Prophets See Around Corners – Sheri Dew

Even the phrase “Prophets see around corners” could be more metaphorical and describe the wisdom that men of such experience and advanced age contribute, all the while knowing full well that most of the faithful readers will interpret it that prophets know the future.)

My parents are in their 60’s now. Even though I think more like my father and it is an open debate on whether I was closer to my father or my mother growing up – I lean on my mom and her counsel far more then I do my father. And most of the women I have come across in the church are powerful presiders in their own right at home who bring years of experience and advanced age to the leadership table (or would if we were selecting our leaders on experience, relatability, and wisdom).

I think that women see the future differently and have different markers for intuition and insight then men do. I do not think that our current male prophets from their positions of authority, power, ivory tower cocoons are coming from “the front lines” which are places of forced innovation and revelation out of desperation. I do not know how leaders at their level parse out “what needs their attention” and I have concerns that our leaders are “paying attention” to receiving revelation. While you “can’t force revelation”, you can set yourself up to be “among the publicans and sinners” (Disneyland on vacation doesn’t count – even though it provided fodder for some musings and conference talks) and prepare your heart to set aside your biases to gain perspective.

…a good way to change history is to explicitly predict it…

That’s a really good point. I might swap the word “history” for “the future” though. A good way to change the future is to explicitly predict it. Will it into existence through effort and that wouldn’t have been the case without the prediction. I think you were saying as much in the example you gave, this is just me nit picking on word choice. 🙂

Question: Do we believe that our church leaders predict the future or do we not?

From where I sit the church appears to be consistently behind.

Civil Rights: 1964.

Lifting the priesthood ban: 1978.

Who saw around what corner for that one?

Women and the priesthood. Same sex sealings. We’ll get there once we have leaders that are capable of holding those visions but there are already many people that can envision those things.

Adam took out a sword and became He-Man. I take out my keyboard and become He-Critic. Church culture is less leaders seeing around corners and more not allowing the general membership to see any farther than the church leaders allow. If church leaders see around corners, it’s to see the day they finally make the decision to adapt to things the world already adapted to long ago. No one but them know the day they’ll make the change but there are many members that have already changed and are in the position of sitting and waiting patiently.

I can’t remember any time in my life when I felt greater joy and relief than when I learned that the priesthood was going to be available to all worthy males, whatever their ancestry. I had been troubled by this subject through college and my graduate school, at the University of Chicago where I went to law school. I had many black acquaintances when I lived in Chicago, the years ’54 through ’71. I had many times that my heart ached for that, and it ached for my Church, which I knew to be true and yet blessings of that Church were not available to a significant segment of our Heavenly Father’s children. And I didn’t understand why; I couldn’t identify with any of the explanations that were given. Yet I sustained the action; I was confident that in the time of the Lord I would know more about it, so I went along on faith.

…a good way to change history is to explicitly predict it…

That’s a really good point. I might swap the word “history” for “the future” though. A good way to change the future is to explicitly predict it. Will it into existence through effort and that wouldn’t have been the case without the prediction. I think you were saying as much in the example you gave, this is just me nit picking on word choice. 🙂

We watched an episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine as a family last night that dealt with members of the team being transferred back to the past – with the consequence of “literally changing history” while being trapped in their past.

One of the interesting things is that the characters that had been transferred back to the past had historical data on what happened in the time/place they were in – and that somber certainty flamed hope and despair as the fate of the future of humanity literally rested on them not messing anything up too badly in the next few days (and they couldn’t tell anyone – not even really themselves).

Question: Do we believe that our church leaders predict the future or do we not?

From where I sit the church appears to be consistently behind.

Civil Rights: 1964.

Lifting the priesthood ban: 1978.

Who saw around what corner for that one?

Whomever predicted it would take 18-20 years for the church policy to adapt:)

Women and the priesthood. Same sex sealings. We’ll get there once we have leaders that are capable of holding those visions but there are already many people that can envision those things.

Our problem is in part that we objectify the individual who holds the role when we give that that role. We sell ourselves on the idea (or maybe talk ourselves into believing) that “a role” will force character growth and drive change. We assume that “holding the priesthood” will give a person an authorized edge to make better decisions through “inspiration” and that the greatest growth comes from self-control and “discipline” rather then “mentorship”. If we do our self-righteous and self-improvement “works”, we will gain the greatest good and avoid “extending grace (and concrete mentorship)” to ourselves or to others in our quest for character development.

SIDE NOTE: My 15 year old teenager reminds me that they are not ready for “adulting” yet – in shades of overly dramatic horror and frozen in fear that looks like “laziness” (and may have laziness in it, not gonna lie). I agree – they are not ready for the “prime time” of adulting yet in a lot of specific ways, and that there are developmental gaps where their peers vastly outstrip them. I can’t “discipline” them into overcoming those gaps – I tried it when they were 6/7/8/9/10/11/12 and it put us further behind the developmental curve. They can’t “discipline” themselves into overcoming those gaps – the delays happened way back then because there wasn’t whatever framework they needed to “do their best” in those areas (so they didn’t show up in those areas to pick up those skills). What I can do is “mentor them” into some of that catchup work. I can provide instructions, framework supports, talk to others on their behalf, nudge-nudge-nudge, and mourn with them at the unfairness of the situation to process that fear to move past it. If I do my part right, it is “mentoring” and not “babysitting” – because we insult both words when we use them connectively.

Adam took out a sword and became He-Man. I take out my keyboard and become He-Critic. Church culture is less leaders seeing around corners and more not allowing the general membership to see any farther than the church leaders allow. If church leaders see around corners, it’s to see the day they finally make the decision to adapt to things the world already adapted to long ago. No one but them know the day they’ll make the change but there are many members that have already changed and are in the position of sitting and waiting patiently.

And disconnecting from those leaders while waiting.

One of the final reasons I have limited my church engagement so much is because my family structure (the way we transferred respect, decision-making, autonomy, and authority) was being represented by the “death & disability” clause of The Proclamation About the Family. Yes, technically I was “represented” – but what I needed to do and how I lived my life was hugely in the “Presiding” and “Providing” camps (not the “Nurturing” camp that was my line to stay in. I am not a “touchy-feely” person by default. Pragmatically, “Love at Home” is created by hardcore compassion and respectful advocacy in decision-making and providing a safe, sustainable, effective environment for everyone (not with soft pink tones, doilies and cabbage roses from the 1990’s).

Interesting Conclusions:

– In my battle to “fight the Nurturing Role Assignment”, NO ONE let me get away with a “non-nurturing” description. Because I cared deeply for what my family members faced – I was “nurturing” even though “giving a care” meant providing logistical support “for all the things” and the case manage work of decision-making and translating terminology and information into decisions for my family and myself to make. I could be an “inferior woman” and be “touched out” from dealing with my part octopus child and touch-forward husband (and set tactile boundaries and “visiting hours” for lack of a better term) BUT I was still “nurturing” because I put their needs on par with mine.

– Because “I was doing all the roles [Presider, Provider, Nurturer]”, it left space for what my husband was doing (with a default of “very little” or “nothing” implied). And the more that my husband felt he was doing “nothing”, the less he did and the more “distressed” he became because all that was left for him was a shame cycle to spiral into. Over the last few years, we have gotten to showcasing the question, “What can you do here?” that includes physical capability, emotional/mental bandwidth, and a stab at combining our perspectives.

– What worked for us was “ditching the model” because the very top-down perspective of the Proclamation wasn’t working for us. Gender doesn’t matter in the everyday life-keeping. Gender may define some preferences and parameters (Scientifically women smell more and see more based on biological structural differences and there are studies that seem to indicate that women “care more for others” because of estrogen), but people need to earn money, do paperwork, coat surfaces with soap and water prior to removing the soap [Dishes, kids, themselves, floors, toys, sinks, pets, etc.], monitor air ventilation [Sweeping/Vacuuming/Wipe-downs to clear dust], provide food, connect to themselves, “fight fairly” and advocate for their needs/wants (including healthcare management and stress management), and positive recreation and skill practice/training.

NOTE: This is the recommendation I pass onto everyone without regard in terms of gender, orientation, station in life:

KC Davis, How to Keep House While Drowning.

The book is super short with “choose your own adventure” parts. The audiobook is very short as well and is well narrated and empathetic.

If you exist, you have a “house to keep”. And sometimes you are going to be drowning at “keeping a life” and need to “keep a house” at the same time. If you are not “keeping a house” (and to a degree a life), it is because you were blessed beyond measure with people who do that on your behalf – and if you read this and think about it and take it seriously, they will be positively impacted and likely feel more supported.

SIDE NOTE: My 15 year old teenager reminds me that they are not ready for “adulting” yet – in shades of overly dramatic horror and frozen in fear that looks like “laziness” (and may have laziness in it, not gonna lie). I agree – they are not ready for the “prime time” of adulting yet in a lot of specific ways, and that there are developmental gaps where their peers vastly outstrip them. I can’t “discipline” them into overcoming those gaps – I tried it when they were 6/7/8/9/10/11/12 and it put us further behind the developmental curve. They can’t “discipline” themselves into overcoming those gaps – the delays happened way back then because there wasn’t whatever framework they needed to “do their best” in those areas (so they didn’t show up in those areas to pick up those skills). What I can do is “mentor them” into some of that catchup work. I can provide instructions, framework supports, talk to others on their behalf, nudge-nudge-nudge, and mourn with them at the unfairness of the situation to process that fear to move past it. If I do my part right, it is “mentoring” and not “babysitting” – because we insult both words when we use them connectively.

Thank you so much for this. As the parent of two teens (one that is neurodivergent), I very much feel this.

I find it exceedingly hypocritical how we insist on labels and reject people’s efforts to define themselves in any way that doesn’t align with our groupings, definitions, and labels. Our labels are important, eternal even. Your labels are a temporary phase.

Yup:)

Sometimes I feel more generous about it and figure that it’s a “mote-type” situation where the person can’t/hasn’t introspected enough or isn’t at a developmental phase to pick up on on an applicable label that others see.

Two examples that Sister Dew gave was GBH’s advice to get out of debt (that was personally beneficial to her in the financial crash about a decade later) and the decision of RMN to outfit missionaries with smartphones just prior to the global pandemic. Now, the implication is that the church leaders in question gave that advice or made that decision at that particular time in preparation for events of which they had prophetic forewarning.

That’s a bit of a stretch. Getting out of debt is sound advice no matter what the future holds. Smartphones were ubiquitous a decade before missionaries were allowed to have them. I’d chalk that one up as a long overdue change being made. That the pandemic happened shortly thereafter is more of a coincidence.

But people will read into it what they want to read into it. I’m no different.

I agree. My patriarchal blessing given in the early 80s warns about “unnecessary debt” and I was in fact raised to avoid debt as much as possible (my caregivers were both Great Depression survivors).

I liken these anecdotes to Kilani Sitake and BYU football. Sitake is known to try off the wall and unexpected strategies in games. Examples would be going for the 2 point conversion or faking field goal. Sometimes these things work and Sitake is a great coach and hero. Most of the time they don’t work, the game is lost, and nothing is said (at least in the Deseret News). When they do work Sitake has great foresight and perhaps was even inspired. Very much akin to confirmation bias that so many in the church suffer from.