"Gender Equality" in the Church - Slides Leaked

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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."

Hopefully she wouldn't then.

There is nothing wrong with the Primary voice in Primary.  I think it can be helpful with younger kids, putting them at ease.

The problem comes when the habit gets transferred into adult settings.  There would be a problem, imo, with a "conference voice" in Primary or many other settings.

 My dad had a "business voice", probably worked fine talking to subordinates at work, talking to his kids when there were problems not so good.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, Calm said:

Hopefully she wouldn't then.

In other words, she would be getting what she deserves. 

Sorry, but that seems catty. 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In other words, she would be getting what she deserves. 

Sorry, but that seems catty. 

What she deserves?  Not sure what you mean.  Speakers do need to know how they are coming across if they want to be effective speakers.  Actors work on eliminating unusual speech patterns unless they decide to become known for them, Heber J Grant worked to remove a stuttering issue.  I took speech therapy as a kid for the same issue.

Observing there are patterns in speech is not always "catty". It is called "Primary voice" because one commonly sees it in Primary.  Trying to keep the attention of a large group of kids on spiritual topics is hard work and having a tone of voice that tells them you are talking to them and not another adult can, imo, be helpful with the younger kids (once they are ten or more, they might not like it).  I used the Primary voice a lot since I taught Junior Primary mostly for more than 20 years.  I wouldn't have a problem if someone pointed out to me that I had slipped into it in talking to my grandkids or my mother at times given our current relationship.  If I am told I am using it to talk to other adults, I need to seriously consider why and if it is because I am viewing them as I view children, out of respect I need to work on changing my attitude.

I highly doubt that women at conference who use a Primary voice see others as children, much more likely it is just a habit...the unfortunate thing though is adults are generally bored by that type of voice or don't associate it with adult---and therefore meaningful for them---discussion.

I think it is an issue of unawareness more than confidence as it appears to me that people have taken notice of the discussion about it and women speakers appear to be actively avoiding it even if they have had a history of working in Primary and may have developed such patterns for those times.

There are some who undoubtedly mean it in an insulting way, others have just picked up the label as a useful identifier of a behaviour they have noticed and generally feel is out of place in conference.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Calm

[Rain]

7 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.

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?  

 

7 hours 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 agree with this "being able to discuss the slides." Either I am not understanding the slides (possible) or they are missing information to be able to tell what they really mean. Typically with PowerPoint done well it is only supposed to highlight or illustrate what is being talked about. I am finding these slides are missing enough of the talking info to know what is really being said. There may be conclusions being made about them that may not be consistent with what they were meant to represent. 

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

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.

I actually think both men and women have had primary voices  - we just notice them more in women.  I've found people have "phone voices" too. So while I am glad that the women's primary voices are fading away I recognize that it is sexist to point them out without pointing out when men have those voices as well. At this point doing something like that would just be negativity for me.

[BlueDreams]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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 

I'm with BB on this. I've never heard the head/foot analogy used for men/women. I've heard 1 or 2 people quote My Big Fat Greek Wedding about men being the head but the woman is the neck thing. But that isn't what I see generally stated in church about how men and women should be seen in the church. In some ways it seems to directly contradict. 

For the record: I don't fit either camp that the slides describe.

With luv,

BD

 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Rain said:

I actually think both men and women have had primary voices  - we just notice them more in women.

Definitely.  I think the fact that it tends to go along with a higher pitch makes it jump out more for women.  It is also possible it takes on a deeper meaning because there are less women speakers and therefore when it occurs with a woman, it has a greater impact.

It is also possible it is more expected with women, So paid more attention to (we tend to notice what we are looking for...such as when we have a white car, there are more white cars on the road or so it appears).

I believe research shows children prefer higher pitched voices, I am certain infants do:

https://curiosity.com/topics/theres-a-reason-babies-respond-to-high-pitched-baby-talk-curiosity/

Edited September 24, 2017 by Calm

[Tacenda]

3 hours 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. 

I listened to all of the talks from last night's women's conference. I didn't hear any primary voice at all. Sorry if I appeared to have disrespected any of them, didn't want to do that. I liked most every thing they said actually. 

[strappinglad]

First of all, if this is the type of gnat straining level Mormonleaks has reached they are running out of BIG reveals.

Secondly, I am so far behind in " church speak " that it took me 3 pages of post reading before it dawned on me that a " primary voice " didn't mean what I thought it meant. I thought it referred to a speaker being the primary messenger, the main topic level, the most basic . Boy was I off !

[Kenngo1969]

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

Mmm-kay.  Please explain to me what this leak has to do with financial disclosure.  Thanks in advance.  

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

First of all, if this is the type of gnat straining level Mormonleaks has reached they are running out of BIG reveals.

Well, there were others I saw discussed and I found them as or more interesting.  This one is interesting to read through:

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/b/ba/Utah_Areas_Annual_Mission_Presidents_Seminar-2015-09-09.pdf

They are a mission president's seminar notes that include:

15. Missionaries sometimes shy away from Joseph Smith.
16. They should focus on him rather than shying away from or being ashamed of him.
17. Never make the story of the Prophet Joseph Smith common place.
18. List on a white board the “fruits” of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
30. The seer stone of Joseph Smith’s day is like our IPhone of today.

And:

6. Sister missionaries are better used in providing training, not conducting zone conferences.

7 - Replace pornography with family history.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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."

I probably would as well.  We don't usually like to see anyone say anything negative about our loved ones, regardless of whether or not it serves a good purpose.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Hopefully she wouldn't then.

There is nothing wrong with the Primary voice in Primary.  I think it can be helpful with younger kids, putting them at ease.

The problem comes when the habit gets transferred into adult settings.  There would be a problem, imo, with a "conference voice" in Primary or many other settings.

 My dad had a "business voice", probably worked fine talking to subordinates at work, talking to his kids when there were problems not so good.

I remember going to a regional conference where my mission president, another mission president, and Elder L. Tom Perry were the main speakers.  The other mission president sounded just like general authorities do when they give talks at conference and the effect was kind of off-putting because it didn't sound natural.  Tone matters.

[juliann]

9 hours 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.

 

 

The view that "equality" means identical is a strawman. I want to be the same as a man. Said no "some member" ever. It is usually used to avoid having to deal with the problems of inadequate inclusion of women. That is evident by the veering off into prooftexted scripture that doesn't address or even have anything to do with what is in the slides on the left.

I'm glad to see that they are attempting to address these things. A lot has changed since 2014 though. And I can only go !!  !! when a man thinks using the woman as a foot and the man as a head would ever be a good idea. 

[juliann]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

 

I actually think both men and women have had primary voices  - we just notice them more in women.  I've found people have "phone voices" too. So while I am glad that the women's primary voices are fading away I recognize that it is sexist to point them out without pointing out when men have those voices as well. At this point doing something like that would just be negativity for me.

To me, it is the lip smacking between words, that presage primary voice. And it looks like the women have finally put it to bed if last night was an indication. The men, not so much. 

[juliann]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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."

It got out of hand in feminist groups and they curbed it themselves. I'm in a couple of forums and they periodically have to do clean up when somebody starts lighting into other women. They were busy going after Valerie Hudson again in one which absolutely mystifies me considering she is probably the only internationally known professional feminist in all of Mormondom. But they don't like her theology. So even though we need Mormon women theologists, it only counts if they say the right things (Valerie considered sealings the ultimate equalizer of men and women in a religious sense, although she is not down with the practical aspects of women's lack of inclusion in the institutional church.) So it gets crazy all the way around.

The reason it matters so very much, though, is that it is now critical for women to present a strong and powerful image. The demure vocal style that became popular is anything but. 

 

Edited September 25, 2017 by juliann

[Meerkat]

9 hours 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 the head and foot analogy is less appropriate than the eye/ear analogy in the scripture.  While the foot is compared as equal to the head, the analogy is problematic.  I could live and possibly be happier without my (defective) foot.  Not the head. Therefore, I see the head as superior to the foot.  While we are probably playing with semantics here (po-TAH-toe / po-TAE-toe) the visual doesn't translate to equal on either slide.

The left "some member" side of the slide reflects a greater value in the male due to greater participation in Church administration.  That fact might be important if the Church were the primary influence in each of our lives.  But the Church has been compared to merely scaffolding on the Family.  In the home, the mother has the greater impact on each of our lives for good, teaching us values and many other things.  The father contributes to our character, provides love, adventure, etc. which also has value.  But not equal to mother in the home. He has other duties that include (in many cases in years past, probably still) bringing in the greater part of the income, participating in Church adminisration, etc.  Therefore the contributions are different, but relatively equal-- the greater weight generally going to the womens' side of the ledger, in my opinion.  

Gender equality exists (separate but equal,) but not as depicted in the slides, imo. 

[Calm]

".  In the home, the mother has the greater impact on each of our lives for good, teaching us values and many other things."

I don't buy that.  My kids' habits are much more like their dad's in many things than mine, including study, work, cleaning, what they see as fun.  What they want/value is more like their dad's as well.  My daughter communicates more like me and my son like his dad, most likely due to personality.

[juliann]

57 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

 

Gender equality exists (separate but equal,) but not as depicted in the slides, imo. 

There isn't equality when one sex doesn't have access to decision making. (I was rather surprised at the sliver of women in ward councils according to this guy, that isn't even accurate.)Women are seen as an auxilliary or support to men and that is how they are described. That is not "equal" under any definition anywhere. Now, you can argue that that doesn't matter or there are other factors that override that, but it cannot be called equal. A better description would be evenly balanced, or equiponderant, perhaps...that would be the goal. But not equal. 

That words like preside have been redefined to "co-president" or equal partners demonstrates the growing awareness and discomfort with the terminology that we have become used to.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

It got out of hand in feminist groups and they curbed it themselves. I'm in a couple of forums and they periodically have to do clean up when somebody starts lighting into other women. They were busy going after Valerie Hudson again in one which absolutely mystifies me considering she is probably the only internationally known professional feminist in all of Mormondom. But they don't like her theology. So even though we need Mormon women theologists, it only counts if they say the right things (Valerie considered sealings the ultimate equalizer of men and women in a religious sense, although she is not down with the practical aspects of women's lack of inclusion in the institutional church.) So it gets crazy all the way around.

The reason it matters so very much, though, is that it is now critical for women to present a strong and powerful image. The demure vocal style that became popular is anything but. 

 

Elder Richard G. Scott had a milld, earnest, at times almost pleading delivery. Elder Jeffrey D. Holland, by contrast, seems declaratory, almost strident at times. 

Yet both men have been powerful exponents of the gospel. 

I thnk it well to be tolerant of diversity in tone, personality and to appreciate each speaker for her or his strengths. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Definitely.  I think the fact that it tends to go along with a higher pitch makes it jump out more for women.  It is also possible it takes on a deeper meaning because there are less women speakers and therefore when it occurs with a woman, it has a greater impact.

It is also possible it is more expected with women, So paid more attention to (we tend to notice what we are looking for...such as when we have a white car, there are more white cars on the road or so it appears).

I believe research shows children prefer higher pitched voices, I am certain infants do:

https://curiosity.com/topics/theres-a-reason-babies-respond-to-high-pitched-baby-talk-curiosity/

Is it possible that at least some who have spoken this way in the past have seen themselves as addressing mainly the children in the congregation?

[Duncan]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I remember going to a regional conference where my mission president, another mission president, and Elder L. Tom Perry were the main speakers.  The other mission president sounded just like general authorities do when they give talks at conference and the effect was kind of off-putting because it didn't sound natural.  Tone matters.

In our mission we have to do this "tone training" and it was a thing for a while but it faded as to me it sounded so phony! Wait there's more. Some elders did this hand thing where they raised their hand in the air, like they were picking something up and dropping it and they tried to get the rest of us to do that when we spoke, it didn't really catch on. I get that you don't want to be monotone and bore people to death but it can get carried away with. There was this broadcast and an elder in our mission was interviewed and he was all over the place tone wise and it sounded SO funny and obvious and It was  emabarrasing!!!!! like other missions are watching this and hearing him speak and he sounded like a total doofus 

The worst offender for that voice is this guy who grew up here but has moved from our stake, Thank heavens, but he would give talks and he would talk all small and scrunch his face and he just sounded so condescending

Edited September 25, 2017 by Duncan

[Meerkat]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

".  In the home, the mother has the greater impact on each of our lives for good, teaching us values and many other things."

I don't buy that.  My kids' habits are much more like their dad's in many things than mine, including study, work, cleaning, what they see as fun.  What they want/value is more like their dad's as well.  My daughter communicates more like me and my son like his dad, most likely due to personality.

My kids are a mixed bag too.  I believe a  lot of their personality quirks are due to heredity.  But I'm not talking about heredity.  I'm talking about time and effort spent molding my character.  Mom and I didn't get along when I was growing up.  It wasn't until leaving home and having kids of my own that I saw where my love of reading came from, as well as many life skills.  I saw where caring for people who were down and out came from.  It was her.   From my viewpoint, she worked harder and for good causes from beginning to end, and made at least as great, if not greater contribution to my life as dear old Dad.  That's all.  Nothing scientific.  It did give me an opinion though.  It's actually a bit off point since the question has to do with gender equity in the Church.  I was looking at it from life in general.  It's hard to argue against the fact that males preside in the Church and have controlled much of the decision process anciently to the present. That isn't just LDS.  It's Protestant, Catholic, other Christian, Moslem, Jew and probably others.  That's a tough statistic for women.  No wonder It's upsetting.  

Edited September 25, 2017 by Meerkat

[CV75]

8 hours ago, Duncan said:

In our mission we have to do this "tone training" and it was a thing for a while but it faded as to me it sounded so phony! Wait there's more. Some elders did this hand thing where they raised their hand in the air, like they were picking something up and dropping it and they tried to get the rest of us to do that when we spoke, it didn't really catch on. I get that you don't want to be monotone and bore people to death but it can get carried away with. There was this broadcast and an elder in our mission was interviewed and he was all over the place tone wise and it sounded SO funny and obvious and It was  emabarrasing!!!!! like other missions are watching this and hearing him speak and he sounded like a total doofus 

The worst offender for that voice is this guy who grew up here but has moved from our stake, Thank heavens, but he would give talks and he would talk all small and scrunch his face and he just sounded so condescending

Here's some good ol' fashioned tone training for ya!:

“I am aware that a great many have so much piety in them, that they are like the Baptist priest who came to see Joseph Smith. Joseph had the discernment of spirits to read a man, and a peculiar faculty of using up the old sectarian tone to “my dee-e-er brethren.” When he heard that good old tone he used to imitate it; and whenever one of the class, who are so filled with piety, and the good old tone, came to Nauvoo, Joseph used forthwith to take a course to evaporate their sanctimoniousness . . .

. . . After he got through chatting, the Baptist stood before him, and folding his arms said, “Is it possible that I now flash my optics upon a Prophet, upon a man who has conversed with my Savior?” “Yes,” says the Prophet, “I don’t know but you do; would not you like to wrestle with me?” That, you see, brought the priest right on to the thrashing floor, and he turned a summerset right straight. After he had whirled round a few times, like a duck shot in the head, he concluded that his piety had been awfully shocked, even to the centre, and went to the Prophet to learn why he had so shocked his piety. The Prophet commenced and showed him the follies of the world, and the absurdity of the long tone, and that he had a super-abundant stock of sanctimoniousness.”

– Jedediah M. Grant, “Instructions to Newcomers,” Journal of Discourses, 3:66–67

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Duncan said:

In our mission we have to do this "tone training" and it was a thing for a while but it faded as to me it sounded so phony! Wait there's more. Some elders did this hand thing where they raised their hand in the air, like they were picking something up and dropping it and they tried to get the rest of us to do that when we spoke, it didn't really catch on. I get that you don't want to be monotone and bore people to death but it can get carried away with. There was this broadcast and an elder in our mission was interviewed and he was all over the place tone wise and it sounded SO funny and obvious and It was  emabarrasing!!!!! like other missions are watching this and hearing him speak and he sounded like a total doofus 

The worst offender for that voice is this guy who grew up here but has moved from our stake, Thank heavens, but he would give talks and he would talk all small and scrunch his face and he just sounded so condescending

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Elder Richard G. Scott had a milld, earnest, at times almost pleading delivery. Elder Jeffrey D. Holland, by contrast, seems declaratory, almost strident at times. 

Yet both men have been powerful exponents of the gospel. 

I thnk it well to be tolerant of diversity in tone, personality and to appreciate each speaker for her or his strengths. 

It's nice when people have their own speaking style and everyone doesn't sound the same.