Gramps,

Do we believe that Jesus slew an animal to make the coats of skins for Adam and Eve?  I have never heard or read anything from one of our Apostles or Prophets that says such a thing.   I know so others have said it, but I have never heard it from an Apostle or Prophet. Thank you.

Stephen

Answer

Stephen,

This is an interesting question because it touches on a subject that many Latter-day Saints have heard discussed over the years, but one that is not directly answered in scripture. The short answer is that the scriptures tell us that God made coats of skins for Adam and Eve, but they do not tell us who killed the animal or animals involved. Because of that, the Church has not established an official doctrine on the matter.

The account is found in Genesis 3:21:

“Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.”

A similar statement appears in Moses 4:27:

“Unto Adam, and also unto his wife, did I, the Lord God, make coats of skins, and clothed them.”

Notice what these passages do and do not say. They tell us that the Lord provided the coats of skins. They do not explain where the skins came from, whether an animal died, who killed it, or how the skins were prepared.

Because the text is silent on those details, any attempt to answer those questions moves from doctrine into interpretation.

Many Christians, including some Latter-day Saints, have suggested that the coats of skins may have come from the first animal sacrifice. The reasoning is fairly straightforward.

First, animal skins generally imply that an animal died. Second, shortly after the Fall, Adam was commanded to offer sacrifices to the Lord (see Moses 5:5-8). Third, those sacrifices pointed forward to the future sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Because of these connections, some teachers and commentators have speculated that the coats of skins symbolized the Atonement of Christ and that God may have introduced the concept of sacrifice immediately after the Fall.

There is certainly symbolism that can be appreciated in that interpretation. The Fall brought mortality, and Christ would eventually provide redemption. The idea of innocent life being connected to salvation is a theme found throughout scripture.

However, it is important to recognize that this remains an interpretation rather than a revealed doctrine.

As far as the standard works and widely available teachings of modern prophets and apostles are concerned, there is no official statement declaring that Jesus Christ personally slew an animal to make the coats of skins for Adam and Eve.

Some Church members encounter this idea in lessons, books, online discussions, or commentary from individuals seeking to draw symbolic connections between the Fall, sacrifice, and the Atonement. While such ideas may be interesting and even spiritually meaningful, Latter-day Saints are encouraged to distinguish between revealed doctrine and speculation.

President Dallin H. Oaks taught this principle in General Conference:

“Let us not teach or use as official doctrine what does not meet the standards of official doctrine.”

He also reminded us:

“There is so much we do not know that our only sure reliance is to trust in the Lord and His love for His children.”

That counsel applies well to questions such as this one. The scriptures tell us that the Lord made coats of skins for Adam and Eve, but they do not explain how the skins were obtained or who killed the animal. Because the Lord has not revealed those details, it is wise to avoid presenting any particular explanation as established doctrine.

When we search the teachings of modern prophets and apostles, we find extensive discussion of the Fall, sacrifice, and the Atonement. What we do not find is a prophetic declaration that Jesus personally killed an animal to provide those skins.

Therefore, it would be difficult to present that idea as settled LDS doctrine. Instead, it is best viewed as a personal interpretation or speculation unless further revelation is given.

There are several things we can say confidently because they are directly supported by scripture.

First, Adam and Eve fell and became mortal.

Second, the Lord cared for them after the Fall. The making of coats of skins demonstrates His concern for their physical needs.

Third, animal sacrifice became part of revealed worship after the Fall. Adam was commanded to offer sacrifices, and those sacrifices pointed to Jesus Christ.

In Moses 5:7 we read:

“This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father.”

That teaching is clear and explicit. The purpose of the sacrifice was to teach about Christ.

Fourth, Jesus Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. His Atonement was planned before the earth was created and is the central event to which all sacrifices pointed.

These truths are firmly established in LDS doctrine regardless of how the coats of skins were obtained.

Many readers see meaningful symbolism in the story even if they do not claim certainty about the details.

Adam and Eve had attempted to cover themselves with fig leaves after becoming aware of their nakedness. Later, the Lord Himself provided a more complete covering.

Some scholars and teachers have suggested that this can symbolize humanity’s inability to save itself and the need for the covering power of Christ’s Atonement. While this interpretation is not official doctrine, many find it spiritually meaningful.

The important point is that symbolism should not be confused with revelation. A symbolic interpretation can be insightful without becoming a required belief.

One of the strengths of the restored gospel is that it encourages us to distinguish between what has been revealed and what has merely been inferred.

On this question, the revealed facts are relatively simple:

• The Lord made coats of skins for Adam and Eve.
• The scriptures do not explain exactly how those skins were obtained.
• Animal sacrifice was later commanded and was a symbol of Jesus Christ’s future sacrifice.
• No official doctrine states that Jesus personally killed an animal to make the coats.

Because of that, faithful Latter-day Saints can reasonably hold different views. Some may see the coats as connected to an actual sacrifice. Others may simply conclude that the scriptures do not provide enough information to know.

Either position can be held while remaining completely faithful to the teachings of the Church.

It is often wise to follow President Oaks’s counsel to avoid teaching as doctrine things that have not been established by revelation. We can appreciate possible symbolism and thoughtful interpretations while remembering that the safest course is to hold firmly to what the Lord has revealed and to be comfortable saying, “We do not know,” when He has not.

Gramps

Gramps,

I have heard that the US should not make the first attack in war,  on their own soil, and that the Lord will not be with them if they do. If invading enemies enter but don’t strike, I have also heard that they will not have the Lord backing them if they attack an enemy on that enemy’s soil first.  Is this true?

JJ

Answer

JJ,

These ideas are fairly common in some Latter-day Saint discussions, but are they actually doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

The short answer is no. The Church has never taught that a nation must always wait for the first shot to be fired before defending itself, nor has it taught that the Lord only supports military action that takes place on a nation’s own territory. What the scriptures and modern prophets teach are principles that help us understand when war may be justified and when it is not.

The starting point for any discussion about war in LDS doctrine is the Lord’s desire for peace. In a revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Lord declared:

“Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace” (Doctrine and Covenants 98:16).

This command is one of the clearest statements in scripture regarding the Lord’s preference. God’s people are not to seek conflict, glory in battle, or look for opportunities to fight. Followers of Jesus Christ are to be peacemakers.

The Savior Himself taught:

“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God” (Matthew 5:9).

Because of this, the Church has consistently encouraged peaceful solutions to disputes whenever possible.

The First Presidency taught:

“Christ’s Church should not make war, for the Lord is a Lord of peace.”

They further explained:

“The Church itself cannot wage war.” (Renounce War, Proclaim the Gospel of Peace)

These statements make clear that the Church’s mission is spiritual, not military.

While the Lord prefers peace, He also recognizes that there are times when people must defend themselves and others.

The Book of Mormon provides several examples. Captain Moroni did not fight wars to gain territory, wealth, or power. Mormon repeatedly emphasizes that the Nephites fought to protect their homes, families, liberty, and faith.

Alma records:

“They were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for monarchy nor power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children” (Alma 43:45).

Notice what justified their actions. It was not where the battle occurred. It was not who threw the first punch. It was the righteous purpose behind their defense.

The Nephites sought peace whenever possible, but they were willing to defend innocent lives when necessary.

Many of the ideas about “never striking first” come from Doctrine and Covenants 98. In this revelation, the Lord taught the Saints principles of patience, forgiveness, and restraint. He described circumstances in which offenses should be endured and opportunities given for repentance and reconciliation. The overall message is clear: God’s people should not be eager to fight.

However, the revelation does not function as a modern military rulebook for every nation and every circumstance. Rather, it establishes eternal principles of justice, mercy, patience, and justified self-defense.

The Church’s Doctrine and Covenants Teacher Manual explains that in this revelation, the Lord:

“outlined the circumstances when war is justified.”

This is significant. The revelation does not teach that war is never justified. Instead, it explains the principles under which defensive action may be acceptable before God. This is where many members move beyond what the scriptures actually say.

No official Church doctrine states that a nation must literally wait until enemy forces fire the first shot before taking defensive action. For example, suppose a hostile government openly announces plans to invade another country, mobilizes troops, and prepares an imminent attack. Must the threatened nation wait until bombs begin falling before responding?

The scriptures do not directly answer every modern military scenario. Instead, they provide principles:

• Seek peace first.
• Avoid aggression.
• Defend innocent life.
• Act from righteous motives.
• Avoid conquest and revenge.
• Respect human life.

Whether a specific military action meets those standards is often a matter of judgment rather than revealed doctrine.

Another common belief is that God only supports military action conducted within a nation’s own borders. Again, there is no official doctrine that teaches this. The Book of Mormon focuses on why wars are fought, not merely where they are fought.

A nation can act unjustly on its own soil. Likewise, military operations beyond a nation’s borders may be conducted for defensive purposes. Geography alone does not determine whether a cause is righteous.

The Lord judges motives, purposes, and actions. The central question is not, “Whose territory is this?” The more important question is, “Why is this being done?”

Perhaps the most important modern statement on this subject came from President Gordon B. Hinckley during the Iraq War.

Speaking in General Conference in April 2003, President Hinckley acknowledged the terrible realities of war while also recognizing that governments sometimes face difficult decisions regarding defense.

He said:

“There are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation, to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression.” (War and Peace)

This statement is important because President Hinckley did not limit justified warfare only to situations in which a nation had already suffered a direct attack. He spoke more broadly about defending liberty and opposing tyranny, threats, and oppression.

At the same time, he emphasized that war should never be viewed lightly. In the same address he declared:

“We of this Church are people of peace.”

President Hinckley’s message reflects the balance found throughout LDS doctrine. Followers of Christ should love peace and seek peace, but they also recognize that there may be circumstances when defending innocent lives becomes necessary.

President Hinckley further cautioned members against assuming that war is automatically righteous simply because a government chooses it. He said:

“We can only pray that God will touch the hearts of those who are responsible for these decisions, that they might be guided to do what is right.”

This reminds us that even when governments act, faithful Saints should remain humble and prayerful rather than assuming every military action has divine approval.

Another important principle is that no nation can automatically assume the Lord is on its side. Throughout history, opposing armies have often claimed divine approval. The Book of Mormon repeatedly teaches that righteousness—not nationality—is what matters to God.

The Lord blesses people and nations when they follow Him and withdraws blessings when they become prideful and wicked. This principle applies to every nation, including the United States. No country receives a permanent guarantee of divine approval simply because it believes its cause is just.

President Gordon B. Hinckley reminded members that while governments may make decisions regarding war, disciples of Christ must continue to seek peace and trust the Lord.

Gramps

Gramps,

Why did God the Father formulate a plan of salvation that required the sacrifice of one of his sons in order for redemption to be made available?  Why was there no other way that could not include the immense suffering of one individual?  Which holy scriptural author best describes the need for the atonement of one, Jesus Christ?

David

Answer

David,

One of the deepest questions in all of religion is this: Why did Heavenly Father create a plan of salvation that required the suffering and sacrifice of Jesus Christ? If God is all-powerful, why could He not simply forgive His children without requiring the immense suffering of one of His sons?

Latter-day Saint doctrine teaches that the answer lies in the eternal nature of God, the reality of agency, and the unchanging laws of justice and mercy. The Atonement of Jesus Christ was not an arbitrary requirement. It was the only way to satisfy both justice and mercy while preserving our agency and allowing us to return to God’s presence.

To understand why, we first need to understand the problem the Atonement was meant to solve.

Before coming to earth, we lived as spirit children of Heavenly Father. His plan provided a way for us to receive physical bodies, learn through experience, and eventually become more like Him. But He also knew that every one of us would make mistakes and commit sin.

The scriptures teach that “no unclean thing can dwell with God” (1 Nephi 10:21). Because all people sin, every one of us would be separated from God forever if there were no redemption.

In addition, mortality brought physical death. Every person would eventually die and be separated from his or her body.

Humanity, therefore, faced two obstacles:

1. Physical death.
2. Spiritual death caused by sin.

Without divine intervention, neither obstacle could be overcome.

Some people wonder why God could not simply overlook sin. The Book of Mormon gives a profound answer. God is perfectly loving, but He is also perfectly just. If justice did not exist, there would be no meaningful consequences for good or evil.

The prophet Alma taught:

“Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should die? … If there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin” (Alma 42:17).

Justice requires that laws have consequences. If God simply ignored sin, He would cease to be a perfectly just God. Yet if justice alone prevailed, every person would stand condemned because all have sinned. This is where mercy enters the picture. The challenge was not merely finding a way to forgive sinners. The challenge was finding a way for mercy to operate without destroying justice.

Alma explained:

“The plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made” (Alma 42:15).

That simple statement may be one of the clearest explanations in all scripture. Mercy could not function without an atonement. The Atonement was not merely one option among many. It was the means by which both justice and mercy could be preserved.

Among all scriptural authors, Alma likely provides the most complete explanation of why the Atonement was necessary. His teachings in Alma 34 and Alma 42 explain not only that Christ would save mankind, but why such a sacrifice was required in the first place.

In Alma 34, the prophet Amulek taught that redemption required “an infinite and eternal sacrifice” (Alma 34:10). Animal sacrifices under the law of Moses could symbolize the future Messiah, but they could not actually redeem humanity. Only a divine and infinite sacrifice could satisfy the demands of justice for all people.

Jesus Christ alone was qualified to make that sacrifice.

Because He was the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh and lived a completely sinless life, He had no debt of His own to pay. He voluntarily offered Himself before the foundation of the world to become the Savior of mankind.

As Christ Himself declared:

“I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself” (John 10:17-18).

The Savior was not an unwilling victim. He willingly chose to suffer for us.

Modern apostles have emphasized this truth. President Dallin H. Oaks taught that Christ’s mission was absolutely central to the Father’s plan:

“He has done everything that is essential for our journey through mortality toward the destiny outlined in the plan of our Heavenly Father.” (“What Has Our Savior Done for Us?” April 2021 General Conference)

The Atonement was not a backup plan or an emergency measure. It was the very heart of the Father’s plan from the beginning.

Still, another question often arises: Why did the suffering have to be so immense?

Doctrine and Covenants 19 teaches that Christ suffered “both body and spirit” and that His suffering caused Him to “bleed at every pore” (D&C 19:18).

The answer is that Christ did not merely pay a symbolic price. He descended below all things. He experienced the full weight of mortality so He could redeem us completely and understand us perfectly.

Alma prophesied:

“And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind… that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities” (Alma 7:11-12).

President Oaks similarly taught:

“He had no debt to pay. He had committed no wrong.” (“Strengthened by the Atonement of Jesus Christ,” October 2015 General Conference)

Yet the Savior willingly bore humanity’s guilt, pain, sorrow, and suffering. Because Christ personally experienced every kind of suffering, He knows exactly how to help us in our own trials.

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland beautifully described this aspect of the Savior’s sacrifice when he testified:

“We will never be left alone nor unaided.” (“None Were with Him,” April 2009 General Conference)

That assurance comes because Jesus Christ has walked the path of suffering before us.

Through His Resurrection, Christ overcame physical death for every person who has ever lived. Through His atoning sacrifice, He made repentance and forgiveness possible for all who come unto Him.

The reach of His sacrifice is truly infinite. Elder Holland taught:

“It is not possible for you to sink lower than the infinite light of Christ’s Atonement shines.” (“The Laborers in the Vineyard,” April 2012 General Conference)

No one is beyond the Savior’s ability to redeem. No sorrow is beyond His understanding. No repentant soul is beyond His reach.

In the end, the question is not simply why suffering was required. The greater lesson is what that suffering reveals about God. It reveals that Heavenly Father loved His children enough to provide a Savior. It reveals that Jesus Christ loved us enough to willingly suffer for us. It reveals that justice would not be abandoned, but neither would mercy.

The Atonement demonstrates both God’s perfect holiness and His perfect love. Through Jesus Christ, justice is satisfied, mercy is extended, agency is preserved, and the way is opened for God’s children to return home.

That is why Latter-day Saints view the Atonement of Jesus Christ not merely as one doctrine among many, but as the very center of the Father’s plan of salvation. And among scriptural writers, perhaps no one explains that necessity more clearly than Alma, who taught that “the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made” (Alma 42:15). In that single verse, he summarized why the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was not merely helpful—it was absolutely essential.

Gramps

Dear Gramps,

We know that Christ’s Atonement was infinite, and eternal, and that He died for the sins of all Of Heavenly Fathers planets and creations.  I have also heard that our world was the only one wicked enough to crucify Our Lord.  So my question is, was Satan cast down to our planet only?  Could this explain why our world is so wicked?

Heather

Answer

Heather,

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe something remarkable about Jesus Christ: His Atonement is infinite and eternal. It wasn’t performed merely for one generation or even one world. The scriptures teach that His redeeming power reaches throughout all of Heavenly Father’s creations.

That naturally leads to some fascinating questions. If God has created “worlds without number” (Moses 1:33), and if Jesus Christ is the Savior for all of God’s children, what role does Satan play in the rest of God’s creations? Was Lucifer cast down only to this earth? If so, could that explain why our world seems to experience so much wickedness?

The honest answer is that we simply don’t know all the details. The restored gospel gives us important pieces of the puzzle, but it doesn’t answer every question we might have about Satan’s influence throughout the universe.

What we do know begins in the premortal life. Before the earth was created, Lucifer rebelled against Heavenly Father’s plan. Rather than accepting God’s plan of agency, he sought to destroy it by compelling everyone to obey. Because of that rebellion, he and the spirits who followed him were cast out of God’s presence.

The Lord revealed:

“And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men” (Moses 4:4).

John the Revelator likewise described the conflict in heaven:

“And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon” (Revelation 12:7).

Once cast out, Satan immediately turned his attention to Adam and Eve, beginning the work of temptation that has continued throughout human history.

One detail that often catches people’s attention is that the scriptures repeatedly describe Satan as being cast down to the earth. Revelation declares:

“Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you” (Revelation 12:12).

Because these passages focus specifically on our earth, some Latter-day Saints have wondered whether Satan’s influence is actually limited to this world. It’s an understandable question, but one that the scriptures never directly answer.

No official doctrine teaches that Satan was assigned exclusively to Earth. The Lord has simply not revealed how Satan’s influence relates to God’s other creations. Some members have suggested that his efforts may be concentrated here because this is the world where Adam and Eve fell and where Jesus Christ performed His mortal ministry and infinite Atonement. That certainly seems possible, but it remains thoughtful speculation rather than revealed doctrine.

A related idea often surfaces in discussions like this. Many Church members have heard it said that our world was the only one wicked enough to crucify the Son of God. While that statement has become familiar in Latter-day Saint culture, it is important to distinguish between what has been revealed and what has been inferred.

Some early Church leaders, including Elder Orson Pratt, held that among God’s many inhabited worlds, ours may have been unique in rejecting and crucifying the Savior. Those comments are certainly worth considering, but they were never presented as binding doctrine for the Church.

The scriptures clearly establish that Jesus came to this earth and that many rejected Him. As the Apostle Paul wrote:

“For had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Corinthians 2:8).

The Book of Mormon likewise describes the widespread wickedness in Jerusalem and among many people during the Savior’s mortal ministry. Whether another world would have acted differently is something the Lord has chosen not to reveal. Even if the idea were true, however, it would not necessarily follow that Earth is uniquely wicked because Satan resides here.

One of the central doctrines of the restored gospel is agency. Satan can tempt, deceive, and encourage evil, but he cannot force anyone to sin. President James E. Faust offered this reassuring counsel:

“However, we need not become paralyzed with fear of Satan’s power. He can have no power over us unless we permit it. He is really a coward, and if we stand firm, he will retreat.” (“The Great Imitator,” General Conference, October 1987)

That perspective is important because it reminds us that the wickedness we see around us cannot simply be blamed on the devil. Every person is accountable for the choices they make. Satan may provide temptation, but agency belongs to each of us.

It’s also worth remembering that if this earth has been the stage for Satan’s opposition, it has also been the stage for the greatest manifestation of God’s love. This is the world where Jesus Christ was born, taught, healed, suffered in Gethsemane, died on the cross, and rose from the tomb. It is the world where the fulness of the gospel has been restored in preparation for His Second Coming.

Rather than viewing Earth as merely the most wicked place in creation, it may be more accurate to see it as a central stage in the Father’s plan of salvation. This is the world where the Fall occurred, where Jesus Christ performed His infinite Atonement, and where the fulness of the gospel has been restored in preparation for His Second Coming. Those events alone give this earth a unique place in God’s work, regardless of what may be true of His other creations.

There’s another perspective worth considering as well.

Sometimes we look at the wickedness surrounding us and assume our world must be exceptionally evil. Yet the scriptures also tell the story of countless faithful men and women who have lived here. Adam and Eve, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and Sarah, Moses, Ruth, Peter, Mary, Mormon, Moroni, Joseph Smith, and millions of unnamed disciples all chose righteousness despite living in a fallen world.

The Lord has repeatedly established covenants with people on this earth. He has called prophets here, revealed scripture here, built temples here, and restored priesthood authority here. In other words, Earth has at times produced extraordinary wickedness, but also extraordinary faithfulness. Both realities coexist because agency allows individuals to choose whom to follow.

In the end, the restored gospel teaches us enough to understand the broad picture while leaving some fascinating questions unanswered. We know that Jesus Christ’s Atonement is infinite and eternal. We know that God has created worlds without number. We know that Satan rebelled, was cast out, and now seeks to deceive God’s children. We also know that agency remains intact and that every person is responsible for their choices.

What we do not know is whether Satan’s activities are confined entirely to this earth or how his influence relates to God’s other creations. Until the Lord reveals more, the wisest approach is to distinguish carefully between revealed doctrine and thoughtful speculation.

There’s nothing wrong with wondering about these questions. In fact, they can deepen our appreciation for both the vastness of God’s creations and the scope of Christ’s redeeming mission.

What we can say with complete confidence is that wherever Satan’s influence may extend, Jesus Christ’s power reaches farther still. The Savior has already won the decisive victory. Through His infinite Atonement, every child of God has access to forgiveness, redemption, resurrection, and the opportunity for eternal life.

And in the end, that truth matters far more than knowing exactly where Satan’s jurisdiction begins or ends.

Gramps

Gramps,

Why are we making the Salt Lake Temple earthquake-proof? Should we not have faith that Heavenly Father can protect his temple using divine means? If God isn’t concerned about protecting his temples from natural disasters. Why are we worried?

Josh

Answer

Josh,

It’s an honest question, and one that touches on an important principle in the gospel: the relationship between faith and personal responsibility.

The short answer is that Latter-day Saints believe in both divine protection and wise preparation. The Church’s efforts to strengthen the Salt Lake Temple are not a sign of weak faith. Rather, they reflect a longstanding gospel principle that God often expects His children to do what they can while trusting Him for what they cannot do.

One of the most famous examples comes from the story of Noah. God could have miraculously protected Noah and his family from the Flood without requiring them to build an ark. Instead, He commanded Noah to spend years constructing one. The miracle came, but preparation came first.

The same pattern appears throughout scripture. Nephi was commanded to build a ship before crossing the ocean. Joseph in Egypt stored grain before the famine arrived. The people of Alma fortified their cities before attacks came. In each case, faith did not replace preparation. Faith-motivated preparation.

Latter-day Saints often summarize this principle with the phrase, “Pray as if everything depends on God and work as if everything depends on you.” While that exact wording is not scripture, it captures an important gospel truth.

The Church teaches self-reliance, food storage, emergency preparedness, financial responsibility, and wise planning. Few members would argue that having food storage demonstrates a lack of faith in God’s ability to provide. Likewise, purchasing insurance does not mean a person lacks faith that God can protect their home. We take reasonable precautions while trusting in the Lord.

The Salt Lake Temple renovation follows the same principle.

The temple was dedicated in 1893. When it was built, engineers did not have the modern understanding of earthquakes that exists today. The Wasatch Fault, which runs through northern Utah, is capable of producing significant seismic activity. Engineers now have technology that can greatly improve a building’s ability to withstand a major earthquake.

The renovation is intended to preserve the temple for future generations. If Church leaders have the knowledge and resources to strengthen the building, it would be difficult to argue that they should simply ignore those opportunities and hope for a miracle instead.

In LDS theology, faith is not usually expressed by refusing to act. Faith is expressed by acting in harmony with revealed truth and sound.

I remember hearing a quote once that basically said: “The Lord will not do for us what we can do for ourselves.”

While the Lord certainly performs miracles, He often expects His people to use the abilities, intelligence, and resources He has already provided.

Some people wonder whether God’s protection should make earthquake-proofing unnecessary. After all, haven’t temples been dedicated and set apart as sacred places? The answer is yes, temples are sacred. But LDS doctrine does not teach that dedicated buildings are automatically immune from natural disasters. In fact, scripture and history suggest the opposite.

The ancient temple in Jerusalem was destroyed more than once. The Nephite temple civilization eventually disappeared. Early Latter-day Saint temples faced persecution, damage, abandonment, and destruction. The temple in Nauvoo was burned after the Saints were forced to leave Illinois.

These events did not mean God had abandoned His people or that the temples were somehow unworthy of divine protection. Rather, they demonstrate that God sometimes allows natural and human-caused events to unfold according to the laws and agency of the mortal world.

Latter-day Saints believe that God governs the universe through laws. Gravity works. Fire burns. Floods flood. Earthquakes shake the earth. The Lord can intervene whenever He chooses, but He does not always suspend natural laws.

That reality helps explain why the Church takes practical measures to protect its buildings.

Another important consideration is stewardship.

Church leaders have a responsibility to care for sacred resources. The Salt Lake Temple is not merely an historic building. It is one of the most recognizable symbols of the Restoration and a place where sacred ordinances are performed. Millions of members worldwide feel a connection to it.

If leaders know there is a realistic risk that a major earthquake could severely damage the structure, stewardship would suggest taking reasonable steps to preserve it.

Imagine a bishop discovering that the roof of a meetinghouse was unsafe. Most members would not expect him to simply pray for protection and leave the problem unaddressed. They would expect him to repair the roof. Fixing the roof would not demonstrate a lack of faith. It would demonstrate responsible stewardship.

The same principle applies on a much larger scale to the Salt Lake Temple.

There is also a human safety component. The renovation is not only about protecting stone walls and historic architecture. It is about protecting people who will worship there for generations to come.

Church leaders have repeatedly emphasized the value of human life. If engineers can reduce the likelihood of injury or loss of life during a future earthquake, it makes sense to do so.

Some may still ask, “But couldn’t God simply protect the temple if He wanted to?”

Absolutely. Latter-day Saints firmly believe He could.

The scriptures are filled with examples of divine intervention. The Lord parted the Red Sea, preserved Daniel in the lions’ den, and protected the pioneers in remarkable ways. God has the power to preserve any building He chooses.

The question, however, is not whether God can perform miracles. The question is whether He has instructed His people to avoid preparation and depend solely on miracles.

The answer throughout scripture appears to be no.

The Lord generally expects His people to exercise wisdom, use available resources, and act responsibly. Then they trust Him for the outcomes they cannot control.

Perhaps the best way to view the Salt Lake Temple renovation is not as a substitute for faith but as an expression of faith. Church leaders believe the temple will continue serving future generations. They believe it is worth preserving. They believe God has blessed His children with knowledge and engineering skills to accomplish that purpose.

Faith and preparation are not opposites. In the gospel, they often work together.

Latter-day Saints trust that Heavenly Father can protect His temples through miraculous means if He chooses. At the same time, they recognize that He often works through ordinary means—through inspired leaders, skilled engineers, careful planning, and wise stewardship.

Making the Salt Lake Temple earthquake-resistant is not a statement that God cannot protect His house. It is a recognition that God frequently asks His children to do their part while trusting Him to do His.

Gramps

]]> https://askgramps.org/why-making-salt-lake-temple-earthquake-proof/feed/ 0 https://askgramps.org/is-there-relaxed-look-modesty-with-change-garment-styles/ https://askgramps.org/is-there-relaxed-look-modesty-with-change-garment-styles/#respond Mon, 15 Jun 2026 08:00:38 +0000 https://askgramps.org/?p=74879 Question

Gramps,

I can’t find anything official from the Church about recent changes to the temple garment related to a relaxed view of modesty. Have modesty standards been lowered?

Connie

Answer

Connie,

The recent changes to temple garments in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have prompted many members to ask an interesting question: Do these changes signal a more relaxed approach to modesty? While opinions vary among Church members, the official statements from Church leadership suggest a more nuanced answer.

A related question has become increasingly common. Some members have observed more women—both young and mature—wearing tank tops, sleeveless dresses, shorter hemlines, or lower necklines than were common in previous decades. In some cases, these styles are even seen at Church meetings or on temple grounds. As a result, some members wonder whether they have missed an official announcement or whether Church leaders have quietly adopted a more relaxed view of modesty.

Based on official Church statements and publications, there has been no announcement that modesty standards have been relaxed. Church leaders have not taught that sleeveless clothing, shorter dresses, or other specific fashion choices are now preferred or encouraged. Neither have they issued new guidelines redefining modesty in terms of specific measurements or styles.

What has changed is the way modesty is often discussed.

For many years, discussions among Latter-day Saints about modesty frequently centered on specific clothing standards and whether particular styles would adequately cover temple garments. While those conversations still occur, recent teachings from Church leaders have increasingly focused on the spiritual principles behind modesty rather than detailed rules about clothing.

In 2024, the First Presidency issued a statement that accompanied updates to the temple recommend interview questions. In that statement, they taught that “the garment of the holy priesthood is a sacred symbol of Jesus Christ.” They further explained that endowed members should honor “their sacred privilege to wear the garment as instructed in the initiatory ordinances.”

Those statements are significant because they focus attention on the covenant relationship between the individual and the Savior. The emphasis is not primarily on rules of dress but on the sacred promises represented by the garment itself.

At roughly the same time, the Church announced additional garment options, including designs intended to better meet the needs of members living in hot and humid climates. Church leaders explained that the First Presidency had authorized these changes “to bless those members and others who might benefit from the changes.”

Some members viewed these adjustments as evidence that modesty standards were becoming less strict. However, the official explanations did not frame the changes in those terms. Instead, leaders emphasized practical considerations and the desire to help members wear the garment more comfortably while remaining faithful to their temple covenants.

It is also possible that some of the changes people are observing are cultural rather than doctrinal. Latter-day Saint culture has never been completely uniform, and members in different generations, countries, climates, and circumstances often express modesty differently. As the Church has become increasingly global, leaders have generally emphasized principles that can apply across cultures rather than prescribing detailed dress codes for every situation.

The General Handbook describes modesty as an attitude of discipleship. It teaches that modesty reflects humility and respect for the body as a sacred gift from God. This approach moves the discussion beyond measurements, sleeve lengths, and fashion trends. Instead, it invites members to consider whether their choices reflect their relationship with Jesus Christ and their desire to honor Him.

That does not mean modesty has become unimportant. On the contrary, Church leaders continue to teach that disciples of Christ should dress, speak, and behave in ways that reflect their commitment to the gospel. What has changed is the emphasis. Rather than focusing primarily on external standards, recent teachings often emphasize the underlying principles that motivate those standards.

For members who feel surprised by changing fashions among fellow Saints, it may be helpful to distinguish between what is officially taught and what individual members choose to do. The fact that some Church members dress differently from previous generations does not necessarily indicate a change in Church doctrine. Nor does it mean those individuals are disregarding their covenants. In many cases, we simply do not know another person’s personal circumstances, intentions, understanding, or decisions.

President Dallin H. Oaks once taught that the gospel is ultimately about changing hearts rather than merely enforcing outward behaviors. That principle can be especially helpful when considering questions of modesty. While standards matter, discipleship is not always measured by appearances alone.

The garment itself provides an interesting example of this shift. For generations, some members associated modesty standards almost exclusively with clothing that fully covered traditional garment styles. As garment designs have evolved to meet the needs of a worldwide Church, leaders have continued to stress that the most important issue is not preserving a particular cultural style of dress. Instead, the focus remains on honoring temple covenants and wearing the garment appropriately as instructed.

This distinction is important. The Church has not said that modesty no longer matters. Nor has it taught that members should disregard the sacred nature of the garment. Rather, leaders appear to be emphasizing that modesty and garment wearing are ultimately matters of discipleship and covenant commitment rather than simply questions of fashion.

Some members may find that the newer garment styles allow them to wear clothing that previously seemed impractical while still honoring their covenants. Others may choose to maintain more traditional clothing preferences. The Church has not encouraged members to judge one another based on such decisions. Instead, recent teachings place responsibility on individuals to prayerfully live the principles they have been taught.

Perhaps the clearest answer to the question is this: No, there has not been an official announcement that modesty standards have been relaxed. If you are noticing changes in how some members dress, you are not imagining it. Many members have noticed the same thing. However, the available evidence suggests that these changes are primarily cultural and personal rather than the result of a new doctrinal directive from Church leadership.

The First Presidency has continued to emphasize the sacred nature of temple garments, the importance of honoring covenants, and the blessings that come through faithful discipleship. The doctrine has not changed. The sacred nature of temple covenants has not changed. The importance of modesty has not changed.

What may be changing is the way Church leaders invite members to think about these topics. Increasingly, the focus is on Christ, covenants, personal revelation, and the principles that underlie faithful living. Rather than asking, “How close can I get to the line?” members are encouraged to ask, “How can I better honor my relationship with the Savior?”

That perspective may be the most important lesson to take from the recent changes. The conversation is shifting from specific clothing measurements to discipleship. The garment remains a sacred symbol. Modesty remains an important gospel principle. And both are ultimately intended to help individuals remember Jesus Christ and draw closer to Him.

Gramps

Gramps,

When did Jesus Christ receive the gift of the Holy Ghost?

Ashton

Answer

Ashton,

The short and sweet answer is that we do not know. No scripture specifically identifies the moment when Jesus received the gift of the Holy Ghost, nor does any revealed source tell us who, if anyone, laid hands upon Him for that ordinance. However, the scriptures and teachings of modern prophets provide some important clues that help us understand Christ’s unique relationship with the Holy Ghost.

Many people assume that Jesus received the Holy Ghost when He was baptized by John the Baptist. After all, the New Testament records that immediately following His baptism, “the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him” (Luke 3:22).

Yet Latter-day Saints generally do not view this event as the moment Christ first received the Holy Ghost. Rather, it was a divine manifestation that publicly identified Him as the Son of God and the promised Messiah.

One reason for this conclusion comes from the Savior’s unique status. Unlike any other person born into mortality, Jesus was the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. He was perfectly obedient and completely free from sin. The Apostle John declared:

“For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him” (John 3:34).

This scripture suggests that Jesus enjoyed a relationship with the Holy Ghost unlike any other mortal. Rather than receiving a limited measure of spiritual influence, He possessed the Spirit “without measure.”

The Book of Mormon also teaches that after Christ’s baptism, “the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove” (2 Nephi 31:8).

Nephi used Christ’s baptism as an example for all of us. He explained that Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness and show us the path we must follow, including receiving the Holy Ghost.

One of the most important passages on this subject is found in Doctrine and Covenants 93. There, the Lord revealed that Jesus did not come into mortality possessing the fulness of divine glory He had enjoyed premortally:

“And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at first, but received grace for grace” (Doctrine & Covenants 93:12).

“And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness” (Doctrine & Covenants 93:13).

These verses teach that even Jesus experienced growth and progression during mortality. He advanced “from grace to grace” until He ultimately received a fulness of the Father’s glory.

President Lorenzo Snow offered a fascinating perspective on this process:

“When Jesus lay in the manger, a helpless infant, He knew not that He was the Son of God.”

President Snow explained that Christ, like us, passed through the veil and grew in knowledge and understanding over time.

This raises another question: If Jesus progressed “from grace to grace,” did He eventually receive the gift of the Holy Ghost through a priesthood ordinance?

The scriptures simply do not say.

President Joseph Fielding Smith taught that Christ’s relationship with the Holy Ghost was unique. Speaking of the Savior’s mortal life, he emphasized that Jesus had the Spirit in a fullness unlike any other person. He pointed to John 3:34, which teaches that God gave the Spirit to Christ “not by measure.”

Because Jesus was the source of priesthood authority rather than merely a recipient, many Latter-day Saint scholars believe that His situation differed fundamentally from ours. We require baptism and confirmation because we are fallen, mortal beings seeking covenant access to divine power. Christ, however, was sinless and possessed divine authority as the Son of God.

That does not mean ordinances were unimportant for Him. Quite the opposite. Jesus insisted on being baptized, even though He had no sins to repent of. He explained that it was necessary “to fulfil all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15).

Nephi further explained that Christ was baptized to demonstrate perfect obedience to the Father and to establish the pattern that all disciples should follow.

What we know for certain is that all three members of the Godhead were present at Christ’s baptism. Jesus stood in the water, the Holy Ghost descended in the sign of a dove, and the Father’s voice was heard from heaven.

Yet neither the Bible, the Book of Mormon, nor modern revelation records anyone conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost upon Jesus through the laying on of hands.

As a result, the Church has never issued an official statement identifying when that occurred or who performed it.

So where does that leave us?

The most doctrinally sound conclusion is that Jesus Christ possessed a unique relationship with the Holy Ghost throughout His mortal life. He progressed “from grace to grace,” received divine guidance perfectly, and ultimately received a fulness of the Father’s glory. The descent of the Holy Ghost at His baptism was a witness of His divine mission, not necessarily the first time He experienced the companionship of the Spirit. The exact details of when or how He received the gift of the Holy Ghost have not been revealed.

In the end, perhaps the more important lesson is not what happened to Jesus, but what He taught us. Through His example, He showed that all of God’s children should be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and faithfully follow the covenant path. Even though some details of His own experience remain unrevealed, His life demonstrates the perfect pattern of obedience, growth, and reliance upon the Father.

Gramps

Gramps,

Joseph Smith was foreordained to become a prophet.  Did he become a prophet when he had the First Vision or when he received the Priesthood? Thank you.

Bonnie

Answer

Bonnie,

In the Book of Mormon, Joseph of Egypt prophesied:

“A seer shall the Lord my God raise up, who shall be a choice seer unto the fruit of my loins” (2 Nephi 3:6).

A few verses later, he added:

“His name shall be called after me; and it shall be after the name of his father” (2 Nephi 3:15).

Latter-day Saints understand these verses to refer specifically to Joseph Smith Jr. That means Joseph’s prophetic mission did not begin accidentally or unexpectedly. He was foreordained by God before he was born.

But that leads to an interesting question: When did Joseph Smith actually become a prophet? Did it happen when he experienced the First Vision in 1820? Or did it happen later when priesthood authority was restored?

According to LDS theology and doctrine, the answer is not entirely one or the other. The First Vision marked Joseph’s divine calling as a prophet, while the later restoration of priesthood authority enabled him to officially carry out that prophetic mission in its fullness.

The Restoration unfolded step by step.

Joseph’s First Vision in the spring of 1820 was undeniably prophetic in nature. As a fourteen-year-old boy seeking truth and forgiveness, Joseph entered a grove of trees to pray. There he saw God the Father and Jesus Christ.

Elder Craig C. Christensen stated plainly:

“Joseph Smith saw God, the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ.”

That moment changed religious history forever. Heaven opened again after centuries of apostasy, and revelation resumed through a living prophet.

President Gordon B. Hinckley emphasized just how foundational this event was when he taught:

“Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision.”

Likewise, President Ezra Taft Benson declared:

“It was the greatest event that has ever happened in this world since the resurrection of the Master.”

Those are powerful statements. Church leaders consistently point to the First Vision as the beginning of the Restoration and the beginning of Joseph Smith’s prophetic ministry.

In many ways, Joseph fits the biblical pattern of prophetic calling. Moses encountered God at the burning bush before leading Israel. Isaiah saw the Lord in vision before being commissioned. Jeremiah was foreordained before birth and called while still young.

Joseph’s First Vision follows that same pattern. He did not simply receive a personal spiritual experience. He received a revelation for the world. He was told that the existing churches lacked the fullness of Christ’s gospel and that God would restore truth again through him.

That is what prophets do.

However, LDS doctrine also places enormous importance on priesthood authority. While Joseph had been called by God through revelation and vision, the authority necessary to officially act in God’s name for the Church had not yet been restored.

That came later.

In 1829, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery prayed about baptism while translating the Book of Mormon. In response, John the Baptist appeared and restored the Aaronic Priesthood. Joseph Smith—History records his words:

“Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron” (Joseph Smith—History 1:69).

Shortly afterward, Peter, James, and John restored the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Elder David A. Bednar explained:

“Ancient prophets and apostles personally conferred priesthood authority upon Joseph Smith.”

This restoration of priesthood authority mattered deeply because, in LDS theology, God’s Church must operate through divinely authorized priesthood keys and ordinances. A person may receive revelation without a priesthood office, but official authority to administer ordinances and govern the Church is conferred through the priesthood.

That distinction helps answer the question.

Joseph Smith was called as a prophet through the First Vision, but he received the priesthood authority necessary to formally organize and lead the restored Church later through heavenly messengers.

The Restoration itself unfolded gradually. It did not all happen in a single moment.

After the First Vision came Moroni’s visits. Then came the translation of the Book of Mormon. Then the restoration of priesthood authority. Finally, the Church was formally organized on April 6, 1830.

Even then, revelation and priesthood keys continued to unfold over time.

The Book of Mormon describes this pattern beautifully:

“I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept” (2 Nephi 28:30).

That phrase perfectly describes the Restoration process.

President Ezra Taft Benson once referred to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and said:

“The only thing that preceded it was the First Vision.”

In other words, the First Vision was the opening event that launched everything else.

The official Restoration proclamation issued by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles summarizes it this way:

“We affirm that under the direction of the Father and the Son, heavenly messengers came to instruct Joseph and reestablish the Church of Jesus Christ.”

Notice the sequence there. First came the appearance of the Father and the Son. Then came additional heavenly messengers and the restoration of the priesthood. Together, these events formed the Restoration.

This is why many Latter-day Saints would say Joseph became a prophet in calling at the First Vision and became fully empowered to function as the prophet of the restored Church through priesthood restoration.

The two events are not competing answers. They are connected parts of the same divine process.

Without the First Vision, there would have been no Restoration to begin with. Without priesthood authority, the Restoration could not have been formally established and administered.

Together, they show how God prepares, calls, authorizes, and guides His servants.

Perhaps there is something meaningful in the fact that Joseph’s prophetic role unfolded gradually. The Restoration itself was never intended to be a single dramatic event and then finished. It was, and still is, an ongoing work directed by Jesus Christ.

Joseph Smith grew into his prophetic ministry line upon line, just as the restored Church itself continued to grow under divine revelation.

Gramps

Gramps,

Is it appropriate for an LDS member to play the organ at a different church for compensation on Sundays?

Michael

Answer

Michael,

According to the theology and teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the answer often depends on motives, circumstances, and whether the activity aligns with the spirit of keeping the Sabbath day holy.

The Church does not have a specific commandment that forbids a member from playing music for another church on Sunday. In fact, Latter-day Saints generally respect and appreciate sincere worship wherever it is found. The Church’s Articles of Faith declare:

“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege.”

That principle has often encouraged positive relationships between Latter-day Saints and other faith communities. Music, especially sacred music, can be a powerful way to build goodwill and uplift others. Many LDS members who are professional musicians have participated in community choirs, weddings, funerals, and religious events of other denominations without conflict with their beliefs.

However, the question becomes more complex when compensation and Sunday observance are involved.

Latter-day Saints believe the Sabbath is sacred. In the scriptures, the Lord taught:

“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.” (Exodus 20:8)

Modern revelation reinforces that principle. In Doctrine and Covenants 59:9-10, the Lord explains the purpose of the Sabbath:

And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day;

 For verily this is a day appointed unto you to rest from your labors, and to pay thy devotions unto the Most High;

For many members, that phrase “rest from your labors” becomes central to the discussion. If playing the organ is simply employment—another professional obligation undertaken primarily for income—some Latter-day Saints might feel uncomfortable with it on Sunday. Church leaders have frequently encouraged members to avoid unnecessary work on the Sabbath whenever possible.

For example, Russell M. Nelson taught:

“In addition to your going to church, partaking of the sacrament, and being diligent in your specific call to serve, what other activities would help to make the Sabbath a delight for you?” The Sabbath Is a Delight

In that same message,Elder Nelson also asked:

“What sign will you give to the Lord to show your love for Him?”

That perspective matters because LDS theology generally addresses Sabbath questions through principles rather than exhaustive regulations. Rather than publishing a list of forbidden activities, Church leaders encourage members to seek the companionship of the Holy Ghost and thoughtfully evaluate whether an activity invites spirituality or distracts from it.

So, could playing the organ at another church actually fit within the spirit of Sabbath worship?

In some cases, many Latter-day Saints would likely say yes.

If the music is sacred and uplifting, and serves to help others worship Jesus Christ, a member might feel that the service itself is spiritually worthwhile. Organ music has historically played an important role in Christian worship, and Latter-day Saints deeply value sacred music themselves. The introduction to the Church hymnbook teaches:

“Music is given of God to further his purposes.”

Someone who prayerfully uses musical talents to bless others could reasonably feel they are offering service rather than merely performing a secular job.

There are also practical realities to consider. Some musicians rely on Sunday religious services as part of their livelihood. Organists and pianists are often hired specifically because churches need trained musicians. LDS theology recognizes that not all work on Sunday is avoidable. Medical workers, emergency personnel, caregivers, and others frequently serve on Sundays out of necessity. While playing organ music may not rise to the same level of necessity, Church teachings generally leave room for individual judgment in employment situations.

At the same time, there are important cautions.

A Latter-day Saint should honestly ask: “Is this drawing me closer to Christ and helping me honor the Sabbath, or is it turning Sunday into an ordinary workday?” That distinction matters. If the commitment regularly interferes with attending LDS meetings, partaking of the sacrament, fulfilling Church callings, or spending meaningful time with family, many would see that as a concern.

The Church’s handbook teaches:

“Those who attend should avoid disruptions or distractions contrary to worship.” General Handbook 38.1.1

Again, the emphasis is on spirit and intent rather than rigid prohibition.

There is also the matter of appearance and priorities. Latter-day Saints covenant to take upon themselves the name of Christ and to be examples of discipleship. If a member accepted Sunday work solely for its financial rewards while neglecting spiritual responsibilities, it could gradually weaken their Sabbath observance. On the other hand, if the opportunity allowed them to share uplifting music, maintain respectful relationships with other Christians, and still faithfully honor their own worship commitments, many leaders would likely view the situation differently.

Interestingly, LDS history includes examples of cooperation and friendship with other faiths. Church leaders have often encouraged members to participate in community efforts that promote goodness and faith in God. Gordon B. Hinckley stated:

“We simply say to those who may be of other faiths or of no faith, ‘You bring with you such truth as you have and let us see if we can add to it.’” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Gordon B. Hinckley, Chapter 20

That attitude has shaped much of the Church’s interfaith approach. Playing sacred music in another Christian setting would not automatically be viewed as disloyal to LDS beliefs. In fact, many members would see it as an opportunity to demonstrate kindness, professionalism, and Christian fellowship.

Ultimately, LDS theology places significant responsibility on personal revelation. A member facing this question would likely be encouraged to pray, study the scriptures, and, if uncertainty persisted, seek counsel from local priesthood leaders. Different circumstances may lead faithful members to different conclusions.

One organist may decide that accepting compensation for Sunday worship services feels incompatible with how they personally honor the Sabbath. Another may feel peace in using God-given talents to assist reverent worship while still keeping covenants and attending their own meetings. Both individuals could be acting sincerely within the framework of LDS teachings.

That balance between commandments and individual spiritual guidance is an important part of Latter-day Saint belief. President David O. McKay often quoted the statement:

“No other success can compensate for failure in the home.” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: David O. McKay, Chapter 16

That reminder often influences how LDS members evaluate Sunday commitments. Even good activities can become spiritually unbalanced if they consistently crowd out worship, family, or rest.

So, is it appropriate for an LDS member to play the organ at another church for compensation on Sundays?

According to LDS theology, it is neither inherently forbidden nor automatically encouraged. The appropriateness depends largely on the spirit in which it is done, the effect it has on Sabbath worship and family life, and whether the individual feels they are honoring the Lord through the decision.

For Latter-day Saints, the deeper question is usually not simply “Am I allowed to do this?” but rather, “Will this help me keep the Sabbath holy and draw closer to Jesus Christ?” When approached prayerfully and sincerely, that question often leads to the clearest answer.

Gramps

]]> https://askgramps.org/can-latter-day-saints-play-the-organ-for-pay-on-sundays/feed/ 0 https://askgramps.org/why-permission-required-from-a-non-member-spouse-to-receive-endowments/ https://askgramps.org/why-permission-required-from-a-non-member-spouse-to-receive-endowments/#respond Sun, 07 Jun 2026 08:00:30 +0000 https://askgramps.org/?p=74277 Question

Gramps,

My grandma wants to go to the temple more than anything, but her bishop says she isn’t allowed because her husband (who isn’t a member and has never been) won’t let her. Why does a non-member get to dictate her eternal salvation simply because she’s married? If she weren’t married, she’d go get her endowments like anyone else. They won’t even allow her to do baptism for the dead. Why does she need her husband’s permission at all?

Annie

Answer

Annie,

The answer depends on how the Church views marriage, agency, family harmony, and sacred covenants.

First, it is important to clarify something. A member whose spouse is not a member is generally still able to attend the temple for ordinances, such as baptisms for the dead, or for other approved worship, if they hold a valid recommend. The issue of spousal permission historically applied most directly to receiving one’s own endowment or entering into sealing covenants when the spouse was not endowed or not a member. Bishops and stake presidents were instructed to consider whether the ordinance could seriously disrupt the marriage relationship.

An older Church handbook policy stated:

“When a man or woman is married to someone who is unendowed, the bishop must receive written permission from the spouse.”

That policy was referenced in Church instructional materials and discussions by priesthood leaders.

While the handbook’s wording and procedures have evolved over time, the principle behind them helps explain the Church’s reasoning.

One of the clearest reasons is that the Church places enormous emphasis on protecting marriage. Latter-day Saint theology teaches that marriage is sacred and ordained of God. The Church does not want temple participation to become a source of secrecy, betrayal, manipulation, or division inside a home.

The Apostle Paul taught:

“For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband” (1 Corinthians 7:14).

Paul also counseled Christians to preserve peace within mixed-faith marriages whenever possible. That same spirit exists in Latter-day Saint teachings today.

The Church Handbook teaches:

“A married person must have the consent of his or her spouse before being baptized.”

That policy surprises some people, but it reveals an important principle: the Church does not want conversion or covenant-making to destroy family trust. Baptism, temple covenants, garments, tithing, and religious commitments can significantly affect a marriage. Because of that, Church leaders have often encouraged openness and mutual respect between spouses before major spiritual commitments are made.

President Gordon B. Hinckley frequently emphasized kindness and unity in marriage. He taught:

“Marriage, in its truest sense, is a partnership of equals.” “Standing for Something”

That idea matters here. Even when spouses do not share the same faith, the Church encourages members to honor the marriage partnership and avoid creating unnecessary tension or feelings of exclusion.

Temple covenants are not small commitments. Receiving the endowment includes promises regarding discipleship, sacrifice, consecration, and wearing the temple garment. For a spouse who is not a member—or who may not understand the temple—those changes can feel sudden or even frightening.

Imagine a husband or wife who suddenly discovers their spouse now wears sacred religious clothing under their regular clothes, spends significant time at the temple, increases financial sacrifices through tithing, or begins talking about eternal marriage in ways the other spouse does not fully understand. Without communication and consent, that could place serious strain on the relationship.

The Church tries to avoid that.

Elder Richard G. Scott once taught:

“Two of the vital pillars that sustain Father in Heaven’s plan of happiness are marriage and the family.” “The Eternal Blessings of Marriage”

That principle of thoughtfulness applies spiritually, too. The Church does not want temple worship to become a wedge between husband and wife.

At the same time, it is equally important to understand what this policy does not mean. It does not mean a nonmember spouse has authority over someone’s salvation. It does not mean the Church believes a member is spiritually inferior because they married outside the faith. And it certainly does not mean a faithful member is unwanted at the temple.

Rather, it reflects the Church’s effort to balance two deeply important doctrines:

1. Individual covenant-making with God
2. Honoring marriage and family relationships

Latter-day Saint doctrine strongly teaches agency. God does not force covenant relationships, and the Church generally avoids creating family conflict when patience and understanding might help preserve peace.

President Russell M. Nelson has repeatedly taught that the gospel should strengthen families, not fracture them. He said:

“I promise that as you diligently work to remodel your home into a center of gospel learning, over time your Sabbath days will truly be a delight.” “Becoming Exemplary Latter-day Saints”

That becomes difficult if temple participation creates bitterness or distrust in a marriage.

There is also a historical context worth understanding. In earlier generations, joining the Church could dramatically affect family life and social standing. Converts were sometimes rejected by spouses or families. Church leaders often tried to avoid situations that left a spouse feeling blindsided or abandoned. Seeking permission was partly an attempt to preserve transparency and respect within marriage.

Over time, the Church has adjusted some temple-related policies to be more accommodating of families. One example came in 2019, when the First Presidency removed the previous one-year waiting period between a civil marriage and a temple sealing in many areas of the world. The Church explained that one reason for the adjustment was concern that family members sometimes felt excluded from important family moments.

That change reflected a continuing effort to strengthen both temple worship and family relationships.

Latter-day Saints believe temples are literally the “House of the Lord.” Temple worship is sacred, but so is marriage. When policies involving spouses exist, they are generally rooted in the idea that covenant-making should happen with honesty, unity, and respect whenever possible.

For members in this situation, the experience can still be painful. Some faithful Saints deeply desire temple blessings while their spouse is uncomfortable or opposed. Church leaders typically encourage patience, love, communication, and Christlike understanding rather than pressure or ultimatums.

Sometimes hearts soften over time. Sometimes they do not. But the Church teaches that God understands every circumstance perfectly and that no eternal blessing will ultimately be denied to the faithful.

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland once offered comfort to those carrying difficult family situations:

“Some blessings come soon, some come late, and some don’t come until heaven; but for those who embrace the gospel of Jesus Christ, they come.” “An High Priest of Good Things to Come”

That hope is central to Latter-day Saint belief. The temple is about eternal families—and sometimes protecting a marriage relationship in mortality is part of preparing for those eternal blessings later on.

Gramps

]]> https://askgramps.org/why-permission-required-from-a-non-member-spouse-to-receive-endowments/feed/ 0 https://askgramps.org/is-there-a-correct-position-of-hands-on-someones-head-during-temple-ordinances/ https://askgramps.org/is-there-a-correct-position-of-hands-on-someones-head-during-temple-ordinances/#respond Wed, 03 Jun 2026 08:00:09 +0000 https://askgramps.org/?p=74640 Question

Gramps,

Is there a correct positioning of hands and fingers on the head of a person being blessed, i.e., laying on of hands on the head or top of the head and side of the head in temple ordinances? Is there a protocol that is being violated if not done properly?

Dadi Bear

Answer

Dadi Bear,

In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the “laying on of hands” is a sacred and familiar practice. It is used in confirmations, priesthood ordinations, blessings of healing and comfort, setting apart for callings, and temple ordinances.

The short answer, according to Latter-day Saint theology, is this: the Church teaches that hands are to be placed reverently upon the person’s head, but there is generally not a revealed “magic formula” for finger placement or exact positioning beyond the instructions given for the ordinance itself. The power of the ordinance does not come from precise hand geometry. It comes from priesthood authority, faith in Jesus Christ, and obedience to the ordinance as established by the Lord.

The practice itself is ancient. Throughout scripture, the laying on of hands is connected with blessing, healing, receiving the Holy Ghost, and setting apart for sacred service.

Jesus Himself used touch in blessing others. In the New Testament, we read:

“Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 8:17)

Another example comes when Christ blessed little children:

“And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.” (Mark 10:16)

Latter-day Saints see these passages as establishing the pattern for priesthood ordinances today. The physical act matters because it symbolizes authority, connection, blessing, and divine appointment. But the scriptures do not provide detailed diagrams about finger placement or exact angles of the hands.

The clearest guide comes from the official Church handbook. For priesthood blessings, confirmations, ordinations, and setting apart, the instructions are simple and consistent: brethren participating place their hands “lightly on the person’s head.”

The current handbook can be found on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Handbook. Sections on confirmations, ordinations, blessings, and setting apart consistently focus on priesthood authority and the revealed ordinance rather than on detailed finger positioning.

That simplicity is important.

In Latter-day Saint theology, ordinances are sacred, but the Lord usually avoids turning them into rigid ritualism. The gospel is not intended to become a system in which spiritual validity depends on tiny technical details that God never revealed.

President Joseph Fielding Smith frequently emphasized that ordinances should be performed properly while avoiding unnecessary speculation and traditions beyond revelation. In Doctrines of Salvation, he taught that the Lord has revealed the essentials necessary for ordinances and salvation rather than endless ceremonial detail.

That principle applies well here.

Anyone who has participated in blessings has probably noticed slight differences.

Some place both hands directly on top of the head. Others place one hand more toward the side. In group blessings, hands often overlap as several priesthood holders participate at once. In temple ordinances, positioning may be influenced by space, ceremony, or specific instructions for the ordinance.

These differences usually arise from practical reasons, tradition, comfort, or local habits—not from competing doctrines.

The Church teaches uniformity in the ordinance itself, but not obsessive uniformity in incidental mechanics unless specifically instructed.

For example, in a confirmation, the essential revealed elements include:

• Authorized Melchizedek Priesthood holders participate
• Hands are laid upon the head
• The person is confirmed as a member of the Church
• The gift of the Holy Ghost is conferred
• The blessing is given by the Spirit

Those are the essential components. Whether a thumb rests slightly higher or lower does not determine the validity of the ordinance.

Temple ordinances are naturally treated with extra care and reverence because of their sacred nature. Within the temple, workers and officiators receive instruction on performing the ordinances. Some ordinances may include specific ceremonial positions or actions associated with the ordinance presentation itself.

Even then, Latter-day Saint theology does not teach that mystical power resides in exact finger placement. Rather, temple ordinances emphasize covenant, symbolism, order, and obedience.

The Lord declared:

“In the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.” (Doctrine and Covenants 84:20)

President Russell M. Nelson has repeatedly emphasized the sacred nature of priesthood ordinances and the need to perform them with care and reverence. In his talk “The Melchizedek Priesthood and the Keys,” he taught that priesthood ordinances open access to “all the spiritual blessings of the Church.”

Notice that the “power of godliness” comes through the ordinance established by God, not through accidental precision in hand posture beyond what the Lord has revealed.

Members sometimes become anxious about whether an ordinance was “done wrong” because someone’s hand slipped or rested awkwardly. Church leaders have generally counseled against this kind of scrupulosity. The Lord is not waiting to invalidate sacred ordinances because of harmless human imperfections when the ordinance was performed in sincerity and according to authorized procedure.

Although exact positioning is usually not the focus, reverence absolutely is.

A priesthood blessing is not casual. It represents acting in the name of Jesus Christ. The laying on of hands should therefore be respectful, calm, dignified, and orderly.

Elder David A. Bednar has often warned against becoming distracted by cultural traditions or practices that go beyond revealed doctrine. In his well-known message “That We May Always Have His Spirit to Be with Us,” he emphasized exactness in keeping covenants while remaining centered on Christ and the Spirit rather than outward performance alone.

That means participants should avoid joking, carelessness, or drawing attention to themselves. The focus belongs on the Savior and the person receiving the ordinance.

Over the years, some members have passed along unofficial ideas about ordinances. Sometimes people assume there must be hidden symbolism in every tiny detail. Others may insist that blessings must be performed exactly as they personally learned growing up.

Latter-day Saints are encouraged to distinguish between revealed doctrine and cultural tradition.

For example, there is no official doctrine stating:

• Fingers must be spread a certain way
• Hands must touch only the crown of the head
• A certain number of fingers carries a symbolic meaning
• The ordinance is invalid if the hands shift slightly

Those ideas belong more to folklore than to revealed LDS theology.

Ultimately, priesthood blessings are not mechanical acts. They are acts of faith in Jesus Christ.

The power does not come from:

• finger placement,
• hand pressure,
• posture,
• or ceremonial perfection.

The power comes from:

• the authority of the priesthood,
• the worthiness and faith of participants,
• the influence of the Holy Ghost,
• and the will of the Lord.

That perspective keeps ordinances sacred without turning them into superstition.

The laying on of hands is meaningful because it is an authorized symbol established by God. It is a physical expression of spiritual authority and divine blessing. But the Lord looks primarily upon the heart.

Gramps

]]> https://askgramps.org/is-there-a-correct-position-of-hands-on-someones-head-during-temple-ordinances/feed/ 0 https://askgramps.org/how-are-jesus-and-john-related/ https://askgramps.org/how-are-jesus-and-john-related/#respond Mon, 01 Jun 2026 08:00:29 +0000 https://askgramps.org/?p=74622 Question

Gramps,

How are Jesus and John related?

Kathy

Answer

Kathy,

According to the Bible and Latter-day Saint understanding, Jesus and John the Baptist were relatives through their mothers, Mary and Elisabeth (Elizabeth). The scriptures do not spell out the exact family connection in modern genealogical terms, but they clearly describe the two women as kin.

In the Gospel of Luke, the angel Gabriel told Mary:

“And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age.”

That verse has traditionally led Christians, including Latter-day Saints, to describe Jesus and John the Baptist as cousins. The word translated as “cousin” in English can also mean “relative” or “kinswoman,” so the precise relationship may not be fully known. But LDS theology firmly teaches that they were family.

What makes the relationship especially meaningful is not merely the family connection, but the divine missions both men were foreordained to fulfill.

John the Baptist was sent to prepare the way for Jesus Christ. Latter-day Saints believe John was one of the greatest prophets ever born. Jesus Himself declared:

“Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist.” (Luke 7:28)

John’s role had been prophesied centuries earlier. Isaiah wrote of “the voice of him that crieth in the wilderness,” preparing the way of the Lord. John fulfilled that prophecy by preaching repentance and baptizing in preparation for the coming Messiah.

LDS scripture adds even more insight into John’s mission. In Doctrine and Covenants 84:28, we learn that John:

“was ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power.”

Latter-day Saints believe John held the Aaronic Priesthood and was specifically chosen before birth to prepare Israel for the Savior.

The connection between Jesus and John begins even before their births. Luke records one of the most beautiful scenes in scripture: Mary visits Elisabeth while both are pregnant. Elisabeth is carrying John the Baptist, and Mary is carrying Jesus Christ.

The account says:

“And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb.”

Elisabeth, filled with the Holy Ghost, then testified of Mary and the unborn Savior:

“Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.”
“And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

Latter-day Saints often see this as a powerful witness that John recognized the Savior even before birth. President Harold B. Lee once taught:

“John the Baptist was a special witness of the mission of Jesus Christ from before his birth.”

That idea fits beautifully with LDS teachings about foreordination—the belief that certain individuals were prepared in the premortal life for sacred earthly missions.

Although Jesus and John were relatives, their missions were very different. John was the forerunner. Jesus was the Messiah. John preached repentance; Jesus offered salvation. John baptized with water; Jesus would baptize “with the Holy Ghost, and with fire” (Matthew 3:11).

Yet despite their different roles, there was deep love and humility between them. John understood exactly who Jesus was. When Jesus came to John to be baptized, John initially resisted, saying:

“I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?” (Matthew 3:14)

But Jesus insisted “to fulfil all righteousness.” John then baptized the Savior in the Jordan River, becoming one of the first public witnesses of Christ’s ministry.

That moment is incredibly important in LDS theology because it demonstrates several key doctrines at once:

• The necessity of baptism by proper authority
• The humility of Jesus Christ
• The manifestation of all three members of the Godhead

As Jesus came up out of the water, the Holy Ghost descended like a dove, and the Father’s voice declared:

“This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:17)

Latter-day Saints also believe John later restored priesthood authority in modern times. In 1829, John the Baptist appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery as a resurrected being and conferred the Aaronic Priesthood upon them.

Joseph Smith recorded that John declared:

“Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron.”

That restoration gives John the Baptist a unique place in LDS belief. He was not only the cousin and forerunner of Christ in mortality, but also a resurrected messenger who helped restore Christ’s Church in the latter days.

Another beautiful aspect of their relationship is John’s humility. Even though many wondered whether John himself was the Messiah, he consistently pointed others to Jesus rather than seeking attention for himself.

John famously declared:

“He must increase, but I must decrease.” (John 3:30)

That single verse captures John’s entire character. In LDS teachings, John is admired not only for his courage and prophetic calling, but for his willingness to step aside so people would follow Christ.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie once wrote that John the Baptist was:

“One of the noblest and greatest souls ever born into mortality.”

Latter-day Saints generally see the relationship between Jesus and John as both familial and symbolic. They were blood relatives, but they were also united in mission. John prepared hearts for the Savior, and Jesus fulfilled the plan of redemption.

In many ways, their relationship teaches an important gospel principle: true disciples point people to Christ rather than to themselves.

John never tried to compete with Jesus. He rejoiced in Jesus’s success. He recognized divine truth when he saw it and faithfully fulfilled the role God had given him.

So, according to LDS theology, Jesus and John the Baptist were relatives—commonly understood as cousins through Mary and Elisabeth. But more importantly, they were connected through sacred missions established by God long before either was born. John prepared the way. Jesus became “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).

Gramps

]]> https://askgramps.org/how-are-jesus-and-john-related/feed/ 0