JulieM Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't have anything to say at this time on that subject. That's too bad and I mean this, Scott. I think many would like to hear how you view the gender roles today in the church. Of course, you don't have to participate and it's understandably an emotional subject for many. Edited September 24, 2017 by JulieM
Pete Ahlstrom Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said: 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 (provided 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). [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. If only the church would give meaningful disclosure of its finances, then I am sure sites like mormonleaks would cease to exist.
Kenngo1969 Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 Just now, Pete Ahlstrom said: If only the church would give meaningful disclosure of its finances, then I am sure sites like mormonleaks would cease to exist. No offense, but that's bull. What the heck does 90 percent of the information MormonLeaks releases have to do with the finances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Nothin'! That renders your entire argument fallacious and invalid, but, thanks fer playin'! 3
ALarson Posted September 24, 2017 Author Posted September 24, 2017 11 minutes ago, JulieM said: That's too bad and I mean this, Scott. I think many would like to hear how you view the gender roles today in the church. Of course, you don't have to participate and it's understandably an emotional subject for many. Actually, in Scott's defense, this is an emotionally charged topic (as you stated too, Julie). But we are still seeing comments on here such as stating that the names of the women who were Joseph's wives are not important to know. I could not disagree more with sentiments like this. I can certainly understand why many women (and men as well) still feel this is a very relevant discussion.
Pete Ahlstrom Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: No offense, but that's bull. What the heck does 90 percent of the information MormonLeaks releases have to do with the finances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Nothin'! That renders your entire argument fallacious and invalid, but, thanks fer playin'! Ryan is an accountant and financial disclosure was his primary focus in the beginning. Anyway, I guess mormonleaks really bothers you, why? What do you have to fear by having some disclosure? As long as the disclosures are truthful, should there be a problem? P.S. thank you for playing Edited September 24, 2017 by Pete Ahlstrom
Jeanne Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Tacenda said: 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. Not with it today Tacenda?? Welcome to my world! In any case, no matter of the slides themselves..I think it doesn't matter what men..or the church thinks about women. The perspectives of ourselves (women) in the church is somewhat ingrained..and we would all need an overhaul in how we feel about ourselves with men...and with God. Totally separate...we are not feet people. Edited September 24, 2017 by Jeanne
bluebell Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 1 hour ago, 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. No, it's not. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: 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. The thread was not specifically on gender roles but on the stolen and leaked document, which I did have a comment on. Edited September 24, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: Ryan is an accountant and financial disclosure was his primary focus in the beginning. Anyway, I guess mormonleaks really bothers you, why? What do you have to fear by having some disclosure? As long as the disclosures are truthful, should there be a problem? P.S. thank you for playing Ryan is also an apostate -- which might have some bearing on the matter. 2
bluebell Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: I haven't seen the feet reference to women ever. It does seem to be really tone deaf. I haven't either, and I don't know anyone (men or women) who would think of gender relations in the church in such terms. I'm sure they are out there, but they are keeping it to themselves when they are around me. That's why i'm not sure we can claim that this slide is from the church. It seems like it might just be from a church member maybe? I've seen some pretty bad analogies during church lessons and wouldn't want to blame the church for them. I think the church still has a ways to go in really understanding women's roles but i don't see it as these slides portray. 4
JulieM Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The thread was not specifically on gender roles but on the stolen and linked document, which I did have a comment on. I think ALarson has requested that the thread be about the content of the slides for this discussion (rather than MormonLeaks or how the document was leaked). The title of the slides was "Gender Equality" in the church. Yet, you've refused to comment on that. Edited September 24, 2017 by JulieM 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, bluebell said: No, it's not. Male speakers have their idiosyncracies as well, which, if I've noticed them, I've never felt to comment publicly on, even if I've found them annoying. I just think that women can be awfully hard on each other. For example. I never get in the middle of an argument about working vs stay-at-home mothers. It can get really nasty. Edited September 24, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
JulieM Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, bluebell said: I haven't either, and I don't know anyone (men or women) who would think of gender relations in the church in such terms. I'm sure they are out there, but they are keeping it to themselves when they are around me. That's why i'm not sure we can claim that this slide is from the church. It seems like it might just be from a church member maybe? I haven't seen anyone claim they were put out by the church, but by a mission president (on his own for a presentation). I see them more as a catalyst for a discussion rather than wanting the slides to be the focal point here (from what I can tell). Edited September 24, 2017 by JulieM
Scott Lloyd Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 3 minutes ago, JulieM said: I think ALarson has requested that the thread be about the content of the slides for this discussion (rather than MormonLeaks or how the document was leaked). The title of the slides were "Gender Equality" in the church. Yet, you've refused to comment on that. I just think it's germane to point out that there's no way to know how closely, if at all, this reflects the position of the Church. Bluebell just made that point very well. 2
JulieM Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I just think it's germane to point out that there's no way to know how closely, if at all, this reflects the position of the Church. Bluebell just made that point very well. No one has claimed they came from the leaders or even from "the church". Do you have anything to state about gender equality in the church? Anything specific to what was expressed on the slides? Edited September 24, 2017 by JulieM 1
Popular Post bluebell Posted September 24, 2017 Popular Post Posted September 24, 2017 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: Male speakers have their ideosyncracies as well, which, if I've noticed them, I've never felt to comment publicly on, even if I've found them annoying. I just think that women can be awfully hard on each other. For example. I never get in the middle of an argument about working vs stay-at-home mothers. It can get really nasty. I don't think it's an issue of women being mean to each other in the church. I've heard the sweetest sisters complaining about 'the primary voice' so it can't be explained away so easily. No one is trying to be mean or nitpicky, we all just wanted it to stop. And it's not an issue of it being annoying so much as a lot of women see it as a symptom of sisters not being as courageous and frank as they can and should be. I think that it being pointed out in public places has helped to curb it. None of the women who did in the past did on purpose, i'm sure. They just followed the diction and cadence of those who went before them. A focus on the voices of women speakers highlighted that they struggled to speak with the same authoritative voice as the men (which does not mean to sound manly). That is being rectified and now we have women preaching over the pulpit with the same strength as their male counterparts. It's an awesome thing to behold. 5
bluebell Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 12 minutes ago, JulieM said: I haven't seen anyone claim they were put out by the church, but by a mission president (on his own for a presentation). I see them more as a catalyst for a discussion rather than wanting the slides to be the focal point here (from what I can tell). From my perspective, understanding whether or not 'the church' views gender issues the way the slides portray, or if it's a member's ideas about gender issues, is an important part of the gender equality discussion.
JulieM Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 (edited) Actually, looking at the slides and where the ward counsel is on the left, I have to say that the YW President I serve with has expressed that she really feels like she has a strong voice there and hadn't sometimes felt that way in past ward counsels. That's encouraging I think. Edited September 24, 2017 by JulieM
JulieM Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 2 minutes ago, bluebell said: From my perspective, understanding whether or not 'the church' views gender issues the way the slides portray, or if it's a member's ideas about gender issues, is an important part of the gender equality discussion. I agree. I hope it's clear that these were from a mission president, not from "the church". That should be clarified if not. So, thanks. 1
Calm Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: If only the church would give meaningful disclosure of its finances, then I am sure sites like mormonleaks would cease to exist. I think thinking that is all people are interested in is unrealistic. The vast majority of documents leaked are not financial records of the Church itself, for example. The ones that triggered the most discussion over time were not either, imo. 2
Calm Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 (edited) 2 minutes ago, JulieM said: I agree. I hope it's clear that these were from a mission president, not from "the church". That should be clarified if not. So, thanks. Current (as of 2017), then (2014), or one time (any time else) mission president? (Sorry, off day and my own research just not going to happen) Edited September 24, 2017 by Calm
JulieM Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 18 minutes ago, Calm said: Current (as of 2017), then (2014), or one time (any time else) mission president? (Sorry, off day and my own research just not going to happen) It's copyrighted in 2014 by a brother who served as a mission president. So, it represents his views as of 2014 and that's the only claim that can be made I think. Maybe someone knows where or even if this was presented somewhere?
Scott Lloyd Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 35 minutes ago, bluebell said: I don't think it's an issue of women being mean to each other in the church. I've heard the sweetest sisters complaining about 'the primary voice' so it can't be explained away so easily. No one is trying to be mean or nitpicky, we all just wanted it to stop. And it's not an issue of it being annoying so much as a lot of women see it as a symptom of sisters not being as courageous and frank as they can and should be. I think that it being pointed out in public places has helped to curb it. None of the women who did in the past did on purpose, i'm sure. They just followed the diction and cadence of those who went before them. A focus on the voices of women speakers highlighted that they struggled to speak with the same authoritative voice as the men (which does not mean to sound manly). That is being rectified and now we have women preaching over the pulpit with the same strength as their male counterparts. It's an awesome thing to behold. I think if I had a mother or sister or aunt or wife or some other beloved female relative who served in Church leadership, I would feel rather wounded to see her publicly disparaged as "speaking in a primary voice." 2
Calm Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 12 minutes ago, JulieM said: It's copyrighted in 2014 by a brother who served as a mission president. So, it represents his views as of 2014 and that's the only claim that can be made I think. Maybe someone knows where or even if this was presented somewhere? So we don't know if there is a possibility he intended sharing this as a mission president? Why would it matter in the least than that he has been a mission president?.
ALarson Posted September 24, 2017 Author Posted September 24, 2017 13 minutes ago, JulieM said: It's copyrighted in 2014 by a brother who served as a mission president. So, it represents his views as of 2014 and that's the only claim that can be made I think. Correct (and I tried to make that clear in the OP). That someone who'd served as a mission president in the church and still held those views (the head/feet analogy using men and women) as of 2014, was something pretty foreign to me, but I wanted to see a discussion about them to see if I was the one who was off base. I'm a big advocate of women's rights though 1
Recommended Posts