The beginning of the priesthood/temple ban

[EdGoble]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

Part of that infinite regress is that the Paul Reeve essay can also be "disavowed" at a later time, as needed. There is literally nothing where the hands cannot simply be washed of a matter, just like that, once you go down the disavowal/repudiation/condemnation road. 

That's probably one of the best things of modern revelation, is that it isn't just building up the new on top of the old.  It is sometimes tearing out things that aren't true because there are parts of Mormonism that have turned out to be and will end up being not true.  This is why a minimalist approach is nice, and also the approach where the Church takes no position on a certain thing, because it also allows people freedom of belief where they are not told what to believe.  Mormonism isn't supposed to be creedal.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

And, if all the prophets can be so wrong about something like that for so long (without God intervening somehow), then we can't be sure of anything. That's the ripple effect you're talking about. 

I'd like to hear from those who think it was completely of man and not of God explain a) if this constitutes prophets leading astray, and b) if not, why this issue isn't an example of prophets being allowed to lead astray.

I will suggest that the ban came not from God, man or the devil, but from a place where man had no accountability to act (a place where God had not given him agency). This is why its origin and practice is not condemned, only the theories that explained it and all racism (and in relation to the ban, any racism associated with the theories and the people upholding the ban). I’m suggesting that when God gives man his agency, it is done per various conditions and spheres (D&C 93:30-31), e.g. the first estate, in Eden, according to the light and knowledge revealed in the various dispensations, etc. Even in this current dispensation (the fulness of times), He grants agency to us individually, as for example, accountability affected by age and development, accident and illness, insurmountable social mores, etc. Light and agency are sometimes promised blessings and sometimes an expression of sheer grace without anything, or despite anything, we can do. This is why I suggest that a revelation was required to remove the ban, and why we cannot harshly judge the prophets of the past for it (or even correctly understand or relate to how it came about).

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, rongo said:

And, if all the prophets can be so wrong about something like that for so long (without God intervening somehow), then we can't be sure of anything. That's the ripple effect you're talking about. 

So should we be stuck with the notion that the prophets were so wrong about the reasons for the ban for so long (without God intervening somehow)?  I know we talked a little bit about this the other day but I still am not sure your ideas square well with what the prophets of the past have said.  

17 hours ago, rongo said:

I'd like to hear from those who think it was completely of man and not of God explain a) if this constitutes prophets leading astray, and b) if not, why this issue isn't an example of prophets being allowed to lead astray.

Are you saying because a prophet said prophets won't lead people astray that means we should just believe that prophets won't lead people astray?  This to me seems to be one case in many wherein prophets, so called, led people astray.  

[rongo]

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So should we be stuck with the notion that the prophets were so wrong about the reasons for the ban for so long (without God intervening somehow)?  I know we talked a little bit about this the other day but I still am not sure your ideas square well with what the prophets of the past have said.  

I'm sure they would agree with me. I don't think the ban was a mistake, and I don't think it was of man. I think that is what prophets of the past have thought as well.

Quote

Are you saying because a prophet said prophets won't lead people astray that means we should just believe that prophets won't lead people astray?  This to me seems to be one case in many wherein prophets, so called, led people astray. 

No. I agree with you! The mere assertion alone doesn't prove that it is the case. I wrote a whole paper on this:

https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/well-nigh-as-dangerous

I was asking those who feel that the ban was not of God why this instance wouldn't be an example of prophets leading astray. I think it's obvious that that isn't what I think.

Your view on this is duly noted!  

Edited May 16, 2018 by rongo

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So should we be stuck with the notion that the prophets were so wrong about the reasons for the ban for so long (without God intervening somehow)?  I know we talked a little bit about this the other day but I still am not sure your ideas square well with what the prophets of the past have said.  

Are you saying because a prophet said prophets won't lead people astray that means we should just believe that prophets won't lead people astray?  This to me seems to be one case in many wherein prophets, so called, led people astray.   

I would consider that they cannot be wrong if they lacked the agency to choose to be wrong, or lacked accountability, on this point.

The saying goes that the Lord will never permit the President of the Church to lead us astray. That is an example of the Lord limiting his agency. Belief in that saying is optional of course, so if one thinks that the Lord will indeed permit and has permitted the President of the Church to lead us astray, it is simply not a belief that is consistent with the saying.

But if the President hasn’t the accountability for being right or wrong on a particular point at a particular point in his dispensation, no one else is being led astray either. As the dispensation rolls out, revelations are given and condemnations made, then yes, he has the agency and accountability to lead in alignment with that, and we can choose to follow.

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

I was asking those who feel that the ban was not of God why this instance wouldn't be an example of prophets leading astray. I think it's obvious that that isn't what I think.

I don't know if it was from God or not, but I am most comfortable with the notion that it was not of God or man as explained above (  Posted 16 hours ago ), and is not an example of prophets leading astray as explained immediately above.

Edited May 16, 2018 by CV75

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I would consider that they cannot be wrong if they lacked the agency to choose to be wrong, or lacked accountability, on this point.

The saying goes that the Lord will never permit the President of the Church to lead us astray. That is an example of the Lord limiting his agency.

I don't think that the multiple statements about God not permitting prophets to lead astray means that God remote controls them or limits their agency. There are very good detailed explanations from them in my paper I linked to. This was actually my 5th Sunday discussion topic in April.

As B.H. Roberts said (also quoted), it also doesn't mean that God will kill them off or physically remove them if they do lead astray. And it is possible for them to do so (they have the agency and ability). As quoted in the paper, there is a stronger safeguard: the agency and personal revelation of the rank-and-file members will cause any "leading astray" to die on the vine. One could argue that this is what happened with Adam-God, although it is more complicated than that, and Brigham Young's views on this are not well-understood or represented. 

The priesthood ban was different. It persisted strongly, and was only lifted by a revelation to the prophet. A revelation that did not repudiate or condemn, but rather, harked backed to prophetic promises from predecessors. 

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm sure they would agree with me. I don't think the ban was a mistake, and I don't think it was of man. I think that is what prophets of the past have thought as well.

That's not my question.  My question is what do you do about the Church now saying the prophets were wrong for so long without God intervening about the reason for the ban?  Are you saying the prophets (church) is wrong now, or the prophets were so wrong for so long without God intervening?  If the latter, then it seems your own question is a moot one.  If the former, then it seems you must treat Hinckley, and the 2013 Race and the Priesthood essay as non prophetic, right?  

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

No. I agree with you! The mere assertion alone doesn't prove that it is the case. I wrote a whole paper on this:

https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/well-nigh-as-dangerous

I was asking those who feel that the ban was not of God why this instance wouldn't be an example of prophets leading astray. I think it's obvious that that isn't what I think.

Your view on this is duly noted!  

Alright.  So you don't think the prophets were wrong when they explained the reasons for the ban?  I guess this is where we left off the other day.  I can't tell if you think the ban was a result of less valiancy in the pre-earth world or not.  If not, then you are saying prophets were so wrong for so long without God intervening, just as you complained would then lead to us not being sure of anything.  It seems to me you're stuck either way.  

[EdGoble]

25 minutes ago, rongo said:

The priesthood ban was different. It persisted strongly, and was only lifted by a revelation to the prophet. A revelation that did not repudiate or condemn, but rather, harked backed to prophetic promises from predecessors. 

Only because the revelation was only focused on a couple of things.  It stopped the practice of banning the priesthood from the people it was begin denied to, and it pointed to prophetic promises to prophets that prophesied that the ban would be lifted someday.  That part was prophetic.  What was not prophetic was the set of interpretations that those prophets attached to this issue.  The lifting of the ban did not include a revelation on the historical problem with the origin of the ban.  Over time, it seems to me, further light and knowledge has been added to understand the problem with the ban in the first place, and the flawed interpretations that led to it.  Just because the prophetic promises prophesied of the lifting of the ban, that does not validate the foundation of the ban.  That was the best that they knew back then.  These people did not have enough light and knowledge to know that they ought to repudiate or condemn it at the time.  They only had enough light at the time to be able to predict that it would be lifted someday, and President Kimball only knew at the time that it was finally lifted.  Now we know more.

Edited May 16, 2018 by EdGoble

[SouthernMo]

Around the teaching that the president of the church will never lead people astray:

This statement was first made by Wilford Woodruff in OD1 in 1890. For decades prior to the ban, polygamy was taught as essential to exaltation.  I can’t imagine what an ‘about face’ OD1 must have been for the devout members of this time who had been living under the more John Taylor-esque attitude towards polygamy of “The Kingdom of God or nothing!”  I can’t think of a bigger doctrinal/practical shift in all of post-restoration LDS history.  The church membership likely needed comfort in knowing that the train was still on the tracks.

Does God or do his leaders sometimes exaggerate to make a point?  Maybe. @pogi has some good ideas about this. Others (like me) try to take God’s revelations as literal.

However, if God or his prophets aren’t afraid to engage in a little hyperbole to make a point, or drive a message though our (thick) skulls, perhaps we need to relax a little, and understand that Wilford Woodruff may have been sending a very clear message: God would not abandon the church, nor was Wilford Woodruff apostate for making what was obviously a very tough decision.

Perhaps it is literalists like me who now misuse this 1890 statement to hold all subsequent presidents of the church to an impossibly high standard.

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That's not my question.  My question is what do you do about the Church now saying the prophets were wrong for so long without God intervening about the reason for the ban? 

Here's what I do about it:

1) Explanations for the ban from multiple prophets refer to the pre-existence as the rationale

2) When the ban was lifted in 1978, prophets referred to promises that that day would come

3) In recent times, as an attempt to have something available to refer troubled people to (the gospel topics essays), the Brethren commissioned Paul Reeve to write an essay. The essay "disavows" the past explanations, but not the ban itself. 

4) While the essay is approved by the Brethren to appear on the Church website (and thus is authorized by them), it significantly does not carry their name, and they do not talk about it. This may change with the June 1 broadcast, but we are currently in a place officially by design where the Church essentially has taken no position on the legitimacy of the ban itself --- just the explanations for it (and it is the explanations that bother people, when they are bothered).

So, I think the Brethren have allowed the Reeve essay to disavow the explanations as a PR impasse between saying nothing and full-out repudiation/condemnation of the ban. It doesn't make anyone completely happy, but it threads the needle as well as possible. It conspicuously does allow people to continue to believe that the ban was inspired by God.

Alright.  So you don't think the prophets were wrong when they explained the reasons for the ban?

Absolutely correct.

I can't tell if you think the ban was a result of less valiancy in the pre-earth world or not.

Partially, but again, I think there were other reasons, too. Some of these reasons could be super-valiancy (tough assignment because you can handle it and demonstrated capability). This is also an explanation I have heard from black members (e.g., Renee Olson) in explaining the ban.

If not, then you are saying prophets were so wrong for so long without God intervening, just as you complained would then lead to us not being sure of anything.  It seems to me you're stuck either way. 

How so? 

[stemelbow]

 

43 minutes ago, rongo said:

Here's what I do about it:

1) Explanations for the ban from multiple prophets refer to the pre-existence as the rationale

2) When the ban was lifted in 1978, prophets referred to promises that that day would come

3) In recent times, as an attempt to have something available to refer troubled people to (the gospel topics essays), the Brethren commissioned Paul Reeve to write an essay. The essay "disavows" the past explanations, but not the ban itself. 

4) While the essay is approved by the Brethren to appear on the Church website (and thus is authorized by them), it significantly does not carry their name, and they do not talk about it. This may change with the June 1 broadcast, but we are currently in a place officially by design where the Church essentially has taken no position on the legitimacy of the ban itself --- just the explanations for it (and it is the explanations that bother people, when they are bothered).

So, I think the Brethren have allowed the Reeve essay to disavow the explanations as a PR impasse between saying nothing and full-out repudiation/condemnation of the ban. It doesn't make anyone completely happy, but it threads the needle as well as possible. It 

Ok so with that established, you had said:

Quote

And, if all the prophets can be so wrong about something like that for so long (without God intervening somehow), then we can't be sure of anything. That's the ripple effect you're talking about. 

 

Quote

 

 

Absolutely correct.

 

 

Partially, but again, I think there were other reasons, too. Some of these reasons could be super-valiancy (tough assignment because you can handle it and demonstrated capability). This is also an explanation I have heard from black members (e.g., Renee Olson) in explaining the ban.

 

 

How so? 

Well I just explained that, a couple of time.  

You claimed God's prophets couldn't have been wrong that long without God intervening.  The Church today says the prophets were wrong that long (as it pertains to the explanation of the ban) without intervening.  So, according to your logic, we cant' be sure of anything.  But it seems in order to say we can be sure of somethings (at least), you'd have to conclude the brethren today are wrong to suggest the essay is correct.  But if that's the case, then at some point God is going to have to intervene to correct the current understanding, lest we then get the point of not being sure of anything.  But if the brethren today are wrong about this, then what else are the wrong about?  And if they are wrong about something, whose to say they haven't been wrong about something long enough to the point of we can't be sure of anything?  Why...we'd never know.  And if we'd never know that, then we have to conclude we can't be sure of anything.  

Edited May 16, 2018 by stemelbow

[rongo]

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You claimed God's prophets couldn't have been wrong that long without God intervening. 

As I see it, yes. And other than you (who willingly admits that you don't believe much of any of LDS truth claims), nobody has been willing to explain how the disavowal in Reeve's essay does not constitute prophets leading the Church astray. You have said that you think that it does rise to this, so I'm not talking about you.  

Quote

The Church today says the prophets were wrong that long (as it pertains to the explanation of the ban) without intervening.

It does, and it doesn't. By publishing the Reeve essay anonymously on the Church website, the Church does "own" it. But, conspicuously, the Brethren themselves refuse to take a position at all, and never talk on the record about it. Why is that? Why don't they directly address the issue, instead of using an anonymous third party? Because they're trying to thread the needle and make as many people as happy as possible. But, there is a big difference between this and direct statements stating the position of the Church. And, as I've said before, use of the word "disavow" is significant. The connotation of "disavow" is to distance for reasons of how it is viewed, but not to condemn or repudiate (like the military disavowing a clandestine operation. The operation took place, and disavowals are usually taken to be a form of "taking the 5th"). 

Quote

So, according to your logic, we cant' be sure of anything.

That is the danger in going down the disavowal of past established doctrine, yes. I haven't lost any surety on the matter, for myself.  

Quote

But it seems in order to say we can be sure of somethings (at least), you'd have to conclude the brethren today are wrong to suggest the essay is correct.

I think the essay was ill-advised, and I wish it didn't exist. But, it stops short of a) condemning the ban itself, and b) repudiating the past Brethren.

Quote

But if that's the case, then at some point God is going to have to intervene to correct the current understanding, lest we then get the point of not being sure of anything.

What is the "current understanding," though? What in canonical scripture has been impacted? What in dialogue and rhetoric emanating from Salt Lake has been impacted (i.e., when, outside of the essay, has the Church repeated this "disavowal?") Even the changes  to the introduction to OD2 stop far , far short of Reeve'e "disavowal." I would say that the essay, while part of the record of the history of this issue, is not even close to the final word on the "current understanding." It would be far more widely disseminated if it were, for one thing. 

Quote

But if the brethren today are wrong about this, then what else are the wrong about?

That's the slippery slope. They have kept themselves safely removed to where they aren't "wrong" about anything. The essays function more as helps (like chapter introductions and footnotes) than anything. 

Quote

And if they are wrong about something, whose to say they haven't been wrong about something long enough to the point of we can't be sure of anything?  Why...we'd never know.  And if we'd never know that, then we have to conclude we can't be sure of anything. 

That is the slippery slope, yes. But we haven't slid down it yet. And I hope that we don't.  

Edited May 16, 2018 by rongo

[rongo]

I should say that everything I have said may be countermanded by the June 1st broadcast. I don't think it will. I think it will be more along the lines of generic "look how far we've come, and let's celebrate diversity in the Church!" 

I'm also interested to see what, if anything, comes out of this joint statement with the NAACP. 

Interesting times!

Edited May 16, 2018 by rongo

[RevTestament]

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well I just explained that, a couple of time.  

You claimed God's prophets couldn't have been wrong that long without God intervening.  The Church today says the prophets were wrong that long (as it pertains to the explanation of the ban) without intervening.  So, according to your logic, we cant' be sure of anything.  But it seems in order to say we can be sure of somethings (at least), you'd have to conclude the brethren today are wrong to suggest the essay is correct.  But if that's the case, then at some point God is going to have to intervene to correct the current understanding, lest we then get the point of not being sure of anything.  But if the brethren today are wrong about this, then what else are the wrong about?  And if they are wrong about something, whose to say they haven't been wrong about something long enough to the point of we can't be sure of anything?  Why...we'd never know.  And if we'd never know that, then we have to conclude we can't be sure of anything. 

I am sure of the restored gospel. I just don't have tons of confidence in new teaching since JS. BY is painted as some larger-than-life figure in the Church, and set all these precedents - many of which are still followed today. I have found I disagree with him on numerous points. He plainly stated that the birth of Jesus was not of the Holy Ghost. He rejected the Biblical account. The problem is that rejects the Book of Mormon too which also says Yeshua was conceived by the Holy Spirit. He rejected the virgin birth which is also confirmed by the Book of Mormon. He allowed slavery, which JS rejected. He instituted the priesthood ban which I have never really accepted. He came up with the garden of Eden in America thing, which I believe flat out contradicts JS' inspired Book of Moses. He was the impetus for the feeling of the Church that temporal polygamy is necessary for exaltation, which teaching has resulting in apostasy and several splits in the Church and was definitely more headache than benefit to the Church. He is also the source of the idea that the new President is the senior-most apostle. Find that in the D&C. Not there. The President only need be a high priest. Nothing there about being an apostle. Now I am stepping on toes, because the Church still buys this one. There are two qualifications to be President besides revelation: to be a high priest and to be chosen or approved by the body of the Church. You don't have to be an apostle, and you definitely don't have to be the senior-most apostle. Nor is there any scriptural authority to dissolve the presidency upon the death of the President, just as the quorum doesn't dissolve upon the death of a counselor. Scripturally, the quorum continues on with equal authority to the quorum of the 12. The president of the apostles does not have authority to release the remaining counselors. And now I will probably get exed. 

None of this means the Church is not the true representative of the restored gospel, and the earthly source of the true priesthood of God. It just means it is led by fallible men who I do not choose to follow when they err. I follow when they speak truth confirmed by the spirit. I am not faulting others for following what they perceive as the Lord's will. I am just saying that even if one questions the current state of things, doesn't mean one should leave the Church. I can be sure of things. I have had the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon confirmed for me. I have had The Church of Jesus Christ confirmed as His authorized Church. However, that doesn't mean He will never correct His Church. He certainly has in the past. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

 

4) While the essay is approved by the Brethren to appear on the Church website (and thus is authorized by them), it significantly does not carry their name, and they do not talk about it. This may change with the June 1 broadcast, but we are currently in a place officially by design where the Church essentially has taken no position on the legitimacy of the ban itself --- just the explanations for it (and it is the explanations that bother people, when they are bothered).

Rongo, if they mention in the June 1 broadcast that the ban wasn't for anything you've done in the pre-existance or that the curse or mark of cain had nothing to do with black people, what will you do or think about this? Who is right, current prophet/apostles or past?

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Rongo, if they mention in the June 1 broadcast that the ban wasn't for anything you've done in the pre-existance or that the curse or mark of cain had nothing to do with black people, what will you do or think about this? Who is right, current prophet/apostles or past?

That's a good question. I will continue to believe what I believe, but I will be less vocal. If the Brethren themselves actually say this. That would be a big step, for sure --- a step they have hitherto avoided even approaching. 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

I don't think that the multiple statements about God not permitting prophets to lead astray means that God remote controls them or limits their agency. There are very good detailed explanations from them in my paper I linked to. This was actually my 5th Sunday discussion topic in April.

As B.H. Roberts said (also quoted), it also doesn't mean that God will kill them off or physically remove them if they do lead astray. And it is possible for them to do so (they have the agency and ability). As quoted in the paper, there is a stronger safeguard: the agency and personal revelation of the rank-and-file members will cause any "leading astray" to die on the vine. One could argue that this is what happened with Adam-God, although it is more complicated than that, and Brigham Young's views on this are not well-understood or represented. 

The priesthood ban was different. It persisted strongly, and was only lifted by a revelation to the prophet. A revelation that did not repudiate or condemn, but rather, harked backed to prophetic promises from predecessors. 

True, the ban persisted strongly and was lifted by revelation as you described. The prophetic promises include those made by Abraham (Abraham 2:11) and Nephi (2 Nephi 10:9, 26:33), so naturally the prophets of the Restoration would apply these concepts to the modern ban. But these facts do not establish its origin.

Reasonable people can believe the 19^th century origin was of God, man or the devil, and even my 4th option to reconcile the belief that it did not come from God with the belief that Presidents Young through Kimball (until 1978) were not leading the people astray. Any of these positions serves only for argument or convenience in living one’s beliefs. In the absence of canon, the only way to know the ban was a revelation from God is to receive a personal witness that this was the case. And who is He going to give that to, when, and for what purpose? Maybe someday we’ll find out, but it will have to be more compelling than the records we have.

When God prevents someone from doing something, He is curtailing their agency. Unlike us, it is for the benefit of all concerned. For example, when Laban was killed, his agency to retain the plates was removed before Lehi’s future nation would be led astray (and before Laban had to prove himself any further). Remote control would be when God takes over Laban’s frame to graciously hand over the plates to Laman and Lemuel, or have Pharaoh politely acquiesce to Moses’ first demand, things He does not do. So much for the first informal fallacy.

My original point about the President’s agency is, if the Lord has directed no light upon a subject with which to exercise agency, there is no functional agency; the Lord has not gifted him agency on that point. This occurs when the light of future dispensations is not shed upon previous ones, and the prophets make decisions based on the light and agency available within their own dispensation (I use dispensation liberally here; not just the traditional few, but each President's tenure).

I wasn’t suggesting that He kills those Presidents who would lead the people astray. The saying goes that they would be removed, leaving it open for both physical, functional and other forms of removal, i.e. the saints continue to keep their covenants and build Zion unrestrained by false premises. So much for the second strawman, not that I think it was intentional.

Edited May 16, 2018 by CV75

[rongo]

Just now, CV75 said:

Reasonable people can believe the 19^th century origin was of God, man or the devil, and even my 4th option to reconcile the belief that it did not come from God with the belief that Presidents Young through Kimball (until 1978) were not leading the people astray. Any of these positions serves only for argument or convenience in living one’s beliefs. In the absence of canon, the only way to know the ban was a revelation from God is to receive a personal witness that this was the case. And who is He going to give that to, when, and for what purpose? Maybe someday we’ll find out, but it will have to be more compelling than the records we have.

Very much agree! I am glad that we each have the room and latitude to work this out for ourselves, each according to his own experience and belief. 

I have also used talking points from Darius Gray, Marvin Perkins, et. al. when helping people with concerns about this, even though they don't work for me. I am honest with people that this is a complicated issue that people see differently, and here are some options that work for some people. Depending on the situation and the conversation. 

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

Very much agree! I am glad that we each have the room and latitude to work this out for ourselves, each according to his own experience and belief. 

I have also used talking points from Darius Gray, Marvin Perkins, et. al. when helping people with concerns about this, even though they don't work for me. I am honest with people that this is a complicated issue that people see differently, and here are some options that work for some people. Depending on the situation and the conversation. 

Cool. I evidently edited my post while you were posting, so you might want to check out the additional paragraph I added.

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

As I see it, yes. And other than you (who willingly admits that you don't believe much of any of LDS truth claims), nobody has been willing to explain how the disavowal in Reeve's essay does not constitute prophets leading the Church astray. You have said that you think that it does rise to this, so I'm not talking about you.  

It does, and it doesn't. By publishing the Reeve essay anonymously on the Church website, the Church does "own" it. But, conspicuously, the Brethren themselves refuse to take a position at all, and never talk on the record about it. Why is that? Why don't they directly address the issue, instead of using an anonymous third party? Because they're trying to thread the needle and make as many people as happy as possible. But, there is a big difference between this and direct statements stating the position of the Church. And, as I've said before, use of the word "disavow" is significant. The connotation of "disavow" is to distance for reasons of how it is viewed, but not to condemn or repudiate (like the military disavowing a clandestine operation. The operation took place, and disavowals are usually taken to be a form of "taking the 5th"). 

The brethren take a position.  Of course they do:

Quote

The purpose of these essays, which have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, has been to gather accurate information from many different sources and publications and place it in the Gospel Topics section of LDS.org, where the material can more easily be accessed and studied by Church members and other interested parties.

Their position is the info in the essays is accurate and they approve.

As per disavow.  In the diction'ry it says repudiate.  to disclaim knowledge of, connection with, or responsibility for; disown; repudiate: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/disavow?s=t

Every dictionary I looked it up in had repudiate as it's definition.  I don't think the distinction you are trying to create works.  The essay says:

Quote

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.²⁴

I suppose one can just say..."well the racist policy regarind priesthood restriction is not racism, therefore, the brethren are leaving room for us to think it was by God".  I suppose.  But that doesn't do much for the English language.  It undercuts our every rule of communication.  

 

2 hours ago, rongo said:

That is the danger in going down the disavowal of past established doctrine, yes. I haven't lost any surety on the matter, for myself.  

I think the essay was ill-advised, and I wish it didn't exist. But, it stops short of a) condemning the ban itself, and b) repudiating the past Brethren.

Actually it both condemns the ban, using the word condemn in fact "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism".  It condemns all racism, even in the past.  the ban was based on race discrimination, which is racism.  Also, the essay tells us, which essay the brethren approve of, that they disavow the claimed revelations fo the past.  And disavow, as it turns out means repudiate.  Both of yoru statements are as wrong as statements anyone can make on this.  

Granted, if push came to shove each and every one of the brethren would likely not say they condemn the ban, nor would they say the repudiate the past revelations that the essay repudiates.  But like you, I'd chalk that up to the brethren being far too PR.   

2 hours ago, rongo said:

What is the "current understanding," though? What in canonical scripture has been impacted? What in dialogue and rhetoric emanating from Salt Lake has been impacted (i.e., when, outside of the essay, has the Church repeated this "disavowal?") Even the changes  to the introduction to OD2 stop far , far short of Reeve'e "disavowal." I would say that the essay, while part of the record of the history of this issue, is not even close to the final word on the "current understanding." It would be far more widely disseminated if it were, for one thing. 

I think it'd be wise fo rthe Church to not pretend to final words on anything.  Info is yet to come out on all of its stated propositions.  But, that seems far beyond the point here.  

2 hours ago, rongo said:

That's the slippery slope. They have kept themselves safely removed to where they aren't "wrong" about anything. The essays function more as helps (like chapter introductions and footnotes) than anything. 

That is the slippery slope, yes. But we haven't slid down it yet. And I hope that we don't.  

I dont' know that the essays function as helps for members really.  They are largely ignored or treated, as you have done, that they dont' say what they do say.  

[clarkgoble]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I dont' know that the essays function as helps for members really.  They are largely ignored or treated, as you have done, that they dont' say what they do say.  

Most people once they reach a certain age - typically around 25 - stop changing their views much. So I think you're right that many people, particularly older people, won't change their views because of the essays. Where it has a bigger effect is on people forming their views - the youth and young adults and converts.

[CV75]

33 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Actually it both condemns the ban, using the word condemn in fact "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism".  It condemns all racism, even in the past.  the ban was based on race discrimination, which is racism.  Also, the essay tells us, which essay the brethren approve of, that they disavow the claimed revelations fo the past.  And disavow, as it turns out means repudiate.  Both of yoru statements are as wrong as statements anyone can make on this.  

Granted, if push came to shove each and every one of the brethren would likely not say they condemn the ban, nor would they say the repudiate the past revelations that the essay repudiates.  But like you, I'd chalk that up to the brethren being far too PR.

I think you are misreading a few things from the essay, as none of them acknowledge the ban as a form of racism, only that it was explained in racist terms which are now disavowed, along with the condemnation of racism in any form. The ban could have been implemented and eventually lifted even if more acceptable explanations had been given.

[phaedrus ut]

I think the problem is that since the change in 1978 the church has avoided refuting the ban as false doctrine or a mistake.  There are official statements, released and signed by the First Presidency, such as -

Quote

It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. 

There have been great strides since then and I think the racial attitudes of the church today, with a few lingering prejudices like we have seen on this thread, is 99% better.  The Race and the Priesthood essay is a great step in this direction with the statement -

Quote

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

That's a great statement but I think it's still ambiguous enough to allow some wiggle room.  First this isn't a statement issued from and signed by the First Presidency.  It's a online essay deep in lds.org.  Second it only disavows "theories'" but not the ban itself.  It condemns "all racism, past and present" but never explicitly states that the priesthood ban was wrong.  

With that I have a suggestion. There is a Be One celebration of the 1978 revelation. The First Presidency should issue a pronouncement, Proclamation of the Family style, signed by the First Presidency that explicitly says the ban was wrong from the beginning, the justifications for the ban were wrong and harmful, racist passages exist in the scriptures but those are wrong, and apologize and ask for forgiveness.*

Phaedrus

* a mention of the various bans on black women and ignoring them in the 1978 revelation would also be productive. 

[stemelbow]

18 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Most people once they reach a certain age - typically around 25 - stop changing their views much. So I think you're right that many people, particularly older people, won't change their views because of the essays. Where it has a bigger effect is on people forming their views - the youth and young adults and converts.

I think the essays help define the direction the Church wants to go with these controversial issues (knowing full well most members don't have a clue about most of the issues discussed in the essays).  If you are correct, I'd imagine the ban being considered condemned by the Church members in a few years, as Rongo's generation ages and the younger ones start taking charge.  Today's youth is so much further removed from the controversies of the past, than we were (I'm imagining Rongo and you closer to my age).  It's so much easier to consider them all gone, forgotten and forgiven with time.  

[RevTestament]

19 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

* a mention of the various bans on black women and ignoring them in the 1978 revelation would also be productive. 

Please elucidate.