The Meaning of "Disavow"

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).

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.

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…

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 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.

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.

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.

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.