Church Did Not Disavow Priesthood Ban

[Anonymous]

[07/31/2015 Edit: In case anyone comes across this old thread, I want to clarify what I meant right at the top here. I’m not defending the priesthood ban at all. I’m saying the church can’t disclaim knowledge of the ban or disclaim responsibility for it, since the church does have such knowledge and has to accept responsibility for it. Again, I’m not defending the ban at all. Now I realize I was kind of just splitting hairs and this thread should not have been created ]

I’ve seen several instances here where it has been said the church “disavowed” the priesthood ban. Small misunderstandings can sometimes become big issues so I just want to point this out.

The Race and the Priesthood page says:

Today, the Church disavows:

-The theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse

-That it reflects actions in a premortal life

-That mixed-race marriages are a sin

-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.

Here are some definitions of “disavow”:

-Deny any responsibility or support for

-To disclaim knowledge of, responsibility for, or association with.

-To disclaim knowledge of, connection with, or responsibility for; disown; repudiate

So I don’t think the church can really disavow the ban. The page does, however, say the church disavows previous theories related to the ban. Of course, that doesn’t include denying knowledge of the theories. I think it means the church has disowned the theories; it is no longer associated or connected with them; it repudiates, or renounces, them.

The church condemns “all racism, past and present, in any form,” so it can be said that it condemns the ban. Here are some definitions of “condemn” [this was fixed – it used to say “disavow”]:

-Express complete disapproval of, typically in public; censure

-To say in a strong and definite way that someone or something is bad or wrong

-To express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure

[Anonymous]

I’m okay with saying the Church disavowed every theory used to explain the ban and condemned the ban, if that makes more sense to someone – but, honestly, as the person here who focuses perhaps the most often on looking carefully at words, I think it’s splitting hairs to make that distinction, at least in the eyes of most people. I know the irony of me saying that , but I see the explanation, as worded, as disavowing the ban – especially given the last definition in the post.

I would say that the explanation first disavowed the ban and all the theories used to justify it (both by explaining its real origin and lack of revelation and by explicitly mentioning some of the justifications) and then, in conclusion, condemned all racism, no matter its time or source – which includes the ban, of necessity, since it was, undeniably, racist in nature.

The only argument left for any member is, “But God isn’t racist,” and the simple response is, “That’s correct, so He couldn’t have commanded the ban” – which is an answer this explanation supports.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Hi Shawn! :wave:

[Anonymous]

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:

Quote:

… 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:

Quote:

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.

[Anonymous]

Amen, Shawn.

Sometimes we obsess over words (“make a man an offender for a word”), and I apologize if my comment seemed to do that. It’s a lesson for all of us, I think, with regard to lots of things.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

I’m waiting for the rationalizations that occur if they finally admit the disavowal was of the prophetic revelation and doctrine. They will come, that’s for sure. It’s amazing what the mind will do to protect the soul from anxiety.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

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?

[Anonymous]

To clarify my position more, I don’t think disavowing the ban would be any stronger than condemning it and it wouldn’t add anything beneficial. It is understood that the ban was racist, therefore it has been criticized, censured, denounced, reproached, and rebuked. The church has completely disapproved of it.

To disavow the ban would be to disclaim responsibility for it, and I just don’t see how that would make sense or make anything better.

[Anonymous]

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).

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

To clarify my position more, I don’t think disavowing the ban would be any stronger than condemning it and it wouldn’t add anything beneficial. It is understood that the ban was racist, therefore it has been criticized, censured, denounced, reproached, and rebuked. The church has completely disapproved of it.

To disavow the ban would be to disclaim responsibility for it, and I just don’t see how that would make sense or make anything better.

I addressed this in another dictionary definition — disavow has many meanings — ONE meaning defines it as “to deny responsibility for” — but that CANNOT be the meaning in this context. We have ample evidence that the church did enforce a priesthood ban and that church leaders were the source.

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.

The only other definition I could see applying means to “repudiate”.

re·pu·di·ate [ri-pyoo-dee-eyt] Show IPA

verb (used with object), re·pu·di·at·ed, re·pu·di·at·ing.

1. to reject as having no authority or binding force: to repudiate a claim.

2. to cast off or disown: to repudiate a son.

3. to reject with disapproval or condemnation: to repudiate a new doctrine.

4. to reject with denial: to repudiate a charge as untrue.

Definition 3 even uses the word “condemnation”. 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.”

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.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/repudiate

Perhaps we are splitting hairs on the semantics of the meaning of the word disavow.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

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.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

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?

Holy smokes! You are right. I’m fixing that now.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

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.

SilentDawning wrote:

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.

SilentDawning wrote:

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. 🙂

[Author]

Posts