The Meaning of "Disavow"

Public forum to discuss questions about Mormon history and doctrine.
Rob4Hope
Posts: 665
Joined: 06 Jan 2015, 07:28

Re: The Meaning of "Disavow"

Post by Rob4Hope »

In February 1980, Elder [Ezra Taft] Benson gave a talk at BYU titled "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" that emphasized the precedence of living prophet's statements over those of earlier prophets. ... Spencer felt concern about the talk, wanting to protect the church against being misunderstood as espousing ultraconservative politics or an unthinking "follow the leader" mentality. The First Presidency called Elder Benson in to discuss what he had said and asked him to make explanation to the full Quorum of the Twelve [Apostles] and other general authorities. Elder Benson told them that he meant only to "underscore President Kimball's prophetic call."
This is FASCINATING DJ. Thanks for the quote.
The 14Fs, IMO, are not doctrine. It does bother me to an extent that it is found on LDS.org, but so are many other talks given by GAs which offer things that are not currently taught as doctrine (such as those about Blacks and the priesthood given prior to the lifting of the priesthood ban).
There is a policy it seems, and it is this: the church doesn't come right out and make corrections--they simply teach something in a different manner and let nature take its course, even if that course is slow. (I can think of a more explicit example, but won't post it here).

What I am thinking is this--the church still publishes WW statement about God never allowing the prophet to lead the church astray, and there are still cultural things taught (at least in my neck of the woods) that that prophet is infallible when acting as the prophet. But, this is demonstrably false. Yet, it still exists culturally as a teaching. But, you will probably never hear a GA stand up and say: "OK...this was a mistake". And, according to Oaks, you will never heard a GA stand up and say: "We made a mistake". What you will hear about the past is pretty much silence,...but the teaching will change a little. That is what I am seeing.

In the mean time, what Uchdorf said about "made mistakes" is pretty incredible. That is the most frank and open GA conference talk on that subject I have ever heard.
User avatar
DarkJedi
Posts: 8050
Joined: 24 Aug 2013, 20:53

Re: The Meaning of "Disavow"

Post by DarkJedi »

Rob4Hope wrote:There is a policy it seems, and it is this: the church doesn't come right out and make corrections--they simply teach something in a different manner and let nature take its course, even if that course is slow. (I can think of a more explicit example, but won't post it here).

What I am thinking is this--the church still publishes WW statement about God never allowing the prophet to lead the church astray, and there are still cultural things taught (at least in my neck of the woods) that that prophet is infallible when acting as the prophet. But, this is demonstrably false. Yet, it still exists culturally as a teaching. But, you will probably never hear a GA stand up and say: "OK...this was a mistake". And, according to Oaks, you will never heard a GA stand up and say: "We made a mistake". What you will hear about the past is pretty much silence,...but the teaching will change a little. That is what I am seeing.
I agree this seems to be what happens. I think it should be done differently, though. The argument that current GAs are not talking about some things doesn't seem to get through to the ultraorthodox, though.
In the absence of knowledge or faith there is always hope.

Once there was a gentile...who came before Hillel. He said "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."

My Introduction
Rob4Hope
Posts: 665
Joined: 06 Jan 2015, 07:28

Re: The Meaning of "Disavow"

Post by Rob4Hope »

DarkJedi wrote:I agree this seems to be what happens. I think it should be done differently, though. The argument that current GAs are not talking about some things doesn't seem to get through to the ultraorthodox, though.
I think there is something else that happens that I just need to mention-- because it irritates me to no end.

The church seems to land on both sides of issues in many cases--and that is just extremely frustrating. Let me see if I can paint an example with regards to this "disavow" thread to make this more clear....

We have leaders saying that the Blacks were not to receive the priesthood. We have statements from Brigham Young, Bruce McConkie and others, and even have an official statement from the church president back in the 40s declaring a "doctrine" (which I again use loosely here) that Blacks didn't receive the priesthood because they were not valiant in heaven. Then we have this disavow statement which is open to interpretation as to what it really does or doesn't mean.

OK...so on one side you have what DJ coined "ultra orthodox" people who might say: "Well, the disavow means that the church leaders in the past declared the will of God, and they were right. Now the church has simply changed direction BECAUSE if just wasn't time yet for Blacks to receive the priesthood. The more 'valiant' ones needed to come forward to this world..."

ON the other side, you have people who might say: "Well, FINALLY, the church recognizes its racist policies and declares them false! Blacks were denied the priesthood because of problems the leaders had at the time."

Again, on the first side you have folks who read what the presidents said in the past as revealed "doctrine" from God. They went that far in the document I read, that Blacks not receiving the priesthood was God's will.

And, in the LDS.org essay, you have it being labeled as a "policy".

Even the church, not just the membership culture, seem to land on both side so often.....

What you are left with are two opposing sides BECAUSE there is lack of clarity with the original message, including the clarifying message.

It makes sense why in the NT it said we have Apostles, prophets, etc,...UNTIL WE COME TO A UNITY OF THE FAITH.
-----------------
This idea of landing on both sides rears its head in many areas, to name a few IMHO: what constitutes a tithe; what constitutes unnatural and impure acts (remember the sexual issues during SWK day?); debates about what is pornography (lots of sexual ones it seems--there are others to); WOW issues with green tea, cola and other drinks; debates about keeping the Sabbath day holy;,...etc.

I find it interesting how many issues with completely differing points there are.
User avatar
nibbler
Posts: 5027
Joined: 14 Nov 2013, 07:34
Location: Ten miles west of the exact centre of the universe

Re: The Meaning of "Disavow"

Post by nibbler »

Ambiguous language may cause a few people to land on opposing sides but I think the largest contributor is that new information isn't being widely disseminated. Some people find the new information because it speaks to them, others know nothing about it. We get on two different pages.
Shawn wrote:I was astounded at the way some people took up arms against me to defend the disavowed theories. They said I was attacking the integrity of teachings of past prophets and they will stand up for them until they are specifically condemned.
I'm not too surprised. The people building up nuance around the word "disavow" likely have a lot of faith in past prophets' ability to speak for god. By contrast they probably don't have much faith in some guy on an internet forum, no offense. ;)

It sounds like their real issue over the definition of the word "disavow" isn't "how are we supposed to act going forward?" it's "how do I reconcile the idea that past prophets may have been incorrect?" That's a hard hill to climb. If beliefs don't change to accommodate justifications will likely follow. What does "disavow" really mean being one of them.
I kept a diary right after I was born. Day 1: Tired from the move. Day 2: Everyone thinks I'm an idiot.
— Steven Wright
User avatar
Shawn
Posts: 707
Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 14:22
Location: Utah

Re: The Meaning of "Disavow"

Post by Shawn »

Old-Timer wrote:This is a case where the actual words say clearly what the most conservative, traditionalist members don't want to accept and, therefore, look for ways to nuance it away.
I think the word "disavow" is clear, but the essay could have been more explicit. It could have said something like, "Today, the Church condemns as false the theories advanced in the past...." Some orthodox members accept only the softer definitions and say, "Sure, the church no longer supports the theories, but it doesn't specifically say they are wrong. Therefore, they could still be true."

Like SD said, "People are trying to cling to the infallibility of GA concept in spite of clear verbiage that says it is possible for GA's to be wrong...."

Thanks for you blog post. I already used some of those quotes and they find a way to twist them to their liking. Oh, well.
Ann wrote:I don't know what site you're referring to, Shawn, and I'm curious to know. What do they make of DFU's much-quoted statement? He says "may" in the second sentence, but in the first it's straight-up "have simply made mistakes."
One guy said that quote "doesn't go so far as to proclaim exactly what those mistakes were or who made them (prophets or bishops?) because, as he well knows, we don't really know for sure." I take that to mean he still believes no prophet has make an official mistake since President Uchtdorf didn't specifically include prophets in his remark. Yes, I want to bang my head against a wall. I'll PM you the website if you really want me to, but I urge you stay away because it's just frustrating.
User avatar
Shawn
Posts: 707
Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 14:22
Location: Utah

Re: The Meaning of "Disavow"

Post by Shawn »

DarkJedi wrote:Because many members believe the church teaches the prophet is infallible does make it so that the church teaches it or that he is infallible. The church does not teach it, and in fact teaches quite the opposite.
Rob4Hope wrote:What I am thinking is this--the church still publishes WW statement about God never allowing the prophet to lead the church astray, and there are still cultural things taught (at least in my neck of the woods) that that prophet is infallible when acting as the prophet. But, this is demonstrably false. Yet, it still exists culturally as a teaching. But, you will probably never hear a GA stand up and say: "OK...this was a mistake". And, according to Oaks, you will never heard a GA stand up and say: "We made a mistake".
We are taught that the Lord will never permit a church president to lead us astray, which could be interpreted to mean a prophet will never say anything wrong over the pulpit. The church still publishes that statement by Wilford Woodruff because it's included on the Official Declaration 1 page. I guess that's part of the scriptures.

Elder Oaks actually said:
...It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We [mortals] can put reasons to revelation. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do, we’re on our own. Some people put reasons to the one we’re talking about here, and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong...I’m referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon...by others...The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent.
I shared that quote on that other website and they used it as proof that the priesthood ban was the result of revelation and no one directly addressed the parts about the theories being "spectacularly wrong" and "man-made to a great extent."
User avatar
DarkJedi
Posts: 8050
Joined: 24 Aug 2013, 20:53

Re: The Meaning of "Disavow"

Post by DarkJedi »

There's another of those things that's interpreted differently depending on how orthodox one is. I take the idea that the prophet won't lead anyone astray to mean he won't ask us to do anything that would keep us from reaching whatever "heaven" is. For instance, Pres. Monson's talks about loving each other and going to the temple certainly aren't leading anyone astray. I understand that the average member probably interprets it differently than I do, and it would also be difficult to point out anything otherwise about any of our recent presidents. They've all been pretty bland compared to the earlier guys.

Just to point it out, Woodruff was fighting for his own credibility and perhaps even the viability of the church. Unlike the end of the priesthood ban, ending polygamy faced more open opposition. People really questioned whether OD1 was a revelation (and I still do). The move was seen then and is seen now as politically motivated in order to gain Utah statehood.

Back when the priesthood ban essay was first published I was involved in conversations similar to those you describe, Shawn. I was also involved in some about Uchtdorf's mistakes remark. I gave up and no longer engage. Let he who has ears to hear and eyes to see hear and see - it's not my problem they don't want to see and hear.

Oh, almost forgot: I stumbled across this the other day: http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_ ... Quotations There are some good quotes in there, but nothing that's going to change an orthodox mind.
In the absence of knowledge or faith there is always hope.

Once there was a gentile...who came before Hillel. He said "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."

My Introduction
User avatar
Orson
Site Admin
Posts: 2250
Joined: 22 Oct 2008, 14:44

Re: The Meaning of "Disavow"

Post by Orson »

Shawn wrote:They said I was attacking the integrity of teachings of past prophets and they will stand up for them until they are specifically condemned.

Wow, just wow. The statement to me clearly "specifically condemns" the "theories advanced in the past" and the racism "inside the church" in the form of the priesthood ban as well as the multitude of racist statements/teachings. That type of comeback clearly illustrates unwillingness to accept specific condemnation of teachings from past leaders. I have seen the same type of reactions on other clearly condemning statements, such as Pres. Kimball setting the record straight against Adam-God.

The question from here is how do we deal with these situations when we encounter them? One charitable way is to acknowledge that some people cannot accept some facts, it would be too damaging to their paradigm. Maybe we just have to recognize their minds will not be changed. It does make it more difficult to fight the bad ideas and false doctrine. I don't know what to do about that.
My avatar - both physical and spiritual.

I first found faith, and thought I had all truth. I then discovered doubt, and claimed a more accurate truth. Now I’ve greeted paradox and a deeper truth than I have ever known.
Rob4Hope
Posts: 665
Joined: 06 Jan 2015, 07:28

Re: The Meaning of "Disavow"

Post by Rob4Hope »

Orson wrote:The question from here is how do we deal with these situations when we encounter them? One charitable way is to acknowledge that some people cannot accept some facts, it would be too damaging to their paradigm. Maybe we just have to recognize their minds will not be changed. It does make it more difficult to fight the bad ideas and false doctrine. I don't know what to do about that.
I have a way to respond that I love cuz it makes them orthodox folks NUTS. I say: "Well, I don't see it that way. I think past presidents and prophets, acting as prophets, have made big mistakes, taught false doctrines, and have sometimes made a mess of things. And, the reading of the history proves it for me. But, you are free to believe however you want. The 11th article of faith gives you that right, as it does me."

And I walk away.

If they are offended, there problem. If they think I am a flaming apostate, their problem. If they are unwilling to see my side of things, their problem. All in all, I don't care what they think very much...
Post Reply