MormonLeaks: "Gender Equality" in the Church

[Jeffret]

Today's MormonLeaks post is a slide deck on gender equality presented to the Quorum of the Seventy in 2014. It's hilariously ridiculous.

First, why does it have to call it "Gender Equality", using quotes in the presentation? Why couldn't it just be Gender Equality? Gotta get those scare quotes in there so that's clear which is the right side.

The first slide presents two different approaches to gender equality, both of which are straw men, though the "wrong" approach is much more so.

Same / identical rights, responsibilities and functions
Not dependent on each other

[vs.]
Different rights, responsibilities, and functions
Interdependent on each other

No one ever says that they (*) aren't dependent on each other. (* Assuming that be they is meant the different sexes. Clearly the different sexes are dependent on each other.) And partners in a marriage relationship are dependent on each other.

But somehow the graphic then has both viewpoints leading to the same result, "Men & Women Are Equally Valued!".

History has clearly shown us that separate or different are not equal. That's particularly true when it comes to different rights, which leads off the comparison. Without making the rights as closely the same as possible, considering the actual, inherent differences, the outcome will never be that men and women are equally valued.

The next slide really caught our attention. Again it shows on the left how some members view it and on the right how some other members view it. We can know that one on the right is the "correct" one, because it's got scripture verses. But, it's the one on the left that has all of the actual factual data. And really shows the disparities. Roughly 50% of the Church are women, but they're practically nonexistent in the leadership. And their actual relevance in the leadership is even further reduced. My wife particularly enjoyed the scripture and accompanying illustration, which clearly showed that men are the head and women are the feet. To be trampled upon. (The scripture doesn't actually say that. It's really talking just about men. Because women of course knew their place. Lower than the feet.)

[Hagoth]

First, why does it have to call it "Gender Equality", using quotes in the presentation?

Because their keyboard doesn't have a so-called key?

[Give It Time]

I thought this was precious. In addition to what you point out, there were also different versions of that last slide, because saying the men are the head and the women are the feet is just plain offensive. Not taking offense where none was intended. Offensive.

They tried laying the factual side out so the pink disparity wasn't so obvious and the whole slide still is offensive.

So, they just gave up on trying to make the facts less stark and put in a new scripture.

I wonder which one they chose, because there's just no getting around how misogynistic that presentation is.

It also kind of reminds me of the maturation programs we had in fifth grade. I also find it a little interesting they have to have the issue explained to them. Definitely not a compliment.

[alas]

Today's MormonLeaks post is a slide deck on gender equality presented to the Quorum of the Seventy in 2014. It's hilariously ridiculous.

First, why does it have to call it "Gender Equality", using quotes in the presentation? Why couldn't it just be Gender Equality? Gotta get those scare quotes in there so that's clear which is the right side.

The first slide presents two different approaches to gender equality, both of which are straw men, though the "wrong" approach is much more so.

Same / identical rights, responsibilities and functions
Not dependent on each other

[vs.]
Different rights, responsibilities, and functions
Interdependent on each other

No one ever says that they (*) aren't dependent on each other. (* Assuming that be they is meant the different sexes. Clearly the different sexes are dependent on each other.) And partners in a marriage relationship are dependent on each other.

But somehow the graphic then has both viewpoints leading to the same result, "Men & Women Are Equally Valued!".

History has clearly shown us that separate or different are not equal. That's particularly true when it comes to different rights, which leads off the comparison. Without making the rights as closely the same as possible, considering the actual, inherent differences, the outcome will never be that men and women are equally valued.

The next slide really caught our attention. Again it shows on the left how some members view it and on the right how some other members view it. We can know that one on the right is the "correct" one, because it's got scripture verses. But, it's the one on the left that has all of the actual factual data. And really shows the disparities. Roughly 50% of the Church are women, but they're practically nonexistent in the leadership. And their actual relevance in the leadership is even further reduced. My wife particularly enjoyed the scripture and accompanying illustration, which clearly showed that men are the head and women are the feet. To be trampled upon. (The scripture doesn't actually say that. It's really talking just about men. Because women of course knew their place. Lower than the feet.)

What they really mean by "not dependent on each other" is that women would not be forced into being dependent on men for financial support while they stay home raising children and that would make women much more free to leave abusive and unfaithful and just plain jerk husbands. What they mean is that women would not be forced to be dependent on men for priesthood stuff, and that men might be put in the horrible position of actually depending on women.

What they mean by "same identical rights and responsibilities" is that men might lose the power they have to rule over women because men are given more rights, and given equal rights, women might just decide they don't want to live with a bossy jerk. What they mean, is that given equal rights and responsibilities, men might become lose some rights to control women. And if given equal responsibilities, men might become responsible to change dirty diapers and other unpleasant tasks that they delude themselves into believing that women are more "naturally suited for."

Example in point, when we were expecting our second child, I could not change a messy diaper without the morning sickness overcoming me. But DH still thought that he was EXEMPT from changing diapers because "women were just born with more tolerance for handling the bad smell." If men and women are really given equal rights and responsibilities, then men also have to share some of the child care responsibilities, and whoever is available to change a diaper is the one responsible.

Funny that they don't put it that way.

You know, unless men learn how to have babies by themselves, and women learn how to not need a partner to get through pregnancy and raising children, men and women are going to be dependent on each other.

In fact, look at the gay marriages around you. Two men who love each other and decide to make a life together are still dependent on each other. I look at my daughter and her wife, and yup, they are dependent on each other. Just How to those church muck itty mucks imaging that if men and women really had the same rights and responsibilities, that couples who love each other would stop depending on each other? I can't imaging it. All I see is that when one side stops forcing the other side to be falsely dependent and a slave, that things can only get better.

[Jeffret]

Hear, hear!

[Thoughtful]

Today's MormonLeaks post is a slide deck on gender equality presented to the Quorum of the Seventy in 2014. It's hilariously ridiculous.

First, why does it have to call it "Gender Equality", using quotes in the presentation? Why couldn't it just be Gender Equality? Gotta get those scare quotes in there so that's clear which is the right side.

The first slide presents two different approaches to gender equality, both of which are straw men, though the "wrong" approach is much more so.

Same / identical rights, responsibilities and functions
Not dependent on each other

[vs.]
Different rights, responsibilities, and functions
Interdependent on each other

No one ever says that they (*) aren't dependent on each other. (* Assuming that be they is meant the different sexes. Clearly the different sexes are dependent on each other.) And partners in a marriage relationship are dependent on each other.

But somehow the graphic then has both viewpoints leading to the same result, "Men & Women Are Equally Valued!".

History has clearly shown us that separate or different are not equal. That's particularly true when it comes to different rights, which leads off the comparison. Without making the rights as closely the same as possible, considering the actual, inherent differences, the outcome will never be that men and women are equally valued.

The next slide really caught our attention. Again it shows on the left how some members view it and on the right how some other members view it. We can know that one on the right is the "correct" one, because it's got scripture verses. But, it's the one on the left that has all of the actual factual data. And really shows the disparities. Roughly 50% of the Church are women, but they're practically nonexistent in the leadership. And their actual relevance in the leadership is even further reduced. My wife particularly enjoyed the scripture and accompanying illustration, which clearly showed that men are the head and women are the feet. To be trampled upon. (The scripture doesn't actually say that. It's really talking just about men. Because women of course knew their place. Lower than the feet.)

What they really mean by "not dependent on each other" is that women would not be forced into being dependent on men for financial support while they stay home raising children and that would make women much more free to leave abusive and unfaithful and just plain jerk husbands. What they mean is that women would not be forced to be dependent on men for priesthood stuff, and that men might be put in the horrible position of actually depending on women.

What they mean by "same identical rights and responsibilities" is that men might lose the power they have to rule over women because men are given more rights, and given equal rights, women might just decide they don't want to live with a bossy jerk. What they mean, is that given equal rights and responsibilities, men might become lose some rights to control women. And if given equal responsibilities, men might become responsible to change dirty diapers and other unpleasant tasks that they delude themselves into believing that women are more "naturally suited for."

Example in point, when we were expecting our second child, I could not change a messy diaper without the morning sickness overcoming me. But DH still thought that he was EXEMPT from changing diapers because "women were just born with more tolerance for handling the bad smell." If men and women are really given equal rights and responsibilities, then men also have to share some of the child care responsibilities, and whoever is available to change a diaper is the one responsible.

Funny that they don't put it that way.

You know, unless men learn how to have babies by themselves, and women learn how to not need a partner to get through pregnancy and raising children, men and women are going to be dependent on each other.

In fact, look at the gay marriages around you. Two men who love each other and decide to make a life together are still dependent on each other. I look at my daughter and her wife, and yup, they are dependent on each other. Just How to those church muck itty mucks imaging that if men and women really had the same rights and responsibilities, that couples who love each other would stop depending on each other? I can't imaging it. All I see is that when one side stops forcing the other side to be falsely dependent and a slave, that things can only get better.

Amen!

[NOMinally Mormon]

I've heard the explanation that women and men have important but different roles. That makes it all equal. Thing is, the man's role is to lead and preside. When one person is the boss by default, any talk of equality is nonsensical.

[DPRoberts]

First, why does it have to call it "Gender Equality", using quotes in the presentation?

Because their keyboard doesn't have a so-called key?

It did at one time, but for some reason it started automatically activating before the word revelation was typed. Must have been gremlins

[Corsair]

Are there good examples of churches that do have gender equality? I have have some devout friends who claim that churches that embrace gender equality will subsequently decline in attendance. Are there some examples of growing churches who have gender equality?

[DPRoberts]

This leak, if it is one, is good for baiting apostates. But what other purpose would this presentation serve? What Church purpose? I am not convinced this is an authentic leak. If it is, it clearly needs context that would be provided by the oral presentation. I read it as simply comparing and contrasting "some members" with "other members". We are following our own biases in thinking the right side is the favored one.

To me, this either comes from some disaffected prankster passing this off as a leak, or from some unusually progressive member who may have tried to facilitate some actual discussion of the issues. I really cannot imagine someone as churchbroke as a GA allowing those left side graphics to support their obvious conclusion. My avatar is not a golden retriever, but today I'm not buying it.

[Jeffret]

Are there good examples of churches that do have gender equality? I have have some devout friends who claim that churches that embrace gender equality will subsequently decline in attendance. Are there some examples of growing churches who have gender equality?

That's a trick question, isn't it?

Are there good examples of growing churches who don't have gender equality?

Are there good examples of anything in society that truly has gender equality?


The argument is basically the old standby that liberal churches will decline whereas traditional or conservative churches will continue to prosper. It used to be quite popular. Used to be. With hindsight we can see it wasn't a very good argument. The liberal churches' decline just came before the conservative ones. It's been some years now, though, since the Southern Baptist Convention recognized membership decline as a crisis. It's quite a problem for the Catholics -- their shortage of priests is quite dire. Along with their other orders of nuns, monks, etc. And over the past decade the percentage of evangelicals has declined by six points, from 23% to 17%.

Worldwide, the LDS Church still claims growth, but the self-reporting percentage in the U.S. has remained pretty constant, at about 1.9%. Over the past few years, the Church's growth rate has dropped off quite dramatically, even with a surge in missionaries.

Probably the most notable church with the most definite push towards gender equality is the Unitarian Universalist. Which is probably why they have a high percentage of women attending. They're not growing but they're not declining as quickly as the evangelicals and some others.

[Corsair]

That's a trick question, isn't it?
...

It wasn't intended to be a trick, but I do appreciate the answer you gave.

[Jeffret]

That's a trick question, isn't it?
...

It wasn't intended to be a trick, but I do appreciate the answer you gave.

That was targeted at your devout friends, not you. And yes, whether they recognize it or not, it is pretty much a trick question / statement. (Would they accept that as a valid way to determine church doctrine? Whatever leads to greater church growth determines what is right?)

[Give It Time]

That's a trick question, isn't it?
...

It wasn't intended to be a trick, but I do appreciate the answer you gave.

That was targeted at your devout friends, not you. And yes, whether they recognize it or not, it is pretty much a trick question / statement. (Would they accept that as a valid way to determine church doctrine? Whatever leads to greater church growth determines what is right?)

Wow!

[Corsair]

That was targeted at your devout friends, not you. And yes, whether they recognize it or not, it is pretty much a trick question / statement. (Would they accept that as a valid way to determine church doctrine? Whatever leads to greater church growth determines what is right?)

They do use that metric to decide which is the true church among the many denominations inadvertently founded by Joseph Smith. Obviously it is the large, wealthy church headed by T. Spencer Monson. God would certainly not sanction some church that is only 0.003% of the world population like Community of Christ. He sanctions the LDS church with 0.2% of the population.

Would allowing full participation of women into the LDS hierarchy improve the church by some definable metric? I assume that this would be an improvement for many women. But would it somehow make the LDS church more "true" in some way? I'm going through this scenario but it seems like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic for the most part. Having women apostles might change some social policies, but it won't make the Book of Mormon more historical, nor will it erase onerous legacy of plural marriage.

Would gender equality increase devotion to Jesus Christ? Clearly there are women in the hierarchy of many churches. Is this a way to grow Christianity or are the more systemic problems that it is now facing?

[Jeffret]

I'm concerned we might be talking past each other, but I'm interested in seeing where the comments lead.

They do use that metric to decide which is the true church among the many denominations inadvertently founded by Joseph Smith. Obviously it is the large, wealthy church headed by T. Spencer Monson. God would certainly not sanction some church that is only 0.003% of the world population like Community of Christ. He sanctions the LDS church with 0.2% of the population.

I assume you're being facetious here. In actuality, I doubt they really use that metric to decide which is the true church. They just use that to help themselves feel better about their tribe. If the size and growth were really a defining metric, the Mormon church would not be the answer.

Would allowing full participation of women into the LDS hierarchy improve the church by some definable metric? I assume that this would be an improvement for many women. But would it somehow make the LDS church more "true" in some way? I'm going through this scenario but it seems like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic for the most part. Having women apostles might change some social policies, but it won't make the Book of Mormon more historical, nor will it erase onerous legacy of plural marriage.

Would gender equality increase devotion to Jesus Christ? Clearly there are women in the hierarchy of many churches. Is this a way to grow Christianity or are the more systemic problems that it is now facing?

I'm not sure whether you're asking these questions and following this line of thought from your own perspective or from that of your devoted friends. I'll give a generic shot at answering them according to my own perspective.

I believe that allowing full participation of women would improve the church. I believe that eliminating prejudice, bigotry, and discrimination and making full opportunities available for everyone is a good thing. I think this qualifies as a definite definable, measurable metric. Fully integrating women and other minorities would necessarily have a dramatic and positive impact. Many of its most problematic practices and abuses would not survive the transition.

I find the consideration of whether it is "true" to be somewhat a waste of time in such considerations. I would rather focus on what is useful and productive for increasing love, compassion, and equality. I have a hard time analyzing whether granting women equality would be more true because I really don't know how to evaluate differing levels of truth. But, I'm confident it would result in improved equality and opportunities.

I don't know whether increased devotion to Jesus Christ is a good thing. Looking around the country or world these days I don't see much evidence that it is. I'm doubtful that allowing women into positions of hierarchy in most churches would do much to staunch their decline. It's possible that if some of them could have made that transition sooner they might have had a better result.

In some fashion, I suppose the question becomes whether you side more with radical feminism or more traditional feminism. Do you believe that patriarchal institutions must be smashed to achieve equality or is it possible to transform them?

[moksha]

The liberal churches' decline just came before the conservative ones.

People drift away from liberal churches and they flee from conservative/fundamentalist ones.

[Give It Time]

I agree, very much, with what Jeffret says, but I want to build my post on Moksha's comment. Were I free to go where I want, I would flee from the church and all patriarchal religions. My reason for doing so is take what Jeffret said and imagine it's opposite. That's basically what any woman will experience in any patriarchal religion. As for whether or not making equality part of the church will make it more true, I believe it will.

I was taught from a very young age that I am a daughter of God. I am valued and loved by him. I am valued and loved as much as the males. I am valued and loved as much as the white males. Jesus said we are all alike unto God. Then, around the time the teen years hit, I noticed my contemporary males were being favored, given the opportunities to grow. As my teen years progressed, I noticed the white males seemed to get more opportunities than the Asian, Native American or African American males. So, yes, equality would be a more accurate reflection of the kingdom of God.

As for more liberal religions. I'm not an expert, here, but I'll lay this dish on the table and hopefully someone who knows more about it will comment. In my religious search, I took a moderately serious look at Wicca. What I found there is that Wicca is just as hierarchical as any patriarchal religion. There are good heads of covens and they're are covens where the leader is on a power trip. However, Wiccans are free to leave a coven if it isn't right for them and it's my understanding they leave their covens because of dysfunctional dynamics. When those witches leave their covens they don't necessarily leave Wicca, but become solo practitioners. It's my understanding there is a lot of dysfunctionality in organized Wicca, because individual witches are free to leave covens without the shame people in patriarchal religions have heaped upon them.

It looks like what is happening is people are identifying more as spiritual, rather than religious. It doesn't seem to matter what their foundational belief is. People are recognizing dysfunction and making healthy choices. Introducing equality into religion (a notion that shouldn't even be up for debate, when you think about it) would decrease the dysfunction within religions.

[alas]

That was targeted at your devout friends, not you. And yes, whether they recognize it or not, it is pretty much a trick question / statement. (Would they accept that as a valid way to determine church doctrine? Whatever leads to greater church growth determines what is right?)

They do use that metric to decide which is the true church among the many denominations inadvertently founded by Joseph Smith. Obviously it is the large, wealthy church headed by T. Spencer Monson. God would certainly not sanction some church that is only 0.003% of the world population like Community of Christ. He sanctions the LDS church with 0.2% of the population.

Would allowing full participation of women into the LDS hierarchy improve the church by some definable metric? I assume that this would be an improvement for many women. But would it somehow make the LDS church more "true" in some way? I'm going through this scenario but it seems like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic for the most part. Having women apostles might change some social policies, but it won't make the Book of Mormon more historical, nor will it erase onerous legacy of plural marriage.

Would gender equality increase devotion to Jesus Christ? Clearly there are women in the hierarchy of many churches. Is this a way to grow Christianity or are the more systemic problems that it is now facing?

If treating women like full human beings is a definable metric, then yes, allowing women full participation would greatly improve the church.

If your only "definable metric" is some kind of absolute historically perfect "truth", then no, it doesn't make the church true, any more that the churches that are doing so are "true".

If your measure is from your own selfish male perspective, as a NOM, I guess it wouldn't make too much difference, but if you give a damn about others then it sure as hell SHOULD make a difference to you. Got any female friends or family who are still in the church. Well, it sure would improve their life. Got daughters or grand daughters still in? It would save them from feeling worthless in God's eyes because they are female and obviously God only really loves his sons.

Corsair, I thought you have been around on NOM long enough to hear some of the ways this church damages women. Do you really think it is OK for any organization to continue doing so?

For me, it sure would make being a NOM less painful. I went to church recently, with my little granddaughters who are being raised in the church. Well, I caught about ten sexist comments from the pulpit---it was F&T meeting and we are a backwards rural area, so worse than your average ward, but not to the level of abnormal. (Besides, we were in the "visitors" sac meeting, so 90% of the congregation was tourists up from the Wasatch front. And over half the testimonies identified as visitors) but as my youngest granddaughter was sitting next to me, not paying attention because *boring*, but I remembered being her age (7) and hearing comments and messages and over the top praise for deacons and boy missionaries, and comparing it to what I heard about women/girls and deciding that girls are not children of God, because so many scriptures say "men" and "sons of God" and women girls are left out. Some times we are supposed to "know" it means us to, but other times it means just males and yet it is not said any different. All the stories in primary about prophets, from the Bible, from the BoM were all about boys. All. The. Stories. So, Occam's razor, the times girls are told that we are children of God is false. Boys are the only ones who are children of God and girls are just....I don't know...future mothers, a necessity for getting boys bodies? Sort f like how Eve was given to Adam. *HE* was made in the image of God, then she was given to him because by himself he could not have children. But girls and boys are of such obvious difference in value to God that girls cannot be Gods real children. Maybe my mother's sarcasm about how women must not really have souls is true. I was seven. So, it is painful too see these innocent little girls growing up in this environment where their big brother is important to God, but they are not quite even after thoughts.

So, yes, it would make a huge difference to have women be equal within the church. We can't blow it all to hell, so our only option is to try to fix the damn thing. Your question is like asking if efforts to feed children in Africa make any measurably difference by any definable metric. Well, there are still humans if Africa, and if we care about our fellow humans, then yes it makes a real difference, maybe not to you, but to them. So, there are still female humans in the church are they are still being hurt by being treated as second class TO GOD. So, yes, it would make a real difference to them.

It might not make the church "true" but who gives a shit about that? It would make the church *better* for those still in it. Just like enough food might make things better for the people who are still in Africa.

[Jeffret]

As for more liberal religions. I'm not an expert, here, but I'll lay this dish on the table and hopefully someone who knows more about it will comment. In my religious search, I took a moderately serious look at Wicca. What I found there is that Wicca is just as hierarchical as any patriarchal religion. There are good heads of covens and they're are covens where the leader is on a power trip. However, Wiccans are free to leave a coven if it isn't right for them and it's my understanding they leave their covens because of dysfunctional dynamics. When those witches leave their covens they don't necessarily leave Wicca, but become solo practitioners. It's my understanding there is a lot of dysfunctionality in organized Wicca, because individual witches are free to leave covens without the shame people in patriarchal religions have heaped upon them.

I think you've got one of the best answers to the original question. Wicca is probably growing and has a better record on gender equality than most other churches. I asked a former Mormon, Wiccan friend for some clarification. His observation is that Wicca has always trended towards more gender equality than society in general. This gets back to my original question / comment about anything in society having real gender equality. I don't know that anything truly does or could at this time, so it really comes down to which things do a better job. Wicca trends better than society. Mormonism lags far behind. There are a variety of traditions or approaches within the Wicca umbrella. Some are Dianic, very focused on the feminine and not necessarily interested in egalitarianism. Some are led by a High Priestess. Some by a High Priest. Some by a combination of both. Lots of variation, but trending towards more equality.

From a Mormon perspective, Wicca is not very hierarchical though they do have some organizations which oversee some things in some of the traditions. Certainly some covens have more authoritarian leadership, but from a comparison to Mormonism the hierarchy and authoritarianism are not typically as pronounced. Frequently the ritual aspect tends to be more autocratic or presbyterian, whereas the festivals and feasts tend to be more democratic.

We've been unable to find any good information on the current growth of Wicca. Some older data showed it be one of the fastest growing religions in America. However, the latest data I've found so far is from 2008, which in America's rapidly changing religious landscape is quite old. My friend's observation is that there is quite a bit of growth in Wicca and other pagan religious approaches.

Your point about witches being able to freely leave their coven or to individual practice is generally true in Christianity. Even within Catholicism, which is highly structured and hierarchical, members may choose their own parish. In Christianity generally, people feel pretty free to switch to another church or denomination if their social needs are not being met. Mormonism is pretty unique in its degree of demand on this issue.

It looks like what is happening is people are identifying more as spiritual, rather than religious. It doesn't seem to matter what their foundational belief is. People are recognizing dysfunction and making healthy choices. Introducing equality into religion (a notion that shouldn't even be up for debate, when you think about it) would decrease the dysfunction within religions.

This seems to be largely what is happening with the rapid rise of the "nones" in surveys. As I mentioned in another thread, in contrast to what Perry reportedly stated, 25% of the country is not atheist. That's the number that are unaffiliated with any religion (or perhaps major religion). Atheists and agnostics account for a minority of this group.