Church Did Not Disavow Priesthood Ban

I disagree (respectfully) that it doesn’t matter and that the church only disavowed the theories, while maintaining its stance that God wanted to exclude blacks from the priesthood.

They disavowed all racism, past and present. A purported revelation that denies the priesthood to one race and not others is racist. Their use of the terms “all” and “past and present”, implies any claims of revelatory bans are racist and are to be repudiated — including those who came from past prophets.

This throws into question the reliability of revelatory claims made by anyone — including Prophets — and relieves church leaders of having to be infallible. If I was a church leader, I’d be relieved because now I don’t have to be something I’m not. It also releases members from any unhealthy expectations that church leaders will somehow relieve them of the responsibility of making moral choices.

The implications of the disavowment is that each person must listen to the prophets, and then decide for themself whether to follow. And in my view, each person needs to tune out the noise that comes with a church that believes in prophets. Cultural noise, threats of negative consequences for not following, rationalizations, etcetera, and listen to the inner heart and conscience. Purported prophetic revelation is not always reliable. Often, it is good advice, but it can be flawed and even harmful sometimes.

Think critically, listen to the voice of the spirit in your own heart. Follow and worship according to the dictates of your own conscience.

Members should feel a lot more pressure now to think critically and assess the statements of leaders against the value system Christ put forward, and not the opinions of men which are not always reliable, even when they claim those assertions to be direct revelation.

Whoa, I’m worried I am being misunderstood. I am not saying anything like “Since the church didn’t technically disavow the ban, there may still be a chance it was of God.” That is not my opinion. I do not think the church is “maintaining its stance that God wanted to exclude blacks from the priesthood.”

I think this is not splitting hairs because to disavow means “to disclaim knowledge of, connection with, or responsibility for” something. Wouldn’t it be disingenuous at best if the church tried to say it was not responsible for the ban? A lot of people, including myself, would be upset if that claim were made. The page on the site doesn’t try to deny responsibility – it says:

… for much of its history—from the mid-1800s until 1978—the Church did not ordain men of black African descent to its priesthood or allow black men or women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances…In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood…

To “condemn all racism, past and present, in any form” is very strong wording, in my opinion. It is an expression of “complete disapproval,” saying “in a strong and definite way” that the ban and any racism was/is “bad or wrong.” I am not trying to soften the statement. I agree that:

A purported revelation that denies the priesthood to one race and not others is racist. Their use of the terms “all” and “past and present”, implies any claims of revelatory bans are racist and are to be repudiated — including those who came from past prophets.

My point is that the church is not trying to deny responsibility for the ban, and I think that’s good.

There are people on some forums saying that the church has neither disavowed nor condemned the ban itself, only the “racist theories” from men of its origin.

What’s interesting is the media have started reporting it as if the church has disavowed/condemned the ban and I find it significant that the church isn’t rushing to clarify that it has done no such thing.

In my mind this is a stepping stone. The church clearly condemned all racism. In my mind the ban was clearly racist in that it made a division and denial based solel on race. On that basis I’d be happy to say that they have condemned the ban. But they’ve done it in a way that hasn’t yet thrown the past leadership under a bus.

I wouldn’t be surprised if, in 5-10 years, once it has become common knowledge that the church has distanced themselves and everyone is happy they have if the church official condemns the ban and apologises. This article almost prepares the membership ahead of time.

I’m waiting for the rationalizations that occur if they finally admit the disavowal was of the prophetic revelation and doctrine.

Um, maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean, but the explanation says clearly that it didn’t start with a revelation, and it now calls the former teachings “theories”, not “doctrine”. I thought that wasn’t a question – that the only question is if they condemned / disavowed the ban itself.

Would you mind clarifying, SD?

Shawn, I think I just spotted something that affected my reading of the original post. At the end, it looked like you gave some more definitions of “disavow”, but I think you meant to type “condemn” instead of “disavow” and provide definitions for “condemn”. Is that correct?

If that is the case, I appreciate the distinction and agree that saying the ban was “disavowed” is not as appropriate as saying the ban was “condemned”, while the reason(s) for instituting and justifying it were “disavowed” (repudiated).

IN my view, they might as well have said “We reject any claims from prior prophets that the priesthood ban was revelation or the will of God. We condemn it, disown it, and disapprove of it.”

I have observed several statements/talks from church leaders recently that say one thing if you are looking for it but won’t necessarily upset the apple cart if you don’t want it too.

I believe that the statement condemning racism is an example. Those that want to see a rejection of the priesthood ban ever being from God can read it that way. People that want it to still be from God as part of some necessary evil can read it the way that they want instead. Many are doing this by reading this as denouncing the “theories” but not the ban itself.

However you slice it – this is a bold and important step.

They cannot deny responsibility for teaching and enforcing it for decades upon decades. There is too much evidence that they did start and perpetuate the falsehood.

This is what I have been saying. This is why I think it would be disingenuous to disavow the ban.

To me, the disavowal means the church rejects the priesthood ban itself. Their use of the verbiage of disavowing “all racism, past, and present” is pretty all encompassing. IN my view, they might as well have said “We reject any claims from prior prophets that the priesthood ban was revelation or the will of God. We condemn it, disown it, and disapprove of it.”

SD, there is no “verbiage of disavowing ‘all racism, past, and present'” in the statement, unless I am overlooking something.

Anything less than that (for example, disavowing the theories only, but not the ban itself) smacks of arrogance, lack of repentence, and only lessens my commitment — as it typifies the arrogance I have seen in various leaders, and personal behavior of local and churchwide leaders who feel the church is somehow above apology, accountability, or the obligation to admit mistakes.

By most definitions, disavowing the ban would indicate the church does not accept responsibility or accountability for it.

I think we actually agree on this issue, but we are having some misunderstandings, which started with me typing the wrong word in the first post. I’m glad Ray pointed that out. 🙂