myriad other circumstances in which "transparency for transparency's sake" might not be such a good thing after all.  And for all of their protestations that they're simply interested in fostering openness, that's exactly what the purveyors of MormonLeaks are counting on.[/OFF-TOPIC RANT OFF]  We now return you to your regularly-scheduled, on-topic programming.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Pete Ahlstrom]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't have anything to say at this time on that subject. 

Of course you don't.  Then maybe you don't need to participate?  Those who want to talk about the conference can go to your thread.