Gramps,

A member of my branch said that after President Nelson’s first wife passed away, they held interviews to find a second wife. This person also made it seem like a prophet must be married. Do you know if this is true?

Thank you,

Michael

Answer

Michael,

This is one of those stories that tends to circulate quietly in Church culture—someone heard it from someone else, and before long, it starts to sound official. But when you slow it down and really look at it, the claim doesn’t hold up very well.

Let’s walk through it together in a straightforward, conversational way.

The idea you were told is that after the first wife of Russell M. Nelson passed away, the Church somehow organized interviews to help him find a second wife—and that, more broadly, a prophet must be married in order to serve.

That’s a pretty specific claim. And the first thing to say clearly is this: there is no reliable evidence that anything like that ever happened.

President Nelson’s first wife, Dantzel White Nelson, passed away in 2005 after decades of marriage. By all accounts, it was a deeply meaningful relationship. About a year later, he married Wendy Watson (now Wendy Nelson). Their story has actually been shared publicly in various settings, and it sounds exactly like what you’d expect from two faithful adults later in life—they met through Church and social connections, built a friendship, and eventually felt prompted that marriage was right.

There’s no indication—none—that Church headquarters conducted interviews, screened candidates, or played any formal role in selecting a spouse for him. That kind of process would be very out of character for how personal decisions are handled in the Church, even for senior leaders.

It’s important to remember that prophets and apostles, while called of God, are still living very real human lives. They experience loss, loneliness, companionship, and hope just as anyone else does. Marriage, especially later in life after losing a spouse, is a deeply personal decision. In Latter-day Saint belief, it’s something guided by prayer and individual revelation—not by committees.

So where might that rumor have come from?

Sometimes people see patterns and assume there must be a system behind them. President Nelson remarried. Other Church leaders who have lost spouses have also remarried. From the outside, someone might speculate, “Maybe that’s required,” and then that idea slowly morphs into something more structured, like “they must help arrange it.” But that leap just isn’t supported by facts.

Now, the second part of your question—whether a prophet must be married—is a little more nuanced.

There is no doctrine or policy that says a prophet must currently have a living spouse in order to serve as President of the Church.

That’s worth saying again, because it clears up a lot of confusion: there is no checklist item in Church doctrine that says “must be married” to be a prophet.

However, it is true that every modern president of the Church has been married at some point. That’s a pattern—but not the same thing as a requirement.

Why does that pattern exist?

Partly because of the stage of life these men are in. Prophets are typically called later in life, after decades of service as bishops, stake presidents, and apostles. By that time, most have long since married and raised families. So statistically, it would actually be unusual for a man in that position not to have been married.

There’s also a doctrinal layer to this. In Latter-day Saint theology, eternal marriage is central to God’s plan. Teachings about families, covenants, and exaltation are at the heart of the gospel. So it makes sense that prophets—who teach and model these principles—have lived them personally.

But again, that doesn’t mean they must be married when they serve.

For example, after Dantzel passed away, President Nelson continued serving as a senior apostle as a widower. His ability to serve, lead, and exercise priesthood authority wasn’t paused or limited because he wasn’t married during that period. That alone tells us something important—marital status isn’t what qualifies someone for prophetic leadership.

When he was called as President of the Church in 2018, he had already remarried. But there’s no evidence suggesting that remarriage was a prerequisite for that calling. In Latter-day Saint belief, prophets are called by revelation—through inspiration given to those who already hold priesthood keys—not by meeting a list of external conditions.

This is where it helps to separate culture from doctrine.

In Church culture, marriage is strongly emphasized—and for good reason. It’s a beautiful, central part of the gospel. But sometimes that emphasis can unintentionally lead people to assume things are more rigid than they actually are. A good principle (marriage is important) can slowly turn into an assumption (“you must be married for certain roles”), and then eventually into a rumor (“the Church arranges marriages for leaders”).

That’s usually how stories like this grow.

Another helpful lens is to ask: Does this align with how the Church typically operates?

When it comes to deeply personal decisions—like who to marry—the consistent teaching is that individuals seek guidance from the Lord themselves. Even prophets follow that pattern. They teach it, and they live it.

President Nelson himself has often emphasized personal revelation—encouraging members to seek the Lord’s guidance in their own lives. It would be very inconsistent if, in something as personal as marriage, that principle suddenly didn’t apply to him.

At the end of the day, the simplest explanation is usually the right one.

President Nelson lost his wife, grieved, continued serving faithfully, and eventually found companionship again with someone he felt inspired to marry. No interviews. No formal selection process. Just a faithful man making a personal, prayerful decision.

And honestly, there’s something really comforting about that.

It reminds us that even prophets walk through the same kinds of life experiences we do. They face loss. They move forward. They seek guidance. They build relationships. Their lives are guided by revelation—but not micromanaged by an institution, as rumors sometimes suggest.

So if you hear that story again, you can feel confident saying: there’s no credible evidence for it, and it doesn’t reflect how the Church or its leaders actually operate.

Gramps

Gramps,

I want to know if you can give a rundown of what happened between Joseph’s death in 1844 and 1847 with the “succession crisis,” as some call it. Some say Joseph Smith’s keys died with him. Others say the D&C lays out how the keys were to be administered and dispersed to the Church government. I’d like to know our take on all that history, as the Community of Christ and other churches tend to preach their own ideas about these things.
Rachel

Answer

Rachel,

In the wake of Joseph Smith’s assassination, the immediate response was one of grief and bewilderment. Joseph Smith had been the charismatic center and prophetic guide for the Saints; he had originated revelations, built up communities, and established new doctrines. Hyrum Smith, as both patriarch and Assistant President, had been his closest confidant and designated successor in multiple respects. In fact, Joseph had clarified that Hyrum would take his place if he died, stating, Did Joseph ordain any man to take his place? He did. Who was it? It was Hyrum, but Hyrum fell a martyr before Joseph did.

With both offices vacant, the church’s intricate organizational structure was put to the test. Joseph’s previous attempts to shore up succession had included ordaining others—such as Oliver Cowdery and Hyrum Smith—to priesthood offices that, in theory, placed them directly in line. However, Cowdery had been excommunicated years earlier, and now Hyrum was dead alongside his brother, raising immediate uncertainty over just who held the right to lead.

Further complicating matters, the position of church president (Joseph’s office) was unique: it had no precedent for posthumous transfers. Joseph Smith’s dual role as prophet and president made his shoes uniquely difficult to fill. Given these gaps, members and leaders looked to the remaining structure for guidance.

The aftermath of the martyrdom saw a crowded field of claimants to church leadership, each representing a different vision for the future:

Sidney Rigdon: The lone surviving counselor in the First Presidency, Rigdon returned to Nauvoo and claimed he should serve as the Church’s guardian until Joseph Smith’s young son came of age. He justified his claim with both revelation and his longstanding office. Still, many doubted his spiritual vitality and commitment, especially as his recent absences from Nauvoo had distanced him from the core leadership circle. Rigdon’s plan, however, implied stagnation rather than a continuation and progression of the restoration; he did not seek to move the Church forward as an active, prophetic institution.

The Smith Family: Rumors circulated—and certain testimonies were later produced—indicating that Joseph Smith’s eldest surviving son, Joseph Smith III, had received his father’s blessing and was destined to lead the Church if he came of age and prepared himself. Some, including William Smith (Joseph’s brother), promoted the idea that church leadership should remain in the Smith line, referencing both tradition and specific blessings. However, Joseph III was only twelve at the time—too young and insufficiently seasoned in church affairs.

Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: During Joseph’s final months, he met frequently with the apostles, urgently conferring upon them all keys and priesthood ordinance authority. He charged the Twelve to “bear off this Church and kingdom of God before heaven and earth.” Brigham Young, President of the Quorum, later emphasized that Joseph had given every ordinance of the holy priesthood to the apostles, promising that if he died, “the hosts of Satan will not be able to tear down the kingdom as fast as you will be able to build it up.”

Other Figures: Additional contenders, like James J. Strang and Lyman Wight, each gathered smaller followings by asserting visionary credentials or geographical mandates but failed to command the main body of Saints..

The turning point arrived in August 1844, when a conference was called in Nauvoo to resolve the leadership crisis. Here, Sidney Rigdon presented his case to the assembled Saints, urging them to let him serve as guardian. Brigham Young, newly returned from preaching abroad, addressed the congregation with authority and clarity.

Brigham’s speech centered not on his own personality or prophetic credentials but on the principle of priesthood keys.”He argued that Joseph Smith had conferred upon the Twelve the authority to lead, stating, “The keys of the kingdom are right here with the Church.”  According to numerous reports from those present, a remarkable spiritual manifestation occurred: as Brigham spoke, many felt, and even saw, that he took on the voice and appearance of Joseph Smith himself—a spiritual confirmation to the assembly that the mantle had indeed fallen upon the Quorum of the Twelve.

The congregation voted, by uplifted hand, to sustain the authority of the Twelve. While not absolutely unanimous—dissenters would soon break away or harbor private reservations—the vote set the course for the largest body of Saints. Brigham Young did not immediately become President in the same sense as Joseph Smith; instead, the Church was led by the Twelve as a collective body for several years, with Brigham as their president. Only in December 1847, in the Salt Lake Valley, was the First Presidency reorganized, and Brigham Young formally sustained as President of the Church.

The succession drama had far-reaching and long-lasting effects. Within months, cracks appeared in the Church’s unity, as several figures left to form their own sects or joined existing schismatic groups—a process that permanently splintered the movement. The most significant divide came with the later organization of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now Community of Christ) under Joseph Smith III, which developed in opposition to both Brigham Young’s leadership and doctrines like plural marriage.

Yet the process also set enduring doctrinal precedents for the Church’s subsequent leadership transitions. The events of 1844 taught the Saints that revelation would guide the choice, but that the institutional structure—specifically, the Quorum of the Twelve, holding all priesthood keys collectively—would ensure continuity. This principle remains in modern times: following the death of a President, the First Presidency dissolves, and the Twelve become the governing body, who then set apart and sustain the new President by revelation and unanimous action.

Brigham Young’s leadership, therefore, was not simply a matter of personality but a triumph of organizational order, prophetic instruction, and active confirmation by the Saints themselves. In Richard Lyman Bushman’s words, “Young’s case worked because Joseph had laid the foundation in the early years. He had organized the Church by councils and then invested this governance system with charisma.”

Gramps

Gramps,

I was studying Luke 2 this Christmas Season, and was a little struck by the description of a devout temple worker within, starting verse 36: “…there was one Anna, a prophetess, (…, 37) …she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.”

Could she have received visions, same as a prophet? If so, could we have prophetesses in modern times, someday?

Harrison

Answer

Harrison,

Thank you for the question.

Are you asking about being a “prophet” or being “The Prophet”?  These are two different things.

The Biblical use of the word “prophet/prophetess” doesn’t have the same connotations as it does in the modern Church.  Biblically, a prophet was someone who had supernatural gifts from God at a level that was above the norm.

To illustrate, have you ever wondered what the difference is between giving a priesthood blessing of healing vs. having the “Gift of Healing”? (1 Corinthians12).  It seems that people can have special gifts from the Lord while they don’t necessarily hold the priesthood.  One gift of the Spirit is: Prophecy (v. 10).

What is prophecy?  It is the divine ability to speak unknown truths.

But behold, the Lord God poured in his Spirit into my soul, insomuch that I did confound him in all his words. (Jacob 7:8)

The Lord gave Jacob additional understanding and knowledge when contending with Sherem.  Without that gift, Jacob was just a man who was probably not Sherem’s equal in the skills of debate.  But with God’s power and wisdom behind him, he was able to confound Sherem.

If you recall the episode of Jesus speaking with the Samaritan woman at the well:

16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.

 

17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:

 

18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.

 

19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.   (John 4:16-19)

Compare that to how we use it today.  The meaning of the word “prophet” today tends to mean either the President of the Church or any of the 15 Apostles.  The fact that Jesus had perception beyond the five senses was what impressed the Samaritan woman to call him a prophet.  So, just a bit different.

Likewise, Anna was also gifted with a perception of divine things.  And it seemed that she was also one who would prepare the way of the Lord.  People knew her.  They knew of her gift.  And she waited for many years to be able to witness that the Great Deliverer had come.

Your question appears to ask if we will have a female prophet who will lead the Church today just as Pres. Nelson does today.  All the light and knowledge we have thus far seem to say that women will not be ordained to any priesthood office in mortality.  There are many theories as to why.

The only place where that is not so is in temple work.  And that is only allowed for the practicality of separating the sexes.  Additionally, you may want to ponder why the only temple attendant in the Celestial Room is a female.  Rarely will you see a male temple worker just “hanging out” in the Celestial Room.

Beyond that, everything we do know of the priesthood is that it is patriarchal in nature, and thus will be limited to males. While I can’t with 100% certainty state that this will never change no matter what, I have heard precisely zero indication that this will change any time soon.

Gramps

Dear Gramps,

Why don’t we now have a patriarch to the entire Mormon church? I understand that there are patriarchs in most areas of the Church and that there probably isn’t the need for a roving patriarch.

Ray

Answer

Dear Ray,

The office of Patriarch was established in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1833 when Joseph Smith Sr. was ordained as the first Patriarch. His responsibilities included providing patriarchal blessings—sacred blessings that offer guidance, declarations of lineage, and spiritual insights to church members. Over time, the office was referred to by various titles, including Patriarch over the whole Church and, later, the Presiding Patriarch, which became the official title in 1845.

The role was characterized by the principle of lineal succession, where the office typically passed from father to son within the Smith family. Hyrum Smith, the second Patriarch, received the “keys of the patriarchal priesthood” following his father’s death. As the Church expanded, the need for a single Presiding Patriarch diminished due to the increasing number of local stake patriarchs. Consequently, during the October 1979 General Conference, Eldred G. Smith, the last to hold the office, was released from his duties and given Emeritus status, marking the official discontinuation of the Presiding Patriarch position.

Today, the role of patriarchs exists primarily at the local level, with approximately 3,300 local patriarchs serving worldwide. Each local patriarch is ordained to provide patriarchal blessings to members of their stake, working under the direction of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The blessings they provide include declarations of lineage, connecting individuals to the tribes of Israel, and personal revelations tailored to the needs of the recipients.

Local patriarchs are recommended by the stake presidency and are responsible for preserving and recording patriarchal blessings at Church headquarters. This ensures continuity and the preservation of these sacred blessings for future generations. The emphasis on local leadership empowers communities and allows for a more personalized approach to spiritual guidance. The patriarch’s role is regarded with great respect, emphasizing wisdom, maturity, and a profound connection to spiritual matters.

The teachings within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints highlight the importance of patriarchal blessings as a means of understanding one’s lineage and divine potential. The Church teaches that every father should act as a patriarch in his own home, presiding over his family. This principle underscores the significance of family and lineage within the Church’s doctrine.

In the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith emphasized that an evangelist is a patriarch and that where the Church is established, there should be a patriarch to bless the posterity of the Saints (D&C 107:39). This reflects the belief that patriarchs play a vital role in guiding families toward their spiritual inheritances. Furthermore, the sixth article of faith reinforces the continuity of the Church’s organizational structure, including the role of patriarchs, which underscores their importance within the broader context of Church governance.

The sacredness of patriarchal blessings is emphasized in Church teachings. Each blessing is considered a personal revelation that can provide guidance, comfort, and encouragement to individuals. These blessings are typically given in private settings, involving the patriarch, the recipient, and sometimes their close family members.

The discontinuation of the office of Presiding Patriarch was primarily a response to the evolving structure of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the growing need for localized spiritual leadership. By empowering local stake patriarchs, the Church ensures that its members receive personalized blessings and guidance that resonate with their specific circumstances. Through these blessings, patriarchs fulfill a vital role in the spiritual lives of individuals and families, fostering a deep connection to their heritage and divine purpose.

In understanding the historical transition from a singular Presiding Patriarch to a network of local patriarchs, we can appreciate the Church’s commitment to spiritual growth, community, and the significance of patriarchal blessings in the lives of its members.

Gramps