The Meaning of "Disavow"

[Anonymous]

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:

Quote:

…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.”

[Anonymous]

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_doctrine/Prophets_are_not_infallible/Quotations” class=”bbcode_url”>http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Prophets_are_not_infallible/Quotations There are some good quotes in there, but nothing that’s going to change an orthodox mind.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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…

[Author]

Posts