Paul Simon sang about the film Kodachrome “They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers”.
To give us “those nice bright colors”, the engineers at Kodak had to balance the red, blue and green dyes in the film. We have three different types of cones in our eyes that react to the red, blue and green colors. The problem is that green light not only activates the green cones, but to a lesser extent the cones for red and blue, thus causing the green to wash out on the film. To compensate for this the engineers had to increase the intensity of the dyes that create red and blue to match the perceived increase in the green, which comes at the expense of yellow and brown hues.
To do this balance the engineers used a photograph of a Caucasian woman named Shirley. They looked at lots of different photos of Shirley, each with a different color saturation for red, blue and green. The one they settled on was printed and called a “Shirley Card” (photo above), which was given to film processors to calibrate their printers. One engineer who took part in the process later commented that the color balance selected had a lighter skin tone that even the real Shirley had.
The Kodachrome film was thus optimized to create pale Caucasian skin tones, leading to poor reproduction of darker skin tones. People of color would often appear without features, with just their eyes and teeth showing through. This was not changed until chocolate manufactures complained about not being able to capture the subtle difference between dark, bittersweet and milk chocolate.
As you can probably guess, the group of engineers that selected the color balance where all white males. They selected what appealed to them, not realizing an internal bias for what looked right.
The same thing happened with bicycles. They were made by men, so they fit men well, but women have proportionally longer upper torsos than men. Now days you can buy a bike fitted for women that has a shorter top tube to better fit women’s bodies.
Is it any surprise that a Church run by white cisgender males would work well for white cisgender males? The Church worked very well for me when I was engaged. All my leaders looked like me. The rules were easy to follow. I could relate.
While God needs to work through mortal men with internal biases, what if He worked through men AND woman, maybe there would be less? If He expanded that and worked through men and women of various backgrounds and ethnicity, how much better the photographs of life would be for church’s members, how much better might the bike fit?
Wheat & Tares 
Lack of input from women leads to serious blind spots in the male leadership. I mentioned before that whilst serving on the stake audit committee (a position then newly opened to women) I had the dubious privilege of viewing training material, including the Sacred Funds video. This featured Elder Ballard explaining why reaching out to family was important before recourse to fast offering funds. A sad story about a young widow with small children in need of assistance. The video indicates that while she initially said there was no family she could ask for help, when pushed said well there was a brother, but they hadn’t spoken in years. When pushed further she agreed the bishop could contact the brother. Low and behold, he turns out to be wealthy, pays of the mortgage and they all live happily ever after, we are led to believe.
I ask myself, what is the power balance in this situation. This is a woman who needs financial help. And who is grieving as well. She isn’t in a strong position here. The bishop is making it clear he is unwilling to help her, and she may well feel forced to mention her brother. I ask myself why is she no longer in contact with her brother? Might he not be a safe person for her? People can have very good reasons for not being in contact with family members. Now that the brother has paid the mortgage might he perhaps now also own her house? How has this made her more self sufficient? Is she safe?
Putting aside for the moment that most people are unlikely to have super wealthy long lost family, there was no mention of ensuring the safety of the individual seeking financial assistance, no mention that family might not always be a safe source of contact or support. It made me so mad to see this. Let’s save the church money and not worry about the risks we might be exposing people to!
If men and women of various ethnicities and backgrounds were working together, things would be much different and yes, the bike would fit better for the members. But, if having diverse leadership would change the structure of the church, then can one conclude that it isn’t led by God? Would God really direct his chosen servants to run things so one-sidedly? I understand that as individuals we receive knowledge and process it through our own filters, hence our biases. That said, if we’re to believe that an angel bearing a sword commanded JS to marry lots of women, then wouldn’t and couldn’t God also be more direct in other areas? Are we really to believe he’s only that direct when commanding a man to have sex with lots of women?!
I started making a long paragraph about all the issues with church history regarding women, blacks, and non-whites but you already know these things. None of them align with a God who loves all his children.
In order for things to change as suggested, the entire structure of the church would have to change. That would be interesting (and far too late for me) though I have a hard time imagining it. The church would actually have to apologize and admit many things and I can’t see that happening in my lifetime.
I am a white, cis-gender male. Born/Raised 10 miles from 50 E. North Temple, SLC. A RM, BYU grad, temple sealed. Checked all the boxes. However, the church did not work for me, 100% being fully engaged-100% of the time. There would be moments the church worked, but many times it did not. Sometimes, I would force it to work, but many times I would question the system. Finally I walked away, knowing these were not my people.
We have to narrow the populace of men that fit into the LDS mold
.
Bonus points for: Surname, leadership connections, attractive self, attractive wife, non-rebellious kids, big house.
Few are the men in an LDS ward that really fit the profile, and many of them sit in the pews and feel like they will never measure up.
Faith’s comment speaks to the comment frequently made by Amy McPhie Allebest in the Breaking Down Patriarchy podcast, that patriarchy is a system of power that harms most men and all women.
The church, for the most part, keeps all women and most men out of decision making spaces that have nothing to do with priesthood keys. This practice speaks for itself.
(BTW, Faith, I always read your comments and find them generally to be quite meaningful.)
Also interesting to point out the TBM wife of pioneer stock requirement.
Faith, I made it as far as I did because of
No beards
Extroverts only
Public Speaking skills
I failed all the others, and took myself out of the running after I was released as Bishop.
I just want to mention that historically, in the 1800s, the women’s organization had much more autonomy than it does today. Regardless of polygamy, and sometimes because of it, women were free to run for office, advocate for suffrage for women, and many other things. The women’s organization selected their own leaders, gave blessings, collected alms for the poor, administered their own budget and informed the male president of what they were going to do rather than asking permission.
If you believe Joseph Smith received the organization of the church from God, this is the organization he received. When he organized the Relief Society, he had his counselor President Taylor ordain Emma and her counselors with “the same power” his own presidency held. He told them to select deacons and teachers from among the sisters.
That all changed with Joseph F and correlation over time, until every function of the Relief Society is controlled by the men.
While the goal is to get everyone on an equal footing, let’s not forget that we’d be running down to the crick every morning to fetch water were it not for the blessings of technology that have reached us–albeit, unequally. Even most of the less advantaged among us live better than emperors of the past.
I remember learning about changes in the Olympics. When it first started, it was European Countries and/or Countries that had European roots (former Colonies) and were white. Jessie Owens, in the 1930s, breaking world records in front of Hitler, was celebrated by the USA, but blacks were still not allowed to be in white military units in the armed forces. The USA cringed in 1968 when black athletes raised their fists in solidarity with the civil rights movement, being proud of their heritage as black. While there are still a lot of problems with the Olympics, there has been a huge increase in the number of participants from all over the world, and records keep falling, but not necessarily to white privileged men. The USA started to pay attention to soccer because of the women and our pride has swelled with black women in gymnastics.
I just wonder what would happen if there were true inclusion happening in the church like there has been in the Olympics. Currently, 50% of the church membership can’t be leaders with true autonomy to make decisions of consequence. We all know about how the blacks have been treated and while they can hold the priesthood now, leadership at the GA level is still one where it’s your family name, income, and pioneer heritage are more important for receiving a calling other than a token here and there who seems to be held to a much higher standard of conduct when it comes to being able to speak their mind or express “real” issues.
This isn’t a perfect example but I think it sheds light on one important thing, the more people you have truly involved with real say, the better and more robust an organization will be.
I’m a white male in my 50s and I own a sweet Doberman Pinscher who looks vicious but is the sweetest thing. Also I pride myself on being open minded and a diversity ally.
Once a black family moved into a place 3 houses down the road. I was walking with my harmless Dobie in front of their house as they were getting out of the car. When they saw me and the dog they jumped back in the car and weren’t at all chatty or friendly. I was only trying to introduce myself and actually be welcoming to a family who didn’t look like the rest of the neighborhood. A day or two later I happened to watch a show about MLK Jr which explained how white policeman use dogs as an intimidation tactic with minorities.
It was an embarrassing learning experience for me – as a white male raised with dogs I simply didn’t think – and probably couldn’t have – thought of how the new family would perceive a stranger with a dog with known aggressive tendencies.
If we want to be inclusive, decision making bodies must be diverse. It’s impossible for someone like me to know how minority groups would decide unless we include them.
When I was a little girl I remember my mom and my grandmas receiving the monthly Relief Society magazine which I enjoyed reading, even if I didn’t completely understand everything that I was reading. The magazines were full of a mix of topics from homemaking to world affairs and how they affected women, pieces about the arts, and reports about service opportunities for the sisters and those that had successfully been completed. I also happily remember the yearly RS Bazaar when the sisters raised money for their various outreach projects and their yearly budget to not only help girls and women in the ward but to help women throughout the US and the world. The Relief Society was an autonomous organization that was for women, by women. I looked forward to the time that I could finally join.
In the beginning I loved RS. I taught cultural arts, home and family and the personal improvement lessons for many years and loved attending any kind of RS activity in my BYU, YSA and family wards until everything changed around 1995 when we were suddenly told that the RS and the Priesthood would all have the same lessons. My heart sank and I knew that this was the end of the church world as I knew it.
Since my childhood I had noticed things that I had loved about RS and the church in general disappear especially those relating to girls and women. By the mid 90’s it really began to accelerate. The last time that the RS General Presidency had a real credence with me was when Chieko Okazaki was a counselor. She was real and she spoke truth to women and men. No more.
After her release I couldn’t bring myself to attend RS much longer because it seemed that instead of wanting to support and uplift the girls and women of the church the leaders wanted Stepford Wives style women with their color coordinated outfits, similar hairstyles and Primary style sing song, sleepy voices. I rebelled and refused to be a part of something so personally soul sucking. Other women in my ward similarly rebelled and left. While I hung on in the church with the hope to be a catalyst for positive change I soon realized that the only way that I had any power to be a positive influence for change was to leave. Especially with the current leadership who seem hellbent on keeping women and girls in “their rightful place” (read 1950’s era USA which, ironically, was when Mormon girls and women actually had more clout than we do now) I frankly fear that there will never be a time, unless it is preceded by a drastic exodus of females from the church, where the situation will ever change. Frankly, this knowledge breaks my heart.
A totally apocryphal story, according to my father, a retired Kodak engineer. Kodachrome wasn’t the film you’d use in a portrait studio, is what he told me. Could we still use more diversity in our leadership? Yes, but I aint holding my breath.
Thanks, Bill. About 15 years ago, I bought my wife a women’s model road bike for Christmas, largely as an act of faith, since I didn’t fully understand at the time what made it different from the men’s model (aside from the color scheme and a differently shaped saddle) and it was probably the most expensive single Christmas present I’ve ever purchased for someone, before or since. It turned out to be a wise purchase; we got it professionally fitted, and the result was my wife truly enjoying long bike rides with me (which she only tolerated before), and she still loves the bike to this day.
Bicycles come in all different designs, sizes and levels of quality depending on the needs of the consumer; the possibilities are virtually endless. But there is no reputable bicycle manufacturer on earth that claims to produce the “one true bike” that fits every person for every need. Meanwhile, the LDS Church is still trying to be all things to all people, despite their efforts of recent decades to diversify their offerings and cater to a more global audience, they are still ultimately an organization by and for white American cis-het males. RMN may have gotten rid of some unnecessary programmatic elements during his presidency, but he will never move on claims of exclusive authority, and continues to promote a very narrow, inflexible narrative of orthodox belief (the so-called Covenant Path). The visible adjustments to their products to make them more accommodating are just window dressing; in reality, they depend on demanding and enforcing conformity, personal comfort be damned. In this world, there are nearly infinite choices for religions, belief systems and philosophies in which to find personal fulfillment. The only way the LDS Church can survive in such a marketplace is by trying to manipulate consumers into compliance and acceptance. Like convincing an avid road cyclist that she’s better off with an uncomfortable knobby fat-tire off-brand men’s Wal Mart bike, and that she should be grateful for the chance to ride at all. No thanks.
Thanks, Bill. About 15 years ago, I bought my wife a women’s model road bike for Christmas, largely as an act of faith, since I didn’t fully understand at the time what made it different from the men’s model (aside from the color scheme and a differently shaped saddle) and it was probably the most expensive single Christmas present I’ve ever purchased for someone, before or since. It turned out to be a wise purchase; we got it professionally fitted, and the result was my wife truly enjoying long bike rides with me (which she only tolerated before), and she still loves the bike to this day.
Bicycles come in all different designs, sizes and levels of quality depending on the needs of the consumer; the possibilities are virtually endless. But there is no reputable bicycle manufacturer on earth that claims to produce the “one true bike” that fits every person for every need. Meanwhile, the LDS Church is still trying to be all things to all people, despite their efforts of recent decades to diversify their offerings and cater to a more global audience, they are still ultimately an organization by and for white American cis-het males. RMN may have gotten rid of some unnecessary programmatic elements during his presidency, but he will never move on claims of exclusive authority, and continues to promote a very narrow, inflexible narrative of orthodox belief (the so-called Covenant Path). The visible adjustments to their products to make them more accommodating are just window dressing; in reality, they depend on demanding and enforcing conformity, personal comfort be damned. In this world, there are nearly infinite choices for religions, belief systems and philosophies in which to find personal fulfillment. The only way the LDS Church can survive in such a marketplace is by trying to manipulate consumers into compliance and acceptance. Like convincing an avid road cyclist that she’s better off with an uncomfortable knobby fat-tire off-brand men’s Wal Mart bike, and that she should be grateful for the chance to ride at all. No thanks.
Jack Hughes: best analogy ever. Well said.
I did the post last week about the book I read that was for Adult Children of Immature Parents. Then I was listening to Valerie Hamaker’s podcast in which she described how men raised in a patriarchy are often under-developed, that it works that way by design, replacing individual critical thinking with hierarchy and ambition to “climb the ladder” within that structure, which doesn’t require emotional development. Instead it fosters emotional immaturity and under-developed decision-making skills, replacing them with obedience and unquestioned assumptions that preserve the male hierarchy.
It was interesting because I had just been reading my dad’s description of his induction into the Navy during WW2. Because he turned 18 in 1944, and the war was well underway, he only had 2 weeks of bootcamp training. That training focused on two things: 1) obedience, and 2) hygiene. That was basically it. One recruit had been held back due to hygiene. After that, he was shipped off and subject to some hazing rituals that comprised of being sprayed with a hose and “other things I have forgotten,” which sounded sus as hell to me. (Repressed trauma? Do they call it hazing because your memories of it are hazy later??) I mention all this because our current leaders (which are really just Oaks & Nelson) did not serve missions as young men. Oaks was on reserve with the National Guard during the Korean War, and Nelson served in M*A*S*H units in the Korean War (Was he more Hawkeye, Frank Burns, or possibly Charles?). Military service is as patriarchal as they come, and it seems to me that Church hierarchy bears more resemblance to that then it does to anything else. The closest I ever came to that structure was as a missionary, and honestly it was stifling and felt like being sent to prison (the MTC part especially). You can’t screw up because you are scheduled to the nth degree and are constantly under supervision and doing busywork–there is no downtime. I understand why military is the way it is. Maybe it saves lives (while also killing), but it’s no way to live a full, robust life. It’s not going to lead to a wonderful mentally healthy way to make decisions, raise a family, increase humanitarian efforts, etc. It’s a very stilted, controlled way to live.
Jack Hughes,
That’s exactly how I feel at church. I mean all the talks are probably helpful and okay for someone. However, to imagine anything is helpful for everyone is just not reality. God made us all so so different. I think people should say that in every single talk…this was helpful for me but your results will vary because your circumstances are different.
We need to make room for people who cannot and do not conform to our own ideas. God made us in so much variety. Why should we imagine the highest level of heaven is only for one type of folks?
I also can’t handle the constant telling us exactly what to do. God made me to be connected to the Spirit. Trust me to know what I need to do better than you because I know my situation better than you. There’s no way to even completely convey a situation to someone else to judge and make the right decision. As much as possible we need to trust others and have the grace to accept they are living their lives in the best way they can with the information and circumstances they have.
Jack Hughes,
With respect, I think some of the changes you hope to see will turn the “bicycle” into something that isn’t a bicycle–leaving the manufacturer to mourn over those costumers who are disappointed that it fails to make things that don’t resemble bicycles.
If women were fully included in making decisions and teaching with authority, the doctrine would change and expand.
We would have a theology of birth. Right now, we have a theology of death, what happens to spirit and body. We know resurrection is a priesthood ordinance. If women were in authority, we would have a theological answer for when the spirit enters the body that would account for stillbirth, miscarriage, when identical twins divide, and so on. We would have strong religious traditions regarding abortion and birth control because the women in authority would do more than just agree with the men.
The law of chastity would have specific protections for women and penalties for men who sexually harass or assault women. There would be an acknowledgment that the sexual experiences of men and women are different. The entire focus of the Church’s teachings on the ‘sacred procreative process’ would be more than just telling men when it’s okay to have an orgasm.
Marriage and the afterlife would be fully developed. The doctrine wouldn’t just be “trust God and everything will work out.” There would be depth to teachings about how men and women work together and what will go on in the eternities.
Men won’t get revelation on behalf of women. All they can come up with is to hope things work out. If women were fully equal to men, the doctrine of the Church would change drastically. I’m not sure the Church would be very recognizable if that happened.
“While God needs to work through mortal men with internal biases, what if He worked through men AND woman, maybe there would be less?”
I would say that in many other churches, God does work through both men and women. No need for a Y chromosome to get “revelation”. Spend any time in those “fitted road bike” kind of churches makes going back to the “Walmart special” clunker of a church pretty hard. But I suppose for some people the Walmart bike is all they know and it can be relatively effective compared to say, simply walking everywhere.
I’m super late to the thread, but I want to like your comment 1000 times, Janey. Such excellent ideas for how our theology would look different with more women in leadership. If you expanded it into a post, I would read the heck out of it!
First of all, the Church has a Myers-Briggs personality of STJ. Not a male STJ? you’re out of luck as far as the Church is concerned. STJs are rule following, non-emotional, doers. Not creative, emotionally available, fine tuners.
This will never change. At the present the Church is struggling in the US. What do the STJs do? They created The Covenant Path, to keep you motivated and committed. And build more temples to help the membership on the Covenant Path. Instead of opening up the theology and using the great ideas of Mother in Heaven, Priesthood extensions and powers, and Eternal Progression, as ways to engage people and to open the organization, they have closed it down and focused.
Exactly! And ESTJ are preferred over ISTJ as well.