Gramps,

I know that apostles are called as special witnesses, and that people can have heavenly visions and visitations. I’ve been trying to find any mention of the doctrine of the responsibility of such an event.

John

Answer

John,

One of the clearest examples comes from the Apostle Paul. In 2 Corinthians 12, Paul describes being “caught up to the third heaven” and hearing things that he says were “not lawful for a man to utter.” Notice what happens here: Paul had an extraordinary heavenly experience, but he was not commanded to tell everyone everything he had seen or heard. In fact, he deliberately kept some of the details private.

That is significant because Paul was an Apostle. If simply being an Apostle meant that every heavenly experience had to be publicly reported, Paul’s example would be difficult to explain. Instead, it suggests that even an Apostle may receive revelation that is sacred and personal and that is not intended for public disclosure.

The Book of Mormon gives another interesting example. Nephi records some of the tremendous things he saw in vision, including the history of his descendants, the Savior’s ministry, and events concerning the last days. But he also says that he was forbidden to write some things because the Lord had commanded him not to make them known.

In 1 Nephi 14:25, Nephi says that the things he saw were “sealed up, to come forth in their purity, according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God.” He had seen things he was not permitted to reveal.

That gives us an important principle: receiving revelation does not automatically mean receiving permission to disclose it. The Lord can reveal something to a person while simultaneously telling that person to keep it sacred.

We see something similar with John the Revelator. In Revelation 10, John heard “seven thunders” utter their voices. He was apparently about to write what he had heard, but the voice from heaven told him, “Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.” John was commanded to keep a heavenly revelation to himself.

That is probably one of the strongest biblical examples against the idea that every genuine heavenly revelation has to be publicly announced. At the same time, scripture contains many examples in which a person was specifically commanded to testify.

After the First Vision, Joseph Smith eventually wrote and taught about what had happened to him. The experience was directly connected to the Restoration and to his prophetic calling. Likewise, when the resurrected Christ appeared to the Nephites, those people were commanded to bear witness of what they had seen.

In 3 Nephi 11, Christ invited the people to come forward and feel the prints of the nails in His hands and feet. They personally experienced the reality of His resurrected body. Their experience then became part of their testimony to others.

There is, therefore, a difference between having a witness and being commissioned to proclaim a particular message. That distinction is especially important when we talk about the Apostles.

The New Testament itself describes the Apostles as witnesses of the resurrected Christ. Peter said, “We are his witnesses of these things” in Acts 5:32. The Twelve had personally encountered the risen Savior, and their responsibility was to testify of Him.

The modern Church uses similar language. Doctrine and Covenants 107:23 states:

“The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world.”

The wording is important. They are special witnesses of the name of Christ. Their responsibility is to testify of Him and His gospel. It does not say that each Apostle is responsible for publicly describing every vision, revelation, or supernatural experience he receives. In fact, the Church has generally avoided treating the private spiritual experiences of its leaders as something members need to know to have faith.

This is consistent with another important LDS teaching: testimony is not supposed to rest on somebody else’s supernatural experience.

For example, if an Apostle says, “I know Jesus Christ lives,” a member does not need to know whether that Apostle has literally seen Jesus Christ with his physical eyes in order to accept his testimony. The member is encouraged to seek his or her own spiritual witness through the Holy Ghost.

This is one reason LDS leaders generally emphasize testimony of Christ rather than descriptions of mystical experiences. There is also a practical reason for this.

Suppose someone said, “I had a vision, and God told me that the Church needs to do this.” That claim would not automatically establish authority. The Church would still have to consider whether that revelation was actually from God, whether the person had authority to receive revelation on that subject, and whether the claimed revelation was consistent with established doctrine.

Doctrine and Covenants 43:3 makes the principle particularly clear. The Lord explained that commandments and revelations for the Church would come through the person appointed to receive them, rather than through someone simply claiming private revelation.

That does not mean that God cannot reveal something to someone outside the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve. He certainly can. But personal revelation and revelation for the entire Church are not the same thing.

This is also why the LDS concept of stewardship matters so much. A bishop can receive revelation for his ward in connection with his calling. A parent can receive revelation concerning his or her children. A missionary can receive inspiration concerning his or her missionary responsibilities. An individual can receive revelation concerning his or her own life. But none of those experiences automatically gives the person authority to receive revelation for everyone else.

The same principle applies to heavenly visitations. Imagine that an ordinary Church member has a genuine visitation from an angel. The angel gives that person comfort concerning a deceased family member. The person may have received something profoundly sacred and meaningful. But that does not mean the person has suddenly become responsible for teaching the Church about the afterlife.

On the other hand, suppose the angel gives the person a specific command to deliver a message to a particular individual. In that case, the responsibility could be different. The person would need to prayerfully determine whether and how to follow that instruction. The scriptures show that heavenly messengers sometimes give very specific assignments.

Moroni’s appearances to Joseph Smith are an obvious example. Moroni did not simply appear and give Joseph a fascinating spiritual experience. He gave him information and instructions concerning the plates and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. Those instructions were directly connected to Joseph’s future prophetic work.

So the responsibility came from the message and assignment, not merely from the fact that an angel appeared. This also helps explain why Latter-day Saints should be cautious about putting too much emphasis on supernatural claims. A person might honestly believe that he or she saw an angel or received a vision. That experience could be completely sincere. But sincerity and authority are not necessarily the same thing. LDS scripture repeatedly encourages spiritual discernment.

Doctrine and Covenants 46:23 teaches that one spiritual gift is the ability to know whether manifestations are from God. Moroni 7 teaches that good things invite people to do good and to believe in Christ, while Satan can deceive people by disguising falsehood as spiritual. That means the appropriate response to an extraordinary spiritual experience is not necessarily, “Everyone must believe me because I had a vision.”

Instead, the person should seek confirmation from God, remain within his or her stewardship, compare the experience with revealed doctrine, and carefully consider what responsibility—if any—the Lord has actually given.

There is a beautiful balance here in LDS theology. God really does reveal Himself to His children. He really does give visions, dreams, angelic visitations, prophetic revelation, spiritual gifts, and personal revelation. But God is also a God of order.

Not every revelation is for everybody. Not every spiritual experience is meant to be public. And not every person who receives an extraordinary revelation is thereby given authority over other people. Sometimes the responsibility is simply to believe, repent, change, endure, or find comfort. Sometimes the responsibility is to testify. Sometimes the responsibility is to act. And sometimes the responsibility is actually to keep the experience sacred and not disclose it.

That last possibility is easy to overlook, but scripture makes it unmistakable. Paul was not permitted to tell everything he had heard. John was commanded not to write what the seven thunders had spoken. Nephi was shown things that he was not permitted to reveal. These examples demonstrate that heavenly revelation and public proclamation are two separate things.

For Latter-day Saints, then, the important question after a heavenly experience is not simply, “What did I see?” It is also, “What does the Lord want me to do with what I was shown?” If the answer is to testify, then testimony may be part of the responsibility. If the answer is to act privately, then that may be the responsibility. And if the answer is to keep something sacred, then silence may actually be an act of obedience. That principle applies even to Apostles.

An Apostle’s calling gives him a special responsibility to bear witness of Jesus Christ to the world. But it does not mean that every private revelation or heavenly experience must be described publicly. Their responsibility is to fulfill the stewardship and witness they have been given. Ultimately, LDS doctrine places the emphasis not on spectacular spiritual experiences but on Jesus Christ.

A person does not need to see an angel to have a testimony. A person does not need to experience a vision to receive revelation. An Apostle does not need to describe a personal visitation in order to be a special witness of Christ. The real question is what God has asked the individual to do with the revelation He has given.

In that sense, the responsibility attached to a heavenly experience is not determined solely by how extraordinary it was. It is determined by the purpose for which God gave it and the stewardship of the person who received it.

Gramps

Gramps,

I have a question. What Priesthood does Heavenly Father have? Because the Melchizedek (Higher) Priesthood’s name is the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God. This would imply that the Priesthood originates from Jesus Christ (Jehovah) and is related to his role as Savior. If this is so, what Priesthood does Heavenly Father (Elohim) have? We know he must have some Priesthood in order to conduct the creation and preside over the Universe and his children thereof.

Hinckley

Answer

Hinckley,

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never revealed that Heavenly Father possesses a priesthood different from the Melchizedek Priesthood. In fact, the scriptures point us in another direction. Rather than describing multiple eternal priesthoods, they consistently speak of one everlasting priesthood that has existed with God from eternity. The title “Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God” tells us less about the origin of the priesthood and more about how God’s authority is revealed and administered to His children.

Sometimes we unintentionally assume that the Melchizedek Priesthood began with Jesus Christ because His name appears in its original title. But Jesus did not first receive divine authority when He came to earth. Long before His mortal ministry, He was Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, acting under the direction of His Father. Through Him, worlds were created.

Gramps,

I’ve always been under the impression that there is one prophet on the earth at a time, but I also know periods of the bible and the Book of Mormon overlap. So is that contradictory?

Chase

Answer

Chase,

If you have ever heard the idea that “there is only one prophet on the earth at a time,” it can sound a little confusing when you read the Bible and the Book of Mormon together. After all, the two books overlap in history, and during some of those periods, several prophets were clearly living at the same time.

So, is that contradictory? Not according to Latter-day Saint doctrine. The important thing is understanding what the Church means by “one prophet” at a time.

The scriptures themselves make it clear that many prophets can live at the same time. One of the best examples comes from the very beginning of the Book of Mormon.

Nephi tells us that during the first year of King Zedekiah’s reign, around 600 B.C., “there came many prophets” to the people of Jerusalem, warning them that they needed to repent or Jerusalem would be destroyed.

One of those prophets was Lehi. The Lord gave Lehi visions and commanded him to preach repentance. Eventually, Lehi and his family left Jerusalem and began their journey to the promised land. But Lehi wasn’t the only prophet around at the time.

Jeremiah was also prophesying in Jerusalem during this same general period. The Church’s instructional material specifically notes that “Jeremiah prophesied in Jerusalem during the same time as the prophet Lehi.”

The Book of Mormon actually gives us an even broader picture by saying that there were “many prophets” in Jerusalem. So clearly, “one prophet” cannot mean that only one person on the entire earth can be a prophet. This is where priesthood keys become important.

In the restored Church, the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the presiding prophet, seer, and revelator. He is the person who holds the keys necessary to receive revelation for the Church as a whole.

Doctrine and Covenants 43:2–4 teaches that the Lord’s revelations and commandments for the Church come through the person appointed to preside.

The Church’s Gospel Topics material explains:

“When the Lord wants to direct His Church, He speaks through the living prophet who serves as the President of the Church.”

So when Latter-day Saints say there is “one prophet on the earth,” they are generally talking about the one prophet who presides over the Lord’s Church and is authorized to receive revelation for the entire Church. That is different from saying there can be only one person anywhere on earth who has a prophetic calling or receives revelation from God.

There is another reason this can get confusing. Latter-day Saints sustain the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as “prophets, seers, and revelators.”So, technically, the Church has more than one prophet.

However, there is a distinction between being a prophet, seer, and revelator and holding the keys of the President of the Church. The Church explains that although the First Presidency and Twelve are all sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators, the President of the Church is the one authorized to receive revelation for the entire Church.

President Ezra Taft Benson explained this distinction very directly:

“Only one man stands as the Lord’s spokesman to the Church and the world, and he is the president of the Church.”

The Bible follows the same general pattern. It doesn’t present prophecy as something limited to a single person living at a time. For example, during the period leading up to Jerusalem’s destruction, several prophets were active. Jeremiah was preaching in Jerusalem while Lehi was also receiving revelation from God.

That doesn’t mean Jeremiah and Lehi were competing prophets. They had different circumstances, audiences, and responsibilities. Jeremiah was called to minister among the people in Jerusalem, while Lehi was eventually commanded to take his family into the wilderness and establish a new branch of God’s covenant people.

This is actually an important principle in understanding how God has worked with His children throughout Scripture. God can call prophets to different people at the same time.

The Book of Mormon gives us another example of this principle because its prophets were ministering to the Nephites while prophets were also ministering to people in the Old World.

That makes sense when we remember that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are records of God’s dealings with different groups of people. The Bible primarily records God’s dealings with people in the Old World, while the Book of Mormon records God’s dealings with another group of Israelites who were led away from Jerusalem.

There is therefore no reason, from an LDS perspective, that God could not have prophets working among different groups of His children at the same time.

The easiest way to understand the phrase “one prophet on the earth” is this: there can be many prophets, but there is one presiding prophet who holds the keys to direct the Lord’s Church as a whole.

That’s what Latter-day Saint leaders mean when they emphasize the importance of having a living prophet.

President Ezra Taft Benson famously taught:

“The most important prophet, so far as we are concerned, is the one who is living in our day and age.”

His point was that while we have the words of ancient prophets available to us, the living prophet has the responsibility of providing revelation and guidance for the Church in the circumstances of our own time.

So Jeremiah could be a prophet. Lehi could be a prophet. Nephi could be a prophet. Alma could be a prophet. And at the same time, in the modern Church, the President of the Church is the presiding prophet with the keys to receive revelation for the entire Church.

In other words, “one prophet” doesn’t mean “only one prophet exists.” It means there is one presiding prophet who holds the keys to speak authoritatively for the Church as a whole.

Once that distinction is understood, the apparent conflict between the Bible and the Book of Mormon disappears. The fact that their histories overlap actually provides a good scriptural example of the difference between having multiple prophets and having one presiding prophet with the keys of the Church.

Gramps

Gramps,

How did the Giants get reintroduced into the earth after the flood mentioned in Numbers 13:32-33?

John

Answer

John,

The first thing to understand is that Latter-day Saint scripture does not say that the pre-Flood giants survived Noah’s Flood. Genesis 6:4 tells us that “there were giants in the earth in those days,” shortly before the Flood. The Book of Moses likewise describes the widespread wickedness of the people before the Flood and the destruction that followed.

According to the LDS understanding of the Flood, Noah, his family, and those with him in the ark were preserved, while the wicked inhabitants of the earth were destroyed. There is no scriptural account of a separate group of giants escaping the Flood.

So, how do we understand the giants mentioned in Numbers?

One possibility is that the word “giants” is being used to describe people who were exceptionally tall, strong, or imposing. The Israelite spies certainly viewed the inhabitants of Canaan as intimidating. They said, “We were in our own sight as grasshoppers,” which shows how small and powerless they felt in comparison.

The Bible mentions several groups associated with unusually large or powerful people. The Anakim are mentioned in Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua, while the Rephaim appear in several Old Testament passages. Goliath is probably the most familiar example. He lived long after the Flood and was described as an exceptionally large man, yet the Bible doesn’t say that he was descended from the pre-Flood giants.

It is also possible that characteristics associated with great physical size were passed down through Noah’s family and reappeared in later generations. From a biological standpoint, inherited physical traits can certainly reappear among descendants. However, the scriptures don’t specifically say that this happened with Noah’s family, so we shouldn’t treat that explanation as LDS doctrine.

Another possibility is that the people called “giants” in Numbers simply belonged to later populations known for their unusual height. There is no requirement in scripture that every person described as a giant had to belong to the same lineage as the giants mentioned in Genesis.

The purpose of Numbers 13 is also important. The chapter isn’t primarily trying to explain where these large people came from. Moses had sent twelve spies into Canaan to examine the land, and ten of them returned frightened by what they had seen. They focused on the strength of the inhabitants and the fortifications of their cities, while Joshua and Caleb trusted that the Lord could help Israel overcome those obstacles.

This is why the “grasshoppers” comparison is so significant. The spies weren’t simply reporting measurements. They were describing how overwhelmed they felt. The people of Canaan looked enormous compared with the Israelites, and fear led them to believe the Israelites had no chance of succeeding.

The Book of Mormon also gives us examples of people who were described as exceptionally large or powerful. In the final Jaredite battles, for example, Coriantumr and Shiz are portrayed as extraordinarily strong warriors. So Latter-day Saint scripture certainly allows for the existence of unusually large human beings without requiring that they be survivors of the pre-Flood world.

The safest conclusion, then, is that the giants in Numbers 13 were people of extraordinary size or strength who lived after the Flood, but scripture doesn’t tell us exactly how their physical characteristics arose or whether they had any connection to the pre-Flood giants.

We should also remember that the word “giants” in our English Bibles reflects ancient terminology that may not carry exactly the same meaning we give it today. It doesn’t necessarily mean that these people were a separate supernatural race. They may simply have been unusually large human beings who appeared particularly formidable to the Israelites.

So I wouldn’t say that LDS doctrine teaches that giants survived Noah’s Flood. Rather, the scriptures tell us that there were giants before the Flood and that later Israelites encountered people they described as giants. The Bible doesn’t fill in the genealogical connection between those two accounts.

And perhaps the most important part of the story isn’t actually the size of the people in Canaan. It’s the way Israel responded to them.

The ten spies looked at the giants and concluded that they couldn’t possibly succeed. Joshua and Caleb looked at the same giants but remembered the Lord’s promises. Their difference wasn’t in what they saw—it was in how they viewed it.

Sometimes the obstacles in front of us can look like giants, too. Numbers 13 reminds us that even when something appears much bigger and stronger than we are, it isn’t bigger than God.

Gramps

Gramps,

Why wasn’t the Lord interested in saving the Egyptians? I know some of their leaders did terrible things, such as killing babies and enslaving others, but there were probably many innocent Egyptians. It appears the Lord never invited the Egyptians to repent.

Shasta

Answer

Shasta,

When we read the story of the Exodus, there is something that can be difficult to understand. The Lord sent Moses to deliver the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, and He eventually brought devastating plagues upon the Egyptians. The final plague resulted in the death of the firstborn throughout Egypt. That naturally raises a difficult question: What about the Egyptians who weren’t responsible for enslaving Israel? Pharaoh certainly behaved terribly. He enslaved the Israelites and ordered that their baby boys be killed. But Egypt was a large nation, and there must have been ordinary people who had nothing to do with Pharaoh’s decisions. Some may even have disagreed with what Pharaoh was doing. So why does the Exodus story seem to focus almost entirely on saving Israel rather than saving the Egyptians? And why doesn’t it appear that the Lord gave the Egyptians the same invitation to repent that He gave Israel?

The first thing we need to remember is that the Exodus account is primarily the story of God’s covenant relationship with Israel. It isn’t intended to give us a complete account of every Egyptian’s relationship with God. The Lord had made specific covenants with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob concerning their descendants, and the Exodus was an important part of fulfilling those promises. The Israelites had been enslaved for generations, and the Lord remembered the covenant He had made with their fathers. He called Moses to lead them out of bondage and eventually establish them as a covenant people. But that doesn’t mean God loved Israel while simply ignoring everyone else.

One of the clearest teachings in the restored gospel is that God loves all of His children. The Book of Mormon says that God “inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him.” It then makes the point especially clear: “all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). Israel was chosen for a particular covenant responsibility, but being chosen didn’t mean that everyone outside Israel was rejected by God. In fact, the Lord told Abraham that through his descendants “all the families of the earth” would be blessed (Abraham 2:9–11). Israel’s role was ultimately to help bring God’s blessings to other nations, not to keep those blessings exclusively for themselves.

There is also something we sometimes overlook in the Exodus story. The Lord actually did give Pharaoh opportunities to respond to Him. Moses and Aaron repeatedly went before Pharaoh and told him to let the Israelites go, and Pharaoh repeatedly refused. The plagues were not simply one sudden punishment. They occurred over a period of time, and the Lord repeatedly demonstrated His power while Pharaoh continued to resist. In Exodus 10:3, Moses asked Pharaoh, “How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself before me?” Pharaoh wasn’t simply unaware of what was happening. He had been confronted again and again with evidence that the God of Israel was acting.

The scriptures even tell us that one purpose of the plagues was so that the Egyptians would know that the Lord was God. In Exodus 7:5, the Lord said, “And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord.” This is an important detail because it shows that the purpose of the plagues wasn’t simply to punish Egypt. The Lord was making Himself known. The Egyptians were witnessing events that were intended to demonstrate His power and distinguish Him from the gods of Egypt. At the same time, however, we shouldn’t stretch the account further than the scriptures allow. The Bible doesn’t tell us that every individual Egyptian was personally given a formal invitation to repent. Most of the story focuses on Pharaoh, the Egyptian government, the oppression of Israel, and the Lord’s deliverance of His covenant people.

That brings us to the part of the question that can be especially troubling. What about the ordinary Egyptians who may not have been responsible for Pharaoh’s actions? There certainly must have been people in Egypt who weren’t personally responsible for enslaving Israel. Some Egyptians may have participated in the oppression, while others may simply have been ordinary people living under Pharaoh’s government. We don’t know the circumstances of each individual. The Bible doesn’t give us enough information to determine exactly how God dealt with every Egyptian individually, and this is where LDS doctrine about the plan of salvation becomes especially important.

In the restored gospel, physical death isn’t the end of a person’s opportunity to accept the gospel. Doctrine and Covenants 138 teaches that the gospel is preached to people in the spirit world and that those who didn’t have an opportunity to receive it during mortality can still hear it there. This means that LDS doctrine doesn’t require us to believe that someone was spiritually condemned simply because he or she happened to live in the wrong place, at the wrong time, or under the rule of a wicked government. God judges people according to their individual circumstances, knowledge, choices, and opportunities.

Imagine an Egyptian who lived during the time of Moses but had never been taught about the God of Israel and had never personally participated in Pharaoh’s oppression. Suppose that person died during the plagues. We don’t know what happened to that individual in the spirit world, and the scriptures don’t give us enough information to say. But LDS doctrine gives us good reason not to assume that the person was simply lost because he or she was Egyptian. The Lord knows every person individually. He knows what people understand, what opportunities they have, what choices they make, and what they would have done if they had been given opportunities they never received. His judgment is therefore far more complete and just than anything we could determine from simply reading the historical account.

There is another interesting detail in the Exodus account that is easy to overlook. Exodus 12:38 says that a “mixed multitude” went up with the children of Israel when they left Egypt. The scripture doesn’t tell us exactly who made up this group, so we shouldn’t speculate too much about their identity, but it does remind us that the people leaving Egypt weren’t necessarily a completely uniform group of Israelites. The story is more complicated than simply dividing everyone into two groups, with Israelites on one side and Egyptians on the other.

The scriptures also give us an important reason not to think that Egypt was permanently rejected by God. In Isaiah 19, the prophet describes a future time when the Lord will bless Egypt. The chapter contains descriptions of judgment, but it eventually looks forward to a time when Egypt will turn to the Lord and receive His blessings. In one particularly remarkable passage, Isaiah describes Egypt, Assyria, and Israel together in God’s blessing: “Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance” (Isaiah 19:25). That’s a remarkable statement. The same God who judged Egypt in the days of Moses could later describe Egypt as “my people.” This helps us see that God’s judgment on a nation at one point in history doesn’t mean that He has permanently rejected the people of that nation.

This is also why it can be misleading to think of the Exodus as simply a story of “good Israelites versus bad Egyptians.” The Israelites themselves weren’t perfect. After leaving Egypt, they repeatedly struggled with faith and obedience, and eventually some participated in worshipping the golden calf. Being part of Israel didn’t automatically make someone righteous, just as being Egyptian didn’t automatically make someone wicked. The Lord was dealing with people individually while also working through a covenant nation to accomplish His larger purposes.

So why did the Lord focus so much attention on saving Israel? The simplest LDS answer is that the Exodus was part of the fulfillment of God’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Israel had been enslaved, Pharaoh had attempted to destroy their children, and the Lord intervened to deliver them. He was establishing Israel as a covenant people through whom the gospel and knowledge of God would eventually be taken to the nations of the earth. The fact that Israel had a special role in God’s plan does not mean that Egyptians had no value to Him.

In fact, the larger story of scripture points in the opposite direction. God repeatedly reaches beyond Israel to bless people from other nations. The Book of Mormon teaches that He invites everyone to come unto Him, and the Abrahamic covenant itself was intended to bless “all the families of the earth.” The gospel was never ultimately intended to belong to one nationality.

We also need to be careful about equating physical death with spiritual condemnation. An Egyptian who died during the plagues was not necessarily an Egyptian who had knowingly rejected God. LDS doctrine makes a clear distinction between physical death and a person’s eternal standing before God. A person can die without ever having received the gospel and still receive an opportunity to accept it in the spirit world. Ultimately, God’s judgment will take into account circumstances that we cannot see from the biblical account.

So, was the Lord interested in saving the Egyptians? According to LDS doctrine, there is no good reason to conclude that He wasn’t. The Exodus story simply isn’t primarily about the salvation history of Egypt. It is about God’s covenant with Israel, the deliverance of an enslaved people, and the beginning of Israel’s journey as a covenant nation. Because the story is focused on Israel, we don’t get a detailed account of what happened spiritually to every Egyptian.

That leaves us with an important distinction. We can say with confidence that the Lord judged Pharaoh and Egypt for their actions and that He delivered Israel from bondage. We can also say that Pharaoh was repeatedly confronted with the Lord’s power and given opportunities to respond. But we should be much more cautious about making judgments concerning individual Egyptians whose circumstances aren’t described in scripture.

The Lord knew every one of them individually. He knew who was responsible for the oppression, who wasn’t, who understood what was happening, and who didn’t. And LDS doctrine teaches that God is perfectly just and merciful and that every person will ultimately have a fair opportunity to accept or reject His plan. The Exodus tells us how God delivered Israel. It doesn’t tell us that He stopped caring about the Egyptians.

Gramps

Gramps,

A little over a year ago, I lost my first child. His gestational age at the time of his death would put him in the “miscarriage” category–a baby that would not survive outside its mother’s womb. Had he died just a few weeks later, he would have been considered a “stillbirth”.

I am wondering why miscarriages aren’t included on family group records (see Sep 1987, Ensign). Along that same line, sometimes stillborn babies are given a name and a blessing. Why not miscarried children?

Hannah

Answer

Hannah,

The answer becomes clearer when we look at the difference between the Church’s older record-keeping practices and its current policy.

In the September 1987 Ensign, Val D. Greenwood addressed this exact question in an article titled “Can we put the names of our miscarried or stillborn children on our family group records?” At that time, Church policy was that stillborn children could be recorded on family group records, while miscarried children were not normally recorded there.

The distinction was related largely to how the Church historically classified miscarriage and stillbirth. A miscarriage generally referred to a pregnancy ending before the fetus was considered viable outside the mother’s womb. A stillbirth referred to a child who had developed further and was born without life.

Because a stillborn child had reached the point of birth, the Church permitted the family to record the child on family records. Parents could also give the child a name and, under the circumstances permitted by Church policy, have a naming and blessing performed.

That did not mean, however, that the Church considered a miscarried child less important or less loved by Heavenly Father.

In fact, the Church’s current policy makes that especially clear.

The current General Handbook has a specific section called 38.7.3, “Children Who Die before Birth (Stillborn and Miscarried Children).” It says:

“Parents who experience the death of an unborn child suffer grief and loss. Leaders, family members, and ministering brothers and sisters offer emotional and spiritual support.”

The Handbook then says:

“Parents may decide whether to hold memorial or graveside services.”

It also says:

“Parents may record information about the child in FamilySearch.org. Instructions are provided on the website.”

And then it addresses temple ordinances:

“Temple ordinances are not needed or performed for children who die before birth. This does not deny the possibility that these children may be part of the family in the eternities. Parents are encouraged to trust the Lord and seek His comfort.”

This is an important clarification because someone reading the 1987 Ensign today could easily assume that the old family group record policy is still the Church’s current policy. It isn’t.

The Church now specifically says that parents may record information about a child who dies before birth in FamilySearch. So a miscarriage does not mean parents are prohibited from preserving information about that child in their family history. There is also an important difference between recording a child and performing temple ordinances for a child.

The current Handbook says that temple ordinances are not needed or performed for children who die before birth. This applies to both miscarried and stillborn children. That might initially seem confusing. If the child can be remembered and recorded, why aren’t ordinances performed?

The Church has not revealed all of the details about the eternal status of children who die before birth. Rather than speculating, the Church has given us a simple principle: these children do not need temple ordinances, and parents are encouraged to trust the Lord.

And notice the wording the Church chose. It does not say that these children cannot be part of an eternal family. Instead, it specifically says that the policy “does not deny the possibility that these children may be part of the family in the eternities.” That is a significant statement.

The Church recognizes the grief experienced by parents and does not treat the loss as insignificant. The Handbook actually begins this section by acknowledging that parents “suffer grief and loss.” It then instructs leaders, family members, and ministering brothers and sisters to provide emotional and spiritual support.

This is also why a stillborn child could receive a name and blessing. A naming and blessing can provide an opportunity for parents and family members to acknowledge the child and express their love. It is not the same thing as performing a saving ordinance such as baptism or a temple sealing.

So why wasn’t the same practice traditionally applied to miscarried children?

The simplest answer is that the Church’s historical record-keeping policies made a distinction between miscarriage and stillbirth. The 1987 Ensign discussion reflects that older policy. The Church was attempting to establish guidelines for official family records while recognizing that there were unanswered questions about the circumstances surrounding unborn children.

But the important thing to remember is that a Church record is not what determines whether someone belongs to your eternal family.

A name appearing—or not appearing—on an old family group record does not determine God’s knowledge of that child. It does not determine the child’s worth. And it does not tell us whether that child can ultimately be part of the family in eternity.

The current Handbook deliberately leaves that possibility open.

The Church also allows parents today to record information about a miscarried or stillborn child in FamilySearch. A parent may therefore choose to preserve the child’s name, dates, and other information as part of the family’s history. A family may also choose to hold a memorial or graveside service.

For some parents, simply giving the child a name and remembering that child as part of their family can be meaningful. Other parents may find that a private remembrance is more appropriate. There isn’t necessarily one right way for every family to grieve.

Ultimately, there are some things about unborn children that the Lord has not completely revealed to us. We don’t know every detail about what happens to a child who dies before birth, and the Church does not claim to have all those answers.

What we do know is that Heavenly Father loves His children. We know that Jesus Christ’s Atonement and Resurrection are central to God’s plan. And we know that God is perfectly just and merciful.

Perhaps that is why the final counsel in the current Handbook is so important. After explaining that temple ordinances are not performed for children who die before birth, the Church simply says that this “does not deny the possibility that these children may be part of the family in the eternities” and encourages parents to “trust the Lord and seek His comfort.”

So, if someone has experienced a miscarriage and wonders, “Was that really my child?” there is no need to conclude that the absence of a name on an old family record means the child was somehow excluded from the family.

The Church’s current policy gives parents permission to remember and record the child, acknowledges the genuine grief involved, and leaves the eternal question in the hands of the Lord.

Sometimes faith means being willing to accept that we don’t have every answer yet. But we can still trust the character of the God who does have those answers. And according to current Church policy, there is nothing in the fact that a child died before birth that denies the possibility that this child may be part of the family in the eternities.

Gramps

Gramps,

In the Book of Mormon it talks about “the land of their inheritance.” What does that mean? A literal piece of land given to a person for eternity? Or something else?

Wayne

Answer

Wayne,

IIn the Book of Mormon, “the land of their inheritance” can refer to a very real, physical piece of land. But the idea is also connected to God’s covenants with Israel and ultimately to a much greater spiritual and eternal inheritance. One of the clearest examples is Lehi’s family.

When Lehi and his family arrived in the promised land, Lehi explained that the Lord had covenanted with him that this land would be an inheritance for his descendants. He said:

“We have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed.” (2 Nephi 1:5)

That sounds pretty literal—and in this case, it is. Lehi was talking about an actual land. His family had left Jerusalem, crossed the ocean, and settled in a new land. The Lord had promised this land to Lehi’s descendants.

The interesting part, though, is that the promise wasn’t simply, “This is your property, and you get to keep it no matter what.” The promise came with a covenant. Lehi explained that if the people kept God’s commandments, they would be blessed on the land. But if they became wicked, they could lose the land.

In fact, just a few verses later, Lehi warned that if his descendants rejected the Lord, other nations would come and take away their lands. So the land was certainly real, but there was much more involved than simply owning real estate. This idea goes all the way back to God’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

God promised Abraham that his descendants would receive a land of inheritance. The land of Canaan became an important part of that covenant. The descendants of Abraham were given an inheritance in the promised land, and the Book of Mormon prophets understood themselves as part of that same covenant family.

The Church teaches that lands of inheritance are one of the blessings associated with the Abrahamic covenant. This is important because Lehi’s family wasn’t just randomly given a piece of land. Their inheritance was connected to the promises God had made to the house of Israel. That’s why the Book of Mormon talks about Israel eventually being gathered back to “the lands of their inheritance.”

Jacob taught:

“When the day cometh that they shall believe in me, that I am Christ, then have I covenanted with their fathers that they shall be restored in the flesh, upon the earth, unto the lands of their inheritance.” (2 Nephi 10:7)

Notice something interesting about that verse. It talks about being restored “in the flesh, upon the earth.” That tells us there really is a physical aspect to these promises. The Book of Mormon isn’t saying that “land” is merely a symbol for something spiritual. There are actual lands associated with Israel’s covenant inheritance.

Jesus also spoke directly to the Nephites about this. After His Resurrection, He told them:

“This is the land of your inheritance; and the Father hath given it unto you.” (3 Nephi 15:13)

So, yes—in some Book of Mormon passages, “land of inheritance” really does mean a physical land that God has promised to a particular covenant people. But there’s another side to this. The word inheritance in scripture can mean much more than property.

Think about what happens when someone inherits something from a parent. It isn’t necessarily just a house or a piece of land. An inheritance can include everything promised to that person as part of a family relationship. That’s a helpful way to think about the Book of Mormon’s use of this phrase.

God wasn’t merely saying, “Here is some dirt. Congratulations!” The land was part of a covenant relationship. The people were being given a place where they could establish a righteous society, worship God, raise their families, receive the gospel, and fulfill God’s purposes for them. And ultimately, the physical inheritance points toward something much bigger.

The Doctrine and Covenants teaches that the earth itself has an eternal destiny. In Doctrine and Covenants 88, the Lord says that the earth will be sanctified and prepared for celestial glory. Then He says:

“The righteous shall inherit it.” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:26)

Just a few verses earlier, the Lord explains that the earth will be sanctified and that those who receive celestial glory will possess it forever.  (Doctrine and Covenants 88:17–20)

This gives us a pretty fascinating connection.

The Book of Mormon talks about people receiving lands of inheritance, while the Doctrine and Covenants teaches about the righteous ultimately inheriting the earth. So the idea of an inheritance becomes much bigger than a particular piece of property. Does that mean that faithful Latter-day Saints will each get a specific parcel of land with their name on it in the next life? There is no LDS doctrine teaching that every individual will receive a particular earthly parcel of property for eternity. That’s probably the most important distinction to make.

The scriptures do teach that certain peoples were promised particular lands. Lehi’s descendants were promised their land. Israel was promised lands of inheritance. And the scriptures teach that these covenant promises have an important future fulfillment. But that doesn’t mean that every individual person has a particular square mile of land somewhere that God has personally reserved for them. The larger promise is an inheritance from God.

And that inheritance ultimately involves becoming part of God’s covenant family, receiving the blessings of Jesus Christ, and inheriting the glory and blessings God has prepared for the faithful.

This also helps explain why the Book of Mormon talks so much about people being “driven out” of their lands. For example, Jacob talks about the Nephites being driven from their land of inheritance but then being led to another land.

If “land of inheritance” meant an individual piece of property that could never be lost, that wouldn’t make much sense. The Book of Mormon repeatedly shows people receiving lands, losing lands, being scattered, being gathered, and eventually being restored. The land itself was important, but the covenant was even more so. That’s really the key to understanding the phrase.

When you read “the land of their inheritance” in the Book of Mormon, it can be helpful to think:

“This is a land connected to God’s covenant promises.”

Sometimes that means an actual geographical location. Sometimes it refers to the promised lands of Israel. And sometimes the larger context points us toward the ultimate inheritance God has prepared for His faithful children.

So, is the “land of their inheritance” literal? Sometimes, absolutely. Lehi’s promised land was a real place. The lands promised to Israel are real places. The Book of Mormon even speaks of Israel being restored physically to the lands of their inheritance. But is the idea simply about owning a piece of land forever? No.

The physical land was part of something much bigger—the Abrahamic covenant, the gathering of Israel, the restoration of God’s covenant people, and ultimately the eternal inheritance God offers through Jesus Christ. In a way, the phrase is about both a place and a promise. The place mattered. But the promise mattered even more.

And that’s probably the best way to read these passages in the Book of Mormon. When you see “the land of their inheritance,” don’t necessarily picture a future deed with someone’s name on it. Think instead of God remembering His covenant, gathering His people, giving them a place to receive His blessings, and ultimately preparing an eternal inheritance for those who come unto Christ. The land was part of the blessing. But the relationship with God was the real inheritance.

Gramps

Hi Gramps,

Can women act in faith and raise their arm to the square to command evil spirits to leave? It’s not something I’d like to do, but I have a friend in a bad situation, and while I have no intention of going anywhere near it, I’d like to know if it’s something I could do. I don’t think it would be fair if women couldn’t do it, as it leaves us helpless in such (hopefully very rare) situations if we are by ourselves. And to add on to this, can we bless our own homes?

Eliza

Answer

Eliza,

Women absolutely can exercise faith in Jesus Christ, pray for protection, resist evil, and invite the Holy Ghost into their homes and lives. However, LDS doctrine makes an important distinction between having access to God’s priesthood power and having priesthood authority to perform a particular ordinance or priesthood act.

That distinction is important when we talk about casting out evil spirits. The first thing to understand is that women are not spiritually helpless without a man standing nearby.

The current General Handbook teaches that priesthood power is God’s power used to bless His children. It specifically says that God’s priesthood power flows to all members of the Church—both male and female—as they keep the covenants they have made with Him.

The Handbook also teaches that all Church members who keep their covenants—women, men, and children—are blessed with God’s priesthood power in their homes, strengthening themselves and their families.

That’s pretty significant.

Women can pray. They can fast. They can receive revelation through the Holy Ghost. They can exercise faith in Jesus Christ. They can resist temptation and evil. They can ask Heavenly Father for protection.

President Dallin H. Oaks taught:

“Unlike priesthood keys and priesthood ordinations, the blessings of the priesthood are available to women and to men on the same terms.” (The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood)

President Russell M. Nelson has likewise taught that every woman and every man who makes and keeps covenants with God and participates worthily in priesthood ordinances has direct access to God’s power.

The Church explains this principle here: “What Must Women and Men Do to Have Access to Priesthood Power?“

So a woman should never think, “I’m alone, and because I’m a woman, God can’t help me.” That isn’t LDS doctrine.

There is a difference between praying against evil and performing an act that requires priesthood authority. The scriptures certainly teach that evil spirits can be cast out. During the Savior’s ministry, for example, Jesus gave the Twelve power over unclean spirits.

And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits; (Mark 6:7)

The scriptures also give us an important warning about attempting to exercise authority we don’t actually possess.

In Acts 19:13-20, some men attempted to cast out an evil spirit by invoking the name of Jesus Christ. The spirit responded, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?”

The Church’s New Testament student manual explains this account and discusses the importance of genuine authority:

That is one reason I would not recommend that a woman—or anyone without the appropriate priesthood authority—attempt to perform a formal exorcism by raising the arm to the square and commanding an evil spirit to leave.

The raised arm itself isn’t what gives someone power. The physical gesture doesn’t create priesthood authority. The Church’s General Handbook explains priesthood authority and the sacred nature of priesthood ordinances. So simply saying “in the name of Jesus Christ” doesn’t automatically give someone authority to perform every act described in scripture. This doesn’t mean women have to stand helplessly by if they feel threatened by evil. Quite the opposite.

The New Testament gives this instruction:

“Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” (James 4:7)

Notice that James doesn’t say only priesthood holders can resist the devil. Every disciple of Jesus Christ can turn toward God and resist evil.

A woman who is frightened or believes she is experiencing something evil can pray sincerely to Heavenly Father. She can ask for protection. She can call upon the Savior. She can invite the Holy Ghost into the situation. For example, there is nothing wrong with a woman praying something like:

“Heavenly Father, please protect me and this home. Please remove anything that is not of Thee and help me feel the peace and protection of the Holy Ghost. I place my faith in Jesus Christ.”

That is prayer—not a priesthood ordinance. And there is an important difference.

Suppose a woman is alone in her home and genuinely believes something frightening or evil is happening. Does LDS doctrine leave her powerless because there isn’t a priesthood holder there?

No.

She can pray.

She can exercise faith.

She can ask Heavenly Father for protection.

She can call upon Jesus Christ.

She can read the scriptures.

She can invite the Holy Ghost into her home.

She can leave the situation if she feels unsafe.

She can contact a trusted family member, a church leader, or a priesthood holder.

And if there is a possibility that the situation involves physical danger, abuse, a mental-health crisis, drugs, or another serious problem, she should seek appropriate help rather than assuming that everything has a supernatural explanation.

There is certainly no LDS teaching that says a woman should put herself in danger trying to confront an evil spirit. Safety comes first. This is where the current General Handbook gives us a particularly helpful answer. The Church does allow homes to be dedicated by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood. The General Handbook explains that a home is dedicated by a Melchizedek Priesthood holder.

But then it addresses exactly the situation where there isn’t a Melchizedek Priesthood holder in the home. The Handbook says that if there isn’t a Melchizedek Priesthood holder in the home, the family may invite a friend, relative, or ministering brother who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood to dedicate it. Or the family can gather to offer a prayer, guided by the Spirit. That’s a wonderful distinction.

A woman who lives alone—or a woman whose husband isn’t a priesthood holder—doesn’t have to wait for someone else before she can ask Heavenly Father to bless her home.

She can gather those in her household and pray.

She can ask Heavenly Father to make the home a place of peace.

She can ask for protection.

She can invite the Holy Ghost to dwell there.

She can pray that the people who enter the home will feel love, peace, and the influence of the Savior.

What she would not do is claim that she is dedicating the home by the Melchizedek Priesthood authority. That particular dedication is performed by a Melchizedek Priesthood holder.

But prayer is available to everyone. I think this is ultimately the most important point.

Sometimes discussions about the priesthood can accidentally leave women with the impression that they have very little spiritual authority or power unless a man is present. That isn’t what the Church teaches. The current General Handbook states that priesthood power flows to both male and female members who keep their covenants. President Oaks made the same point in his General Conference message, “The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood,” teaching that the blessings of the priesthood are available to women and men on the same terms. Women and men have different priesthood responsibilities and different roles in the Church, but that does not mean women are cut off from God’s power.

A woman can kneel down alone in her home and pray to Heavenly Father.

She can ask for the Savior’s protection.

She can receive personal revelation.

She can feel the Holy Ghost.

She can resist evil.

She can ask God to bless her family and her home.

And she can have confidence that Heavenly Father hears her.

Gramps

Gramps,

It is usual to say ‘the Sacrament will now be blessed by the priesthood, but the prayers specifically say ‘O God the ETERNAL FATHER  we ask THEE in the name of thy Jesus Christ to bless [the emblems].

Colin

Answer

Colin,

If you’ve attended a sacrament meeting in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for very long, you’ve probably heard someone say something like, “The sacrament will now be blessed by the priesthood.”

That statement is common and easy to understand, but it can also raise an interesting question. The actual sacrament prayers don’t say, “We bless this bread” or “We bless this water.” Instead, both prayers begin by addressing Heavenly Father:

“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it…” (Doctrine and Covenants 20:77)

The prayer for the water follows the same pattern:

“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it…” (Doctrine and Covenants 20:79)

Today, the Church uses water as directed by the Lord (see Doctrine and Covenants 27:2).

So who is actually blessing the sacrament? Is it the priesthood holders, or is it Heavenly Father?

The answer is that both ideas fit together, but in different ways.

The priesthood holders are the ones authorized to perform the ordinance, but the prayer itself is a petition asking Heavenly Father to bless and sanctify the emblems. The young man kneeling at the sacrament table isn’t declaring the bread or water blessed by his own authority. Instead, he is acting under the authority of the priesthood to offer the prayer that the Lord Himself revealed.

The General Handbook explains:

“Priesthood authority is the authorization to represent God and act in His name. In the Church, all priesthood authority is exercised under the direction of those who hold priesthood keys.”

That distinction is important.

In the Church, priesthood authority allows ordinances to be performed properly, but the power behind every ordinance ultimately comes from God. The sacramental prayer reminds us of that by directing our attention immediately to the Father.

Notice the wording carefully:

“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee … to bless and sanctify this bread…”

The priest doesn’t say, “I bless this bread.”

He says, “We ask thee to bless.”

That simple phrase teaches a profound principle. Priesthood holders are servants carrying out the Lord’s work. They are not acting independently of Him. They are asking Heavenly Father to do what only He can do.

The sacramental prayer perfectly reflects that truth. The priest is not using personal power to bless the emblems. He is exercising delegated authority to ask Heavenly Father to bless them.

This pattern is found throughout the scriptures. Jesus Himself taught His disciples to pray to the Father in His name:

“Therefore ye must always pray unto the Father in my name.” (3 Nephi 18:19)

The sacrament prayers follow exactly that pattern. They are offered to the Eternal Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, just as the Savior instructed.

The wording of the prayers also helps us remember whose sacrament this really is.

Sometimes we casually think of it as “the priest’s blessing of the sacrament.” While that isn’t incorrect in everyday conversation, it isn’t the complete picture. The priests are performing a sacred ordinance by priesthood authority, but the blessing itself is requested from Heavenly Father.

Think of it this way. If someone asks you to pray for them, you are the one offering the prayer, but you are not the one granting the blessing. God is. Likewise, the priest offers the revealed prayer, asking Heavenly Father to bless and sanctify the bread and water.

This also explains why the sacrament prayers are recited word for word. Unlike most prayers, these are not spontaneous. The Lord revealed the exact wording in both Moroni 4–5 and Doctrine and Covenants 20. Because they are revealed prayers connected to a sacred ordinance, they are offered exactly as written. If an error is made, the prayer is repeated to match the revealed wording.

Again, this reminds us that the ordinance belongs to the Lord.

Priesthood authority is certainly essential. According to Church doctrine, the sacrament must be administered by those who have been properly ordained and authorized. The bread and water are prepared, blessed, and passed under the direction of the priesthood. Without that authority, the ordinance would not be performed according to the Lord’s established order.

President Russell M. Nelson taught:

“Priesthood is the authority of God delegated to man to minister for the salvation of men.”

The sacrament beautifully illustrates this principle.

The priest kneels in humility rather than standing in authority over the congregation. His posture itself reflects dependence upon God. He isn’t commanding heaven; he is petitioning heaven.

Another interesting detail is the phrase “bless and sanctify.”

To sanctify means to make holy or set apart for a sacred purpose. Again, this isn’t something a young priest accomplishes through personal ability. He asks Heavenly Father to sanctify the bread and water so they become sacred emblems that help worshippers remember the Savior and renew their covenants.

Of course, the bread and water do not become physically different. Latter-day Saints do not believe the emblems literally transform into the body and blood of Christ. Instead, they remain bread and water while becoming sacred symbols used in a holy ordinance.

Ultimately, the greatest blessing of the sacrament is not found in the bread or water themselves. It is found in the covenant relationship we renew with God.

The prayer asks that those who partake may “eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son,” witness their willingness to take upon them His name, always remember Him, and keep His commandments. In return comes the beautiful promise “that they may always have his Spirit to be with them” (Doctrine and Covenants 20:77).

That promise comes from God—not from the young man offering the prayer.

So is it wrong to say, “The sacrament will now be blessed by the priesthood?” Not at all. It’s a convenient way of saying that the ordinance will now be performed by authorized priesthood holders. Most members understand exactly what is meant.

However, the actual wording of the revealed prayers reminds us of something even more meaningful. The priesthood performs the ordinance, but Heavenly Father is the One being asked to bless and sanctify the emblems. The ordinance is carried out through priesthood authority, yet its power and effectiveness come from God.

Perhaps that’s one of the quiet lessons the sacrament teaches every Sunday. Even when priesthood authority is involved, faithful servants point people to Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ—not to themselves.

The next time you hear the sacrament prayer, listen closely to its opening words: “O God, the Eternal Father…”

Those words gently remind us that every ordinance, every covenant, every blessing, and every promise ultimately comes from our Eternal Father through the redeeming power of His Son, Jesus Christ.

Gramps

Hello Gramps,

Sometimes I find myself judging people from the outside, based on their looks. I can also find myself doing this in dating. What do you think about this? How can I overcome this?

Anonymous

Answer

Anonymous,

Most of us have probably judged someone by their appearance without even realizing it. It happens almost automatically. We notice how someone dresses, their hairstyle, tattoos, age, weight, or facial expression, and within seconds, we’ve formed an opinion about who they are. The problem is that appearances rarely tell the whole story.

The good news is that this is something we can change. Through the gospel of Jesus Christ, we can learn to see people less the way the world sees them and more the way Heavenly Father does.

One of the most important truths taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that every person is literally a son or daughter of God. Before someone is a stranger, a neighbor, a coworker, or even someone we disagree with, they are one of Heavenly Father’s children. That eternal perspective changes everything. When we remember that every person has divine worth, it becomes much harder to reduce them to nothing more than their outward appearance.

President Thomas S. Monson emphasized the divine worth of every individual when he taught:

“We are sons and daughters of a living God, in whose image we have been created.”

Remembering that simple truth helps us see people the way Heavenly Father sees them rather than through the lens of first impressions.

The Lord taught this lesson to the prophet Samuel when Samuel was sent to anoint a new king over Israel. As Samuel looked at Jesse’s sons, he naturally assumed that the oldest and strongest-looking son must be the Lord’s choice. But the Lord reminded him of something far more important:

“For the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.” (1 Samuel 16:7)

That verse perfectly describes the difference between how we often see people and how God sees them. We tend to notice what is visible, while Heavenly Father sees the heart, the intentions, the struggles, and the eternal potential that no one else can fully see.

Jesus Christ demonstrated this principle throughout His earthly ministry. Time after time, He looked beyond outward appearances and saw individuals for who they truly were. He welcomed tax collectors whom others despised, spoke with Samaritans whom many Jews avoided, healed lepers whom society had rejected, and forgave people whose reputations seemed beyond repair. Where others saw labels, Jesus saw sons and daughters of God.

His example reminds us that every person has a story we know nothing about.

The person with tattoos may have experienced incredible hardships before finding peace. Someone who seems unfriendly may simply be carrying a heavy burden that no one else can see. A person who dresses differently may come from a different culture or financial situation. Someone who appears confident on the outside may be struggling with anxiety or loneliness on the inside.

When we remember that appearances rarely reveal someone’s whole story, it becomes easier to replace judgment with compassion.

President Dieter F. Uchtdorf gave memorable counsel on this very subject:

“This topic of judging others could actually be taught in just two words: Stop it!”

He went on to explain that disciples of Christ should replace judgment with mercy, forgiveness, and love, just as the Savior has done for each of us.

The scriptures repeatedly remind us of the value Heavenly Father places on each individual. The Lord declared:

“Remember the worth of souls is great in the sight of God.” (Doctrine and Covenants 18:10)

That statement isn’t limited to people who look like us, think like us, or live like us. Every soul has infinite worth because every soul is loved by God.

President Marion G. Romney expanded on this doctrine when he taught:

“Such is the worth of a soul. Surely it ‘is great in the sight of God.’ They should be of like value in the sight of men.”

Seeing others through that eternal perspective naturally changes how we treat them.

King Benjamin taught a similar principle when he warned against judging those who are poor or in need. Rather than assuming people deserve whatever difficulties they face, he encouraged his people to show mercy and compassion (see Mosiah 4:16–22). His counsel reaches far beyond caring for the poor. It reminds us to be careful when making assumptions based on what we see on the surface. The truth is that our first impressions are often incomplete—and sometimes completely wrong.

One of the best ways to overcome judging others is to be curious rather than critical. Rather than immediately deciding what someone’s appearance says about them, pause and remember that you don’t know their life story. Ask yourself what experiences may have shaped them or what challenges they might be facing. Simply replacing assumptions with curiosity can soften our hearts and help us see people more as individuals than stereotypes.

Prayer can also play a powerful role in changing the way we see others. If you find yourself overly critical, sincerely ask Heavenly Father to help you see people as He sees them. The Holy Ghost has a remarkable ability to replace judgment with compassion and criticism with charity. Over time, those prayers can gradually reshape the way you naturally respond to people.

It also helps to remember how much grace we hope others will extend to us. None of us wants to be defined by our appearance, our worst mistake, or someone else’s first impression. We hope people will take the time to know us before deciding who we are.

Jesus gave this important counsel:

“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” (John 7:24)

His words remind us that appearances alone never give us enough information to accurately understand another person.

As disciples of Christ, we’re invited to treat people the way we hope to be treated ourselves. Instead of focusing on what we can see on the outside, we can choose to recognize the divine nature within every individual.

Moroni taught:

“Charity is the pure love of Christ.” (Moroni 7:47)

As we develop Christlike charity, outward appearances naturally become less important. Instead, we begin noticing qualities that truly matter—faith, kindness, humility, honesty, and goodness. Charity changes not only the way we treat people but also the way we see them.

Overcoming the habit of judging people by their looks probably won’t happen overnight. Most of us will have opportunities throughout our lives to recognize our own assumptions and replace them with greater understanding. But each time we choose compassion over criticism and charity over quick judgments, we become a little more like the Savior.

President Thomas S. Monson once counseled:

“Never let a problem to be solved become more important than a person to be loved.”

That principle applies beautifully here. People are never simply appearances. Every person we meet is an eternal son or daughter of God with hopes, fears, struggles, and limitless potential.

The next time you meet someone, remember that Heavenly Father already knows everything about them. He knows their past, their present, their struggles, and their future potential—and He loves them perfectly. As we strive to see others through His eyes instead of our own, we’ll find ourselves judging less, loving more, and becoming the kind of disciples Jesus Christ invites us to be.

Gramps

Gramps,

Do you think people who have died get to Paradise and realize there, the mistakes they have made in this life– like how badly they treated someone– and feel remorse for it once they are through the veil? And are they given the opportunity to repent from that? I am hoping this is the case. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Edith

Answer

Edith,

One of the comforting teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that death is not the end of our existence, nor does it necessarily end our opportunity to learn and grow. When we pass through the veil, our spirits continue to live in the spirit world, where we remain conscious individuals with our personalities, memories, agency, and ability to learn. Because of that, it is reasonable to wonder whether someone who treated another person badly during mortality might come to recognize what they did after death, feel genuine remorse, and desire to repent.

According to Latter-day Saint doctrine, there is good reason to have hope that this can happen.

The Book of Mormon teaches that after death, our spirits enter the spirit world. Alma explained that the spirits of the righteous are “received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise,” while those who rejected righteousness experience a different condition (Alma 40:11–14). However, the spirit world is not simply a place where everyone waits for the Resurrection without learning or changing. Modern revelation teaches that the gospel is actively taught there.

Doctrine and Covenants 138 gives one of the clearest descriptions of what happens in the spirit world. In a vision, President Joseph F. Smith saw that Jesus Christ organized righteous spirits to carry the gospel to those who had died without receiving it. These spirits were taught “faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins,” along with other principles of the gospel (Doctrine and Covenants 138:33).

President Russell M. Nelson addressed this subject directly while serving as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. He asked:

“Each living person can repent. But what about those who have died? They also have opportunities to repent.”

He then quoted Doctrine and Covenants 138, explaining that the gospel of repentance is preached among the spirits of the dead and that “the dead who repent will be redeemed.”

That statement is important because it makes clear that repentance is not something that simply becomes impossible the moment someone dies. This does not mean that people can knowingly reject God, mistreat others, and simply plan on fixing everything after death. The scriptures strongly warn against procrastinating repentance. But the doctrine of salvation for the dead clearly shows that God’s work of teaching His children and inviting them to come to Christ continues in the spirit world.

That may also help answer the question of whether someone can recognize after death how badly they treated another person.

Imagine someone who spent years being cruel, selfish, neglectful, manipulative, or simply unwilling to acknowledge the pain they caused. In the face of mortality, people can become very good at justifying their behavior. Pride, anger, jealousy, fear, resentment, or misunderstanding can make it difficult for us to see ourselves clearly. Sometimes a person genuinely does not understand how deeply their actions affected someone else. In other cases, they may know they caused pain but refuse to admit responsibility.

Death does not erase those choices, but passing through the veil may eventually bring a clearer understanding of them.

Alma taught that we do not become completely different people simply because we die. He warned that “that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life” continues with us afterward (Alma 34:34). In other words, death itself does not instantly transform a selfish person into a loving person or a prideful person into a humble one. Our character matters, and the habits and desires we develop during mortality continue to matter.

At the same time, the spirit world provides opportunities for teaching, learning, and repentance. A person who spent their mortality misunderstanding God, other people, or even themselves may eventually encounter truths they previously ignored or could not see. It seems reasonable that this greater spiritual understanding could include recognizing the consequences of how they treat others.

The scriptures frequently link spiritual awakening to greater awareness of our own sins. Alma the Younger provides a dramatic example. After being confronted by an angel, he suddenly understood the seriousness of what he had done and remembered his sins with overwhelming clarity. He described himself as being “racked with eternal torment” and said his soul was “harrowed up” by the memory of his sins (Alma 36:12–17). Alma had not physically died, but his experience illustrates an important principle: when our spiritual understanding changes, our view of our own behavior can change dramatically as well.

Repentance also involves more than simply realizing we were wrong. President Joseph F. Smith taught:

“When we commit sin, it is necessary that we repent of it and make restitution as far as lies in our power.”

He went on to explain that there are times when we cannot personally repair everything our actions have caused. In those circumstances, we must rely upon the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ. He asked, “Who shall repair the wrongs they have done to themselves and to others, which it seems impossible for them to repair themselves?” His answer was the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

That teaching is especially meaningful when the person who caused the hurt has already died. Sometimes there is no longer a mortal opportunity to apologize, repair a relationship, or undo the consequences of something that happened years ago. But that does not mean repentance or the healing power of Christ’s Atonement has become meaningless.

The scriptures also suggest that ultimately we will see ourselves and our choices with greater clarity than we sometimes do now. Alma taught that our “words, our works, and our thoughts” will be part of our judgment (Alma 12:14). King Benjamin spoke of people having a “lively sense” of their own guilt (Mosiah 2:38). Excuses and rationalizations that seemed convincing during mortality may eventually look very different when we see ourselves and our actions more clearly.

Someone may spend years saying, “I didn’t do anything wrong,” “They deserved it,” or “They were the problem.” But God knows exactly what happened. He knows not only what someone did but why they did it, what they understood at the time, what opportunities they had to choose differently, and how their actions affected other people.

We should be careful, however, about claiming that we know exactly what a particular deceased person is currently thinking or feeling. The Church does not teach that everyone immediately passes through the veil and suddenly understands every mistake they ever made. Unless God reveals something about a particular individual, we simply do not know their present spiritual condition. What we can say is that Latter-day Saint doctrine leaves room for continued learning, increased understanding, remorse, and repentance after death.

This can be especially comforting when someone has died without ever making things right. Perhaps they never apologized for the way they treated someone. Maybe they never acknowledged the damage they caused, or they died still believing they had done nothing wrong. When that happens, the person who was hurt may be left without the conversation, apology, or acknowledgment they hoped would someday come.

The doctrine of the spirit world gives us reason to believe that death does not necessarily leave those misunderstandings frozen forever. A person who could not or would not recognize the truth here may eventually come to understand things differently. If that understanding produces genuine sorrow for wrongdoing and a desire to turn toward Christ, repentance is part of the gospel being taught in the spirit world.

There is an important caution in all of this. Amulek warned, “do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end” (Alma 34:33). We should never assume that we can knowingly mistreat people, refuse to repent, and simply fix everything after death. The kind of person we become during mortality matters, and deeply rooted attitudes and desires do not automatically disappear when the body dies.

Still, that warning does not mean God’s mercy ends at the grave. The entire Latter-day Saint doctrine of salvation for the dead teaches that God’s work continues in the spirit world. People can hear the gospel, exercise agency, and repent, while saving ordinances can be performed on their behalf on earth.

So, could someone who has died eventually realize how badly they treated another person and feel remorse for it? Latter-day Saint doctrine gives us good reason to believe that such recognition is possible. Could that person desire forgiveness and turn toward Jesus Christ? Again, there is reason for hope. We simply do not know exactly how or when that process takes place for any particular individual.

Ultimately, that person is in the hands of a Savior who understands the entire story. Jesus Christ knows what happened, what was intended, what pain was caused, and what was in the hearts of everyone involved. His judgment is perfectly just, but His Atonement also makes repentance, mercy, and healing possible.

For someone who was hurt and never received an apology or acknowledgment during this life, that can be a comforting thought. The person who hurt us may have passed beyond our ability to speak with them, but they have not passed beyond God’s ability to teach them. There is reason to hope that truths they could not see here can eventually become clear and that someone who did not understand the hurt they caused in mortality may someday recognize it, feel genuine sorrow, and turn to Christ.

We cannot know everything happening on the other side of the veil, but we can trust that God has not forgotten either the person who caused the hurt or the person who experienced it. His plan provides for truth, justice, mercy, learning, repentance, and ultimately the healing made possible through Jesus Christ.

Gramps

Gramps,

If I recall correctly, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles can officiate in temple sealings because they hold all the priesthood keys. From the at logic, they can also officiate endowment sessions, initiatories, baptisms, and, for sure, receive patrons at endowment sessions’ veils. So my question is this: can the First Presidency’s and the Apostles’ wives, as well as the Relief Society general presidency, also help assist in temple work when visiting another temple?

Samuel

Answer

Samuel,

The answer helps illustrate an important principle in the Lord’s Church. While priesthood keys, priesthood authority, Church callings, and temple assignments all work together, they are not the same thing. Understanding the difference helps us appreciate the order the Lord has established in His temples.

The President of the Church is the only person on earth authorized to exercise every priesthood key in its fullness. Members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles also hold all the priesthood keys, although they exercise those keys under the direction of the President of the Church. Dallin H. Oaks explained:

“Priesthood keys are the authority God has given to priesthood leaders to direct, control, and govern the use of His priesthood on earth.”

Because Apostles hold these keys, they may dedicate temples, perform sealings, ordain priesthood holders, and oversee every aspect of the Church’s work as directed by the President of the Church. If an Apostle happened to visit a temple, it would be entirely appropriate for the temple president to invite him to officiate in ordinances, receive patrons at the veil, or assist in other ways. He already possesses the necessary priesthood authority to do so.

Temple ordinance workers, however, serve under a different kind of authorization. They are not simply volunteers who decide to help whenever they are present. Both men and women who serve in temples are called, trained, and set apart to perform specific assignments within their respective temples. Whether someone assists with initiatories, serves as an ordinance worker during the endowment, receives patrons at the veil, or performs another responsibility, they do so because they have been officially assigned to that sacred work.

That distinction becomes important when considering the wives of the Apostles. An Apostle’s wife is undoubtedly experienced in temple worship and may even have served as an ordinance worker at some point in her life. Yet simply being married to an Apostle does not automatically authorize her to function as an ordinance worker whenever she visits another temple. Unless she has been called, set apart, or specifically assigned to serve there, she would normally attend the temple as a patron, just like everyone else.

The same principle applies to the Relief Society General Presidency. These remarkable women hold worldwide leadership responsibilities and exercise real authority in their Church callings. President Dallin H. Oaks taught:

“We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be?”

That statement reminds us that women exercise authority through the priesthood when they are set apart for their callings. At the same time, serving in a general Church calling does not automatically make someone a temple ordinance worker in every temple worldwide. Temple service is organized under the direction of each temple president, who presides over that temple by delegated priesthood keys. As a result, even members of the Relief Society General Presidency would ordinarily participate as patrons unless they had received a specific assignment or authorization to serve.

Of course, there are occasions when General Authorities or General Officers participate in special temple events, such as temple dedications or other unique assignments. In those situations, they act under the direction of those who hold the appropriate priesthood keys. Those circumstances are exceptions granted through proper authorization, not because someone occupies a particular Church position.

This orderly pattern reflects one of the Lord’s consistent teachings throughout the scriptures. Paul reminded the Saints, “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace” (1 Corinthians 14:33). Likewise, the Lord declared, “For all things must be done in order” (Doctrine and Covenants 28:13). Those principles are clearly evident in temple worship.

Sometimes people wonder why someone with extensive Church experience can’t simply step in and help when needed. The answer isn’t about experience or worthiness. Rather, it reflects the Lord’s pattern of governing His Church through priesthood keys, delegated authority, and carefully organized assignments. Every ordinance worker receives training and serves under the direction of the temple presidency so that sacred ordinances are performed consistently throughout the world.

Whether a temple is located in Utah, Brazil, Japan, Ghana, or the Philippines, members can worship with confidence knowing that the ordinances are administered according to the same revealed pattern. That consistency is one of the blessings that comes from the Lord’s orderly way of governing His Church.

So, returning to the original question, could an Apostle officiate in temple ordinances while visiting another temple? Yes. Because he holds all the necessary priesthood keys, he may do so when acting under the direction of the President of the Church and in harmony with the temple presidency. Could his wife or members of the Relief Society General Presidency simply assist with temple ordinances because of their relationship or calling? Generally, no. Like other temple ordinance workers, they would normally need to be called, assigned, or otherwise authorized to serve in that particular temple.

Far from being a restriction, this beautiful pattern reflects the Lord’s wisdom. Every person who serves in the temple does so under proper authority and in accordance with divine order. From an Apostle to a newly called ordinance worker, everyone serves within the framework that the Savior has established. That order not only protects the sacred nature of temple ordinances but also gives every worshipper confidence that wherever they attend the temple, the work is being carried out exactly as the Lord intends.

Gramps