Firesides/28 November 2010 - Sweden/12

  1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Response to questions about the priesthood ban


Response to questions about angelic visitations Response to questions about temple concerns

1: BoM translation—2: Polygamy and Polyandry—3: Polygamy forced?—4: Book of Abraham—5: "Lying for Lord"—6: Mark Hofmann—7: Blood atonement—8: First Vision—9: Sanitized history—10: "Not all truth is useful"—11: Angelic affidavits—12: Blacks and priesthood—13: Temple concerns—14: Evidence of Vikings—15: Adam-God—16: Kinderhook

Question:
[In reading] 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.

Short Answer:
  • Question: If David O. McKay was in favor of lifting the priesthood ban, why didn't he?
    Answer: There is a period of studying it out in the mind prior to receiving revelation.

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.

—Brother Turley's response to this question at the Sweden fireside.
  • Question: Why did some of the apostles disagree about lifting the priesthood ban?
    Answer: We don't know.

It’s possible. I think it would be entirely consistent with the way things are done. Does that make sense?

—Brother Turley's response to this question at the Sweden fireside.



Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Firesides/28_November_2010_-_Sweden/12&oldid=146726"