Difference between revisions of "User:InProgress/SWDN/Swedish questions/12"

(m)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
+
#REDIRECT [[Main Page]]
{{Resource Title|A FairMormon Response to Questions Asked in Swedish Fireside with Elder's Jensen and Turley}}
 
 
 
{{Swedish questions quick jump}}
 
{{parabreak}}
 
 
 
==== ====
 
{{QuestionItem
 
|claim=When I read about the priesthood and the blacks.
 
*David O. McKay .... he had made OK that they should have the priesthood. But three of the apostles were not there and when they come back, they said no.
 
*Is this true that there were some apostles that went against the question to give the priesthood to the Blacks?
 
*Mark E Peterson....talks a lot about the blacks and the pre-existence and they are damned and so on because they were black.
 
|answer=
 
*'''Question: If David O. McKay was in favor of lifting the priesthood ban, why didn't he?<br>Answer: There is a period of studying it out in the mind prior to receiving revelation.'''
 
<blockquote>
 
David O. McKay blacks and the priesthood. The June 1978 revelation has a history to it like all revelations. You have this period of time in which saints are studying it out in the mind and they eventually flower as revelation.<br>
 
:::&mdash;Elder Turley's response to this question at the Sweden fireside.
 
</blockquote>
 
*'''Question: Why did some of the apostles disagree about lifting the priesthood ban?<br>Answer: We don't know.'''
 
<blockquote>
 
It’s possible. I think it would be entirely consistent with the way things are done. Does that make sense?<br>
 
:::&mdash;Elder Turley's response to this question at the Sweden fireside.
 
</blockquote>
 
}}
 

Latest revision as of 14:01, 18 November 2013

Redirect to: