The Meaning of "Disavow"

Public forum to discuss questions about Mormon history and doctrine.
User avatar
Shawn
Posts: 707
Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 14:22
Location: Utah

The Meaning of "Disavow"

Post by Shawn »

First, here’s the subject paragraph from the Race and the Priesthood essay for reference:
Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.
So I came across a discussion on another forum that does not need to be named. Here’s a paraphrase of what a guy wrote:
Saying a theory is disavowed is different from having a revelation stating the theory is false. The church is saying, "We don’t know if it’s true so we’re not going to teach it anymore."
I was disappointed to find a member saying anything to defend or perpetuate the theories in any way. Sure, we don’t have a revelation directly from God saying “that theory is false,” but I think disavowing something is stronger than saying “we don’t know so we won’t teach it.” I argued that disavowing something is saying “We deny any support for it and will no longer have anything to do with it” and that it could mean to repudiate.

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 posited that the statement “Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form” could very well apply to the sentence that precedes it. I told them that proclaiming it's possible that the disavowed theories might be true gives life to them, however faint and unintentional it may be, and thus the theories are perpetuated. I let them know that perpetuating the theories can be hurtful to black people and could be harmful to church growth. Astonishingly, they argued against that and one guy asked how the theories (e.g.: black people were not valiant in the pre-existence and are under the curse of Cain) could be hurtful to black people!

I didn’t make much progress with those people and it’s no good to argue anymore.

So, what does “the Church disavows the theories” really mean? Why was that word chosen?
Rob4Hope
Posts: 665
Joined: 06 Jan 2015, 07:28

Re: The Meaning of "Disavow"

Post by Rob4Hope »

Shawn,...loved the post. I got into real trouble on another site out there when I had the nerve to mention that prophets make mistakes--as prophets even. Perhaps the same site?...don't know. But I ain't going back to that site anyway. :crazy:

I've had to do mental gymnastics in my past to harmonize conflicting positions about this policy, and to consider what "disavow" means. For example:

1. Since blacks before 1978 were supposedly under the curse of Cain (for example), then why is temple work being done for them now? It seems to me that temple work should only be done for those who died AFTER 1978...I can't harmonize this any other way without the word "disavow" meaning "they were totally wrong."
2. Since blacks before 1978 were supposedly under the curse of Cain (for example), then how could black children who died before 8 years of age merit anything other than damnation? I can't harmonize this either, because it makes God a respecter of persons and completely contradicts a BofM doctrine.
3. True doctrines don't change (for example), condemning a complete class of people and then simply saying "Oh,..well, we don't really believe in that now" without, IMHO, making God capricious. I can't have faith in a God like that...so this big swing, if in fact the source was non-valiency or curse of Cain, is hurtful.

I think the choice of words...this "disavow" word, was carefully chosen to avoid conflict and controversy as much as possible. If they came out and said: "The previous leaders were wrong"...then that would hurt the prophetic infallibility dogma currently at the core of teachings. I think the choice simply leaves the other teachings dangling and unanswered, and I think that was the intent. That way, by walking away from tying those things off, the church can choose a new pathway without addressing what pathways were in the past.

I've seen this as a VERY consistent church pattern. When other decisions have been made that are or were controversial, there is a tendency to ignore those pathways if they are deviated from. So, I think this word "disavow" was more about following a new pathway without discussing why or what the old pathway really meant,..and avoiding (or minimizing as much as possible) the controversy, as well as the discussion, of the previous ways.
User avatar
DarkJedi
Posts: 8050
Joined: 24 Aug 2013, 20:53

Re: The Meaning of "Disavow"

Post by DarkJedi »

Rob4Hope wrote:I think the choice of words...this "disavow" word, was carefully chosen to avoid conflict and controversy as much as possible. If they came out and said: "The previous leaders were wrong"...then that would hurt the prophetic infallibility dogma currently at the core of teachings. I think the choice simply leaves the other teachings dangling and unanswered, and I think that was the intent. That way, by walking away from tying those things off, the church can choose a new pathway without addressing what pathways were in the past.

I've seen this as a VERY consistent church pattern. When other decisions have been made that are or were controversial, there is a tendency to ignore those pathways if they are deviated from. So, I think this word "disavow" was more about following a new pathway without discussing why or what the old pathway really meant,..and avoiding (or minimizing as much as possible) the controversy, as well as the discussion, of the previous ways.
I do want to respond to this question more fully, but I need more time than I have at the moment. I agree in general with what Rob is saying here, but I just want to clarify that I do not believe prophetic infallibility is a core teaching of the church. I believe some members believe in prophetic infallibility and some teach it, but I do not believe it to be doctrine, policy, or tradition nor do I hear GAs teaching it or find it in the manuals. Some people misinterpret what is taught, however. Now back to our regularly scheduled program (and further comment from me to come later).
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:...but I do not believe it to be doctrine, policy, or tradition nor do I hear GAs teaching it or find it in the manuals. Some people misinterpret what is taught, however.
I'm interested in what you will say about this DJ. I think it is taught (or at least was)...if not explicitly, in such a way to encourage discussions that abet the conclusion. The first thing that comes to mind is Ezra Taft Benson's talk about the 14 points of following the prophet.

Now, I don't agree with this type of teaching or policy,...but the church HAS, IMHO, done things to encourage the conclusion that prophetic infallibility (when the prophet is acting as the prophet) is doctrine.

"Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, he knows the way....." There is no disclaimer of "except when he is wrong". Nope...didn't hear it. Hence,..the choice of "disavow" is a carefully chosen word.

Anyway,...I'm interested in your opinion on this DJ.
User avatar
Shawn
Posts: 707
Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 14:22
Location: Utah

Re: The Meaning of "Disavow"

Post by Shawn »

The thread on that other forum was actually about the phrase "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray" and it drifted into talking about the disavowed theories.

I think most active members believe prophets really are infallible when speaking over the pulpit and that their fallibility is limited to minor things like being "guilty of levity, and sometimes associated with jovial company, etc." (JSH). This would explain why people were so upset at me.

It makes sense that the Race and the Priesthood essay would have some ambiguous language and would not specifically say that the theories or the ban itself are condemned. The reason is that many members just couldn't handle it. Rather than putting a lot of people in shock, the essay allows for multiple interpretations. Perhaps the essay is a step toward explicitly condemning the ban in the future.

In my opinion, it's quite clear that the ban has been condemned, since "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." Seriously, a policy that says "Only because you are black/African, you can't hold the priesthood or go through the temple" seems to fit the definition of racism quite well. It's odd that people think the ban is somehow exempt from being racist.

If the ban really was a big mistake, many members aren't ready to accept that and it would be too much of a shock, and I should probably leave them alone and let them come around gradually.
Last edited by Shawn on 26 Jun 2018, 07:25, edited 2 times in total.
Old-Timer
Site Admin
Posts: 17243
Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 20:24

Re: The Meaning of "Disavow"

Post by Old-Timer »

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. They are being cafeteria Mormons in the purest sense of the word.

"Disavow" means "disown; repudiate". It can't be more direct and explicit - just like when Elder McConkie said to forget everything he and anyone else had ever said about why the ban occurred. The LDS Church has disowned and repudiated the justifications for the ban for decades now - and multiple top leaders have said so over the years.

I wrote the following post on my personal blog back in 2009. It is a compilation of quotes that address the justifications for the ban. Feel free to use it whenever someone clings to those justifications. Tell them they can believe whatever they want but that you will accept what the prophets and apostles have said about it. :lol:

http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2009 ... -once.html
I see through my glass, darkly - as I play my saxophone in harmony with the other instruments in God's orchestra. (h/t Elder Joseph Wirthlin)

Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken
User avatar
SilentDawning
Posts: 7602
Joined: 09 May 2010, 19:55

Re: The Meaning of "Disavow"

Post by SilentDawning »

Everything Ray 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 -- which, incidentally, throws just about any person's opinon, whether that of a prophet or a bishop -- into question. That's awful threatening to the average traditional believer. No wonder he's trying to rewrite Websters' dictionary to relieve is cog diss...
"It doesn't have to be about the Church (church) all the time!" -- SD

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

A man asked Jesus "do all roads lead to you?" Jesus responds,”most roads don’t lead anywhere, but I will travel any road to find you.” Adapted from The Shack, William Young

"The wise man has the power" -- adapted from What A Fool Believes -- The Doobie Brothers
Ann
Posts: 2597
Joined: 09 Sep 2012, 02:17

Re: The Meaning of "Disavow"

Post by Ann »

“To be perfectly frank,” Uchtdorf said, “there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine.”
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."
"Preachers err by trying to talk people into belief; better they reveal the radiance of their own discovery." - Joseph Campbell

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes." - Marcel Proust

"Therefore they said unto him, How were thine eyes opened? He answered and said unto them, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes...." - John 9:10-11
User avatar
DarkJedi
Posts: 8050
Joined: 24 Aug 2013, 20:53

Re: The Meaning of "Disavow"

Post by DarkJedi »

I do agree the wording in the essays is carefully chosen and precise and that is done on purpose. I think the purpose of the essays is to be more open about these issues, but I also recognize that some of these same things contained in the essays could cause distress to believers who have not really ever examined the issues. Hence while I think the church is attempting to be honest and forthright, I also think it is important to do so gently.

That said, I think this particular issue is purposely spun by by some vocal believers. I sometimes participate in a more orthodox forum where this was a topic of discussion some time ago. The very orthodox are thoroughly convinced that the statements in the priesthood ban essay are in no way indicative that anyone might have been wrong and that the priesthood ban itself was, in fact, of God. (Yes, Really.) This despite the use of the word disavow and other fairly pointed language. Some interpret it as disavowing the theories and not the practice itself, and so forth. I think these are the same types of individuals you reference Shawn. I agree with Ray, I think if you read what the essays say, they are explicit. I should also point out that Pres. Uchtdorf gave the above mentioned sermon only a matter of days before the first essays were released. All of this does not convince those who choose to believe otherwise. Frankly they just don't get it and can't admit they themselves may be wrong. This is actually the main reason why I think church leaders should talk about the essays and their content more, especially in training sessions and in GC.
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
DarkJedi
Posts: 8050
Joined: 24 Aug 2013, 20:53

Re: The Meaning of "Disavow"

Post by DarkJedi »

Rob4Hope wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:...but I do not believe it to be doctrine, policy, or tradition nor do I hear GAs teaching it or find it in the manuals. Some people misinterpret what is taught, however.
I'm interested in what you will say about this DJ. I think it is taught (or at least was)...if not explicitly, in such a way to encourage discussions that abet the conclusion. The first thing that comes to mind is Ezra Taft Benson's talk about the 14 points of following the prophet.
You'll find few fans of the 14Fs here. First, I'll offer this link, http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_ ... Quotations which includes numerous quotes about the fallibility of prophets, including at least four given in the last three years. To the 14Fs, I will point out that Benson gave this talk at BYU (not general conference) and as president of the Q12. From Edward Kimball's book about his father we get this:
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."
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).
Rob4Hope wrote:Now, I don't agree with this type of teaching or policy,...but the church HAS, IMHO, done things to encourage the conclusion that prophetic infallibility (when the prophet is acting as the prophet) is doctrine.

"Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, he knows the way....." There is no disclaimer of "except when he is wrong". Nope...didn't hear it. Hence,..the choice of "disavow" is a carefully chosen word.

Anyway,...I'm interested in your opinion on this DJ.
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. I first encountered this quote in Michael Ash's Shaken Faith Syndrome but he does not take credit for it:
The Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is infallible, but the Catholics don’t believe it. The LDS Church teaches that the prophet is fallible, but the Mormons don’t believe it.


The trick, of course, is knowing when the prophet is speaking as a prophet and when he is speaking as a man. Since he is a mere human, seeing through his glass as darkly as I see through mine, even when he is speaking as a prophet he is not necessarily clearly declaring the word of God.
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
Post Reply