Gramps,

I created a group chat on Messenger, and we discuss Come, Follow Me weekly. We do a live discussion online. I am not a set-apart teacher of the ward. Is this prohibited? My bishop says it is prohibited. I did not use the Church’s name in our group’s name, and no one is forced to join.

Danilo

Answer

Danilo,

While I am not here to override any counsel that may have come from your own Bishop due to his stewardship, I can only offer my own personal opinion regarding your question. I would encourage you to continue to follow the guidance from your Bishop.

There is no Church doctrine that prohibits members from voluntarily studying the gospel together outside of official Church meetings. At the same time, local priesthood leaders have stewardship over what is presented as an official Church activity. Understanding the difference between a private study group and an official Church class is the key.

The Church has always encouraged members to study the gospel together. The Lord declared:

“Seek learning, even by study and also by faith.” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:118)

The Come, Follow Me program itself was designed to encourage gospel learning not only in Sunday meetings but, more importantly, in the home. President Russell M. Nelson has repeatedly taught that the home should be the center of gospel learning and gospel living. The purpose of Come, Follow Me is to help individuals and families take greater responsibility for their own spiritual growth rather than relying solely on Church meetings.

Because of that emphasis, many families, friends, and even neighbors naturally gather to discuss the scriptures. Some do so over dinner, some through video calls, and others through online discussion groups. There is nothing in LDS doctrine that says members may only discuss the gospel if they have been officially set apart.

Being “set apart” applies to official Church callings. For example, a Sunday School teacher, Relief Society teacher, or elders quorum instructor teaches because they have been called by priesthood authority to represent the Church in that assignment. Those teachers are expected to teach approved doctrine and follow the direction of local leaders.

A private discussion group is different.

If several members decide to meet at someone’s home each week to discuss the scriptures, they do not need to be set apart. Likewise, if they choose to meet via Messenger, Zoom, or another online platform, that alone does not make it an official Church class.

The important distinction is whether the group is presented as an official activity of the Church.

The Church’s General Handbook teaches that the Church’s name, resources, and activities should not be represented without proper authorization. Likewise, members should avoid giving the impression that they are speaking officially for the Church when they are simply sharing their own understanding of the gospel.

From what you described, it sounds like you have tried to avoid that confusion. You did not use the Church’s name in the group’s title; participation is completely voluntary, and you are simply discussing the weekly Come, Follow Me lesson together.

That would generally place the group in the category of a private gospel study rather than an official Church class.

However, there is another principle that deserves consideration.

Latter-day Saints believe strongly in the priesthood order. The Lord has organized His Church with bishops and other leaders who have stewardship over their wards. Doctrine and Covenants 28:13 teaches that people should not direct the affairs of the Church unless they are appointed to do so. Likewise, the twelfth Article of Faith reminds us that we believe in being “subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates” and, within the Church, members sustain those whom the Lord has called to preside.

If a bishop feels that a particular activity is creating confusion within the ward, unintentionally competing with ward instruction, or causing members to believe it is an official Church-sponsored class, he may counsel members differently. Even if no written policy specifically prohibits the activity, bishops often make decisions based on their responsibility to care for the ward’s spiritual welfare.

That does not necessarily mean your group violates Church doctrine. Rather, it may reflect your bishop’s judgment about what is best within his stewardship.

In situations like this, it is often helpful to have a respectful conversation with the bishop. You might explain that your intent is simply to encourage personal scripture study and fellowship, not to replace Sunday School or teach on behalf of the Church. You could ask whether he has specific concerns and whether adjustments would help address them.

For example, he may be worried that members might misunderstand the group’s purpose. If so, a simple disclaimer stating that the group is an informal discussion among friends and is not an official Church activity could help avoid confusion.

It’s also worth remembering that faithful members can respectfully disagree about how best to apply principles in situations that are not specifically addressed by Church policy. Unless the Church has published a clear policy on a subject, there may be room for different opinions.

Ultimately, your desire appears to be a good one—to study the scriptures and help others deepen their understanding of the Savior through Come, Follow Me. That desire is certainly consistent with the Church’s emphasis on home-centered gospel learning.

At the same time, Latter-day Saints also place great value on sustaining local priesthood leaders. Even when we do not fully understand a bishop’s reasoning, approaching the matter with humility and respect can preserve unity within the ward.

In the end, nothing in LDS doctrine says that members cannot voluntarily study the scriptures together outside of official Church meetings. Friends have always gathered to discuss the gospel, and modern technology simply provides another way to do so. The key is ensuring that such groups remain clearly private, do not represent themselves as official Church classes, teach true doctrine, and avoid creating confusion about priesthood authority or Church sponsorship.

If those principles are followed, an informal online Come, Follow Me discussion group is generally very different from an official Church class taught under a calling. As with many matters of Church administration, however, local leaders have stewardship within their wards, and members should thoughtfully consider their counsel as they seek to maintain both personal gospel study and the unity the Savior desires among His disciples.

Gramps

Gramps,

Was climate change ever prophesied in scripture or by modern-day prophets?

Avery

Answer

Avery,

This is an interesting question because the phrase “climate change” is modern, but the idea of significant changes in the earth’s environment appears in both scripture and the teachings of modern prophets. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, however, it is important to distinguish between scientific discussions about climate change and prophetic teachings about the condition of the earth in the last days.

Neither the Bible, the Book of Mormon, nor modern prophets have specifically prophesied what we call climate change today. However, they have foretold widespread environmental disturbances, natural disasters, and changes affecting the earth before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ taught that the earth would experience unusual conditions before His return. In the New Testament, He said:

“For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.” (Matthew 24:7)

The Savior also taught:

“And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations.” (Luke 21:25)

These prophecies are part of what Latter-day Saints call the “signs of the times.” The Church’s Guide to the Scriptures explains that signs of the times are events that will precede the Savior’s return and help prepare the faithful for His coming.

The Doctrine and Covenants contains some of the strongest descriptions of environmental disturbances in the latter days. In a revelation given through Joseph Smith, the Lord declared:

“And there shall be men standing in that generation, that shall not pass until they shall see an overflowing scourge; for a desolating sickness shall cover the land.” (Doctrine and Covenants 45:31)

The same revelation speaks of earthquakes, storms, and widespread destruction occurring in the last days. Later revelations describe the earth being shaken and the elements reacting to God’s power and purposes.

One of the most striking passages is found in Doctrine and Covenants 88:88-90:

“For after your testimony cometh wrath and indignation upon the people.

 

For after your testimony cometh the testimony of earthquakes, that shall cause groanings in the midst of her, and men shall fall upon the ground and shall not be able to stand.

 

And also cometh the testimony of the voice of thunderings, and the voice of lightnings, and the voice of tempests, and the voice of the waves of the sea heaving themselves beyond their bounds.”

Notice the imagery: earthquakes, storms, and seas moving beyond their boundaries. While Latter-day Saints may see parallels between these descriptions and modern environmental concerns, the scriptures do not explain the scientific causes behind such events. Their focus is on spiritual preparation rather than environmental science.

The Book of Mormon contains similar prophecies. Mormon foretold:

“Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be great pollutions upon the face of the earth.” (Mormon 8:31)

The word “pollutions” has caused some readers to wonder whether Mormon was describing modern environmental problems. While that is an interesting possibility, the Church has not officially interpreted this verse as a prophecy specifically about modern climate change. The chapter’s broader context focuses on the wickedness and conditions of the latter days.

Modern prophets have likewise emphasized the sacred nature of the earth and our responsibility to care for it. President Russell M. Nelson taught:

“The earth and all life upon it are of divine origin.”  (The Creation)

In that same General Conference address, President Nelson explained that the earth was created by God for His children and has a divine destiny in the plan of salvation. This doctrine encourages respect for the planet and gratitude for God’s creations.

Latter-day Saints believe that the earth itself will one day be renewed and receive a paradisiacal glory. Just as people are resurrected and glorified, the earth also has an eternal future in God’s plan.

At the same time, Church leaders have generally avoided issuing official declarations on specific scientific theories or political approaches to climate change. Instead, they have focused on principles such as stewardship, gratitude, avoiding waste, and caring for God’s creations.

Because of this, the Church has not officially identified modern climate change as a specific fulfillment of prophecy. Some Latter-day Saints may see connections between increasing reports of droughts, floods, severe storms, wildfires, or other environmental challenges and the scriptural prophecies concerning the last days. However, the Church has not made such an official connection.

That distinction is important. Prophecy tells us that the earth will experience significant disturbances before the Second Coming. Science seeks to understand the physical causes of environmental changes. These are related questions, but they are not the same question.

The scriptures consistently direct our attention toward faith, repentance, covenant keeping, and discipleship rather than speculation about exactly how every prophecy will unfold. The purpose of Signs of the Times is not simply to satisfy curiosity, but to encourage preparation and faithfulness.

Ultimately, the central message of scripture is not that we should become experts at identifying every environmental trend. Rather, it is that we should be prepared to meet the Lord whenever He comes.

So, was climate change specifically prophesied in scripture or by modern prophets? Not in the way the term is commonly used today. Neither scripture nor modern prophets have identified modern climate change as a specific prophetic event. However, scripture clearly teaches that the earth will experience unusual disturbances, natural disasters, and dramatic changes before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Modern prophets have likewise taught that the earth is God’s creation, that it has a divine destiny, and that we have a responsibility to care for it wisely. For Latter-day Saints, those teachings provide a framework for understanding both prophetic signs and our duty as stewards of the world God has given us.

Gramps

Gramps,

As far as you know, are there descendants of Joseph Smith’s in-laws (Emma’s parents and siblings; maybe even cousins) who were baptized into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in their mortal lives?

Albert

Answer

Albert,

As far as the historical evidence currently shows, very few did. In fact, there is no clear evidence that Emma’s parents or most of her siblings were ever baptized into the Church during their lifetimes. Emma herself appears to have been the only member of her immediate family who fully embraced the restored gospel during the early years of the Restoration.

That may surprise some people because Joseph and Emma spent important years living near the Hale family in Harmony, Pennsylvania. The Book of Mormon translation took place there, John the Baptist restored the Aaronic Priesthood nearby, and several early revelations were received in that area. Emma’s family had a front-row seat to some of the most significant events in Church history.

Yet they largely remained outside the Church.

Emma was born on July 10, 1804, to Isaac and Elizabeth Hale in what later became Harmony, Pennsylvania. She was one of nine children. By all accounts, the Hale family was respectable, hardworking, and religious. Emma herself was known for her deep faith long before she met Joseph Smith.

However, her father, Isaac Hale, never accepted Joseph’s prophetic claims. At first, his objections centered on Joseph’s involvement in treasure-seeking, which Isaac believed reflected poor judgment. He also questioned Joseph’s claims regarding the gold plates and the angel Moroni. These concerns led Isaac to oppose Joseph’s courtship of Emma, which is one reason Joseph and Emma eloped in January 1827 instead of marrying with her parents’ approval.

Despite those disagreements, the relationship between Joseph and the Hale family was not always hostile. After Joseph and Emma married, they lived with Emma’s parents for a short time before moving into a nearby home. Much of the translation of the Book of Mormon took place only a short distance from the Hale farm.

Emma herself accepted the restored gospel and was baptized on June 28, 1830, only a few months after the Church was organized. She would go on to become one of the Restoration’s most important figures, serving as Joseph’s scribe during portions of the Book of Mormon translation, compiling the Church’s first hymnbook, and later becoming the first president of the Relief Society.

Her parents, however, never followed her example.

Isaac Hale died in 1839 without joining the Church. Elizabeth Hale also never became a Latter-day Saint during her lifetime. Historical records consistently describe them as remaining outside the Church, even though they maintained varying levels of contact with Emma through the years.

What about Emma’s brothers and sisters?

This is where history becomes a little less clear. Emma had several siblings, including Jesse, David, Alva, Reuben, and others. Some maintained relationships with Emma, while others had occasional contact with Joseph. Yet historians have found no convincing evidence that any of them were baptized into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints during Joseph Smith’s lifetime or afterward. Some eventually lived near areas where Latter-day Saints gathered, but simply living nearby is not the same as joining the Church. The available historical records do not identify any of Emma’s siblings as baptized members of the Church.

Could there have been cousins or more distant relatives who joined?

Possibly.

The Hale family was fairly large, and over the generations it spread into several states. Because nineteenth-century membership records are incomplete in some areas, it is difficult to say with absolute certainty that no cousins or distant relatives ever joined the Church. It would not be surprising if a few more distant relatives accepted the gospel somewhere along the way.

However, no well-known historical records identify a significant number of Emma’s extended Hale relatives as early Church members. If such baptisms occurred, they appear to have been isolated rather than widespread.

One interesting twist comes after Joseph Smith’s death.

Emma remained in Nauvoo rather than traveling west with Brigham Young and the majority of the Saints. Years later, she affiliated with what became known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (now the Community of Christ), which was led by her son, Joseph Smith III. Some members of Joseph and Emma’s descendants became associated with that organization rather than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, headquartered in Utah.

This sometimes leads people to assume that Emma’s entire family eventually joined one branch of the Restoration movement or another. While some descendants certainly did, the historical record does not show that Emma’s parents or most of her siblings became baptized members of the original Church during their mortal lives.

From an LDS perspective, this history also illustrates an important gospel principle.

Being closely related to a prophet does not automatically produce faith. Jesus Himself taught that “a prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house” (Matthew 13:57). Family members often know a person so well that accepting extraordinary spiritual claims can become especially difficult.

The Restoration offers similar examples. Joseph’s own brothers were not all immediately supportive. Some of the Whitmers eventually left the Church. Martin Harris struggled at times. Even among those who personally witnessed miracles, agency remained intact.

The Lord has always invited people to seek their own witness through the Holy Ghost rather than relying solely on family relationships or personal acquaintance.

That is perhaps one of the lessons we can learn from Emma’s family. They witnessed many remarkable events firsthand, yet each had to choose whether to accept Joseph Smith’s testimony.

Latter-day Saints also believe that mortality is not the end of God’s plan. Through temple work and proxy ordinances, every person who ever lived will eventually have a full opportunity to accept or reject the gospel of Jesus Christ. That includes Emma’s parents, her brothers and sisters, and every other member of the Hale family.

So, based on the best historical evidence available today, the answer is fairly straightforward: Emma Hale Smith was the only clearly documented member of her immediate family to join The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints during her mortal life. Her parents did not join; there is no convincing evidence that her siblings were baptized into the Church, and while it is certainly possible that some more distant relatives eventually became members, history has not identified any significant number of them. Fortunately, Latter-day Saint doctrine teaches that God’s invitation extends to every member of every family, whether in this life or the next.

Gramps

Gramps,

One of the Young Women I teach asked why males are commanded to serve a mission if able, but females are not. I have been searching for an answer but haven’t found anything. Any ideas? Thanks.

Michelle

Answer

Michelle,

The answer has less to do with worthiness or importance and more to do with the different responsibilities the Lord has given within His Church. According to LDS doctrine and current Church policy, missionary service for young men and young women is viewed differently because of prophetic direction, not because one group is more valuable than the other.

Gramps,

What are the criteria for advancement to the office of an Elder to a High Priest in the Melchizedek priesthood? In my ward, it seems almost random. There are high priests who are relatively young and inactive or do not fulfill callings, and there are elders who are well into their 50s and are faithful and diligent. It seems that age and faithfulness are not factors; however, it almost seems like personality and popularity are. This is what I’m struggling to understand and reconcile.

Aaron

Answer

Aaron,

This is a great question, and you’re certainly not the only person who has wondered about it.

Fortunately, the restored gospel offers a much better way to view it.

The first thing to understand is that being ordained a high priest is not a promotion. In the Lord’s Church, priesthood offices are never intended to recognize seniority, reward faithfulness, or elevate one person above another. They exist because the Lord has organized His Church to accomplish His work in different ways.

The Lord revealed:

“There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthood.” (Doctrine and Covenants 107:1)

Within the Melchizedek Priesthood are several offices, including the offices of elder and high priest. Each office carries different responsibilities, but neither office makes one faithful priesthood holder more valuable to the Lord than another. Both are essential to accomplishing His work.

The current General Handbook explains when a man is ordinarily ordained a high priest:

“Men are ordained high priests when they are called to a stake presidency, high council, or bishopric. They may also be ordained at other times as determined by the stake president through prayerful consideration and inspiration.”

The handbook also explains:

“The stake president holds the priesthood keys for conferring the Melchizedek Priesthood and ordaining to the offices of elder and high priest. However, the bishop usually provides recommendations for these ordinations.”

Those two statements answer much of the question.

Most ordinations to the office of high priest occur because a calling requires it. For example, men are typically ordained high priests when they are called to serve in a bishopric, on a high council, or in a stake presidency. However, the General Handbook intentionally leaves room for other ordinations as directed by the stake president through prayerful inspiration. In other words, there is a general pattern, but there is no rigid checklist that says a man becomes a high priest after reaching a certain age or after serving faithfully for a certain number of years.

Before the 2018 reorganization that combined the ward high priests groups and elders quorums into one elders quorum, it was more common for faithful older elders to be ordained high priests even if they were not serving in stake leadership. Today, ordinations generally occur when a calling requires the office or when the stake president feels inspired to authorize one.

That means two faithful men sitting next to each other in the elders quorum may have very different priesthood histories simply because they have served during different periods of Church administration.

We also rarely know someone’s complete story.

A brother who is inactive today may have faithfully served years ago in a bishopric, on the high council, or in a stake presidency. Those callings required him to be ordained a high priest. Once ordained, he remains a high priest even if he is later released or becomes less active.

Meanwhile, another brother who has faithfully served for decades may simply never have received a calling that required ordination to that office.

In other words, what we see today is only one chapter of a much longer story.

Does faithfulness matter?

Absolutely.

Every priesthood ordination requires personal worthiness. But faithfulness alone is not the determining factor for whether someone becomes a high priest.

Imagine two worthy elders. One is called to serve in a bishopric and is ordained a high priest. The other continues faithfully serving as an elder’s quorum instructor, ministering brother, temple worker, or Gospel Doctrine teacher.

Has one become more important in the Lord’s eyes? Not at all. They simply have different assignments.

An elder already holds the Melchizedek Priesthood and is authorized to fulfill the responsibilities associated with that office. Being ordained a high priest does not mean receiving “more priesthood.” Rather, it is an ordination to a different office within the same Melchizedek Priesthood, generally because of responsibilities connected with a particular calling or as directed by the stake president through inspiration.

Sometimes people wonder if personality or popularity influences these decisions. While it’s understandable to ask that question, it’s also important to remember that we don’t see everything a stake president sees.

He may know confidential circumstances. He may be preparing someone for future service. Most importantly, he has priesthood keys and seeks revelation for those within his stewardship.

President Russell M. Nelson also taught:

“In coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost.” (Revelation for the Church, Revelation for Our Lives)

If every member needs that guidance, how much more does a stake president as he prayerfully makes decisions affecting the Lord’s kingdom?

Of course, stake presidents are mortal men. Like all disciples, they strive to recognize and follow the promptings of the Holy Ghost. They are not perfect, but the Lord governs His Church through the priesthood keys and can guide His servants as they sincerely seek His will.

Perhaps the most helpful perspective is to ask a different question. Instead of asking, “Why isn’t that faithful elder a high priest?” we might ask, “How can I better magnify the priesthood I already hold?”

King Benjamin taught that greatness in God’s kingdom comes through humble service. Likewise, the Savior taught His Apostles:

“Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.” (Matthew 20:27)

The Lord has never measured disciples by titles. He measures hearts.

A faithful elder who quietly blesses his family, ministers to others, honors his covenants, and magnifies his calling is every bit as valuable in the Lord’s kingdom as a high priest serving in stake leadership.

Both are needed. Both are trusted. Both are building the kingdom of God.

So if you’ve struggled to reconcile what you’ve observed, you’re certainly not alone. From our limited perspective, some ordinations may seem difficult to explain. But the Lord’s pattern is actually quite simple.

Ordination to the office of high priest is generally based on priesthood responsibility and the inspiration of the stake president who holds the keys—not on age, seniority, personality, popularity, or as a reward for years of faithful service.

In the end, what will matter most isn’t whether our membership record says “elder” or “high priest.” What will matter is whether we loved the Lord, kept our covenants, and faithfully magnified every opportunity He gave us to serve.

That is the kind of discipleship the Savior honors, regardless of the office we hold.

Gramps

Hi Gramps,

I had a question as to the possibility of bad spirits in the temple.  I have now had conversations with 2 different ladies who have had paralyzing dark experiences while attending a temple session.  Both of these ladies still love the temple and go frequently.  But can dark spirits exist inside the House of the Lord?

Ben

Answer

Ben,

According to the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the answer is reassuring. The temple is the Lord’s house. It is dedicated to Him, protected by His power, and intended to be a place where His Spirit dwells. At the same time, we know from scripture that Satan opposes the work of God and seeks to discourage those who are striving to come unto Christ. Understanding that distinction helps us approach experiences like these with both faith and compassion.

The scriptures leave no doubt that Satan is real. The Apostle Peter warned:

“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” (1 Peter 5:8)

His purpose is to deceive, discourage, and distract us from following Jesus Christ. That opposition continues throughout our lives. However, the existence of an adversary does not diminish the holiness of the Lord’s house.

Before a temple is opened for sacred ordinances, it is dedicated by priesthood authority as the House of the Lord. In the dedicatory prayer of the Kirtland Temple, the Prophet Joseph Smith prayed that the Lord’s glory would rest upon the temple and that it would remain holy.

One verse in that prayer is especially meaningful:

“That no unclean thing shall be permitted to come into thy house to pollute it.” (Doctrine and Covenants 109:20)

The Lord also declared concerning His holy house:

“Yea, and my presence shall be there, for I will come into it.” (Doctrine and Covenants 97:16)

These scriptures teach that the temple belongs to the Lord. His presence sanctifies it. LDS doctrine does not teach that evil spirits dwell in or possess dedicated temples. Rather, the temple is repeatedly described as a place where the Lord’s presence rests, where His angels watch over His covenant people, and where His power is manifest.

President Russell M. Nelson emphasized the central purpose of the temple when he taught:

“The temple lies at the center of strengthening our faith and spiritual fortitude because the Savior and His doctrine are the very heart of the temple. Everything taught in the temple, through instruction and through the Spirit, increases our understanding of Jesus Christ.” (The Temple and Your Spiritual Foundation)

If the temple is centered on Jesus Christ, then its atmosphere is one of light, truth, and holiness—not darkness.

So how do we explain reports of frightening experiences?

The first thing to remember is that not every frightening experience has the same cause. Faithful people can experience anxiety, panic attacks, medical conditions, emotional distress, or even sleep paralysis that feels intensely real. Sleep paralysis, for example, often involves a temporary inability to move accompanied by a frightening sensation that someone or something is present. While such experiences are very real to the individual, they do not automatically indicate the presence of evil spirits.

The restored gospel encourages us to seek both spiritual and medical understanding. The Lord has blessed us with priesthood blessings, prayer, and revelation, but He has also blessed us with knowledge through medicine and science. There is no conflict in seeking help from both.

At the same time, we should not ignore the reality of spiritual opposition. Satan does not want people drawing closer to Jesus Christ, and few places bring us closer to the Savior than the temple. It should not surprise us that the adversary may intensify his efforts to discourage someone before, during, or after temple worship.

That, however, is very different from saying that evil spirits inhabit the temple itself.

President Russell M. Nelson offered this comforting promise:

“Every sincere seeker of Jesus Christ will find Him in the temple. You will feel His mercy. You will find answers to your most vexing questions.”

That promise reflects what countless faithful members have experienced. The temple is a place of peace, revelation, and spiritual strength.

President Ezra Taft Benson also testified of the blessings found there:

“Temples are places of personal revelation. When I have been weighed down by a problem or a difficulty, I have gone to the House of the Lord with a prayer in my heart for answers. The answers have come in clear and unmistakable ways.”

That is exactly what we would expect from the Lord’s house—a place where answers come, not where evil reigns.

Elder David B. Haight likewise taught:

“A temple is a place in which those whom He has chosen are endowed with power from on high—a power which enables us to use our gifts and capabilities—to bring to pass our Heavenly Father’s purposes in our own lives and the lives of those we love.”

Notice the emphasis on power. Temple worship brings divine power into our lives through Jesus Christ. That power is greater than any influence Satan can exert.

When someone shares a frightening experience in the temple, our first response should be kindness rather than skepticism. We don’t need to dismiss what they felt, nor should we immediately conclude that evil spirits were freely roaming the temple. Often, we simply do not know everything that contributed to the experience.

Instead, we can lovingly affirm two truths. First, the person’s experience was real to them and deserves compassion. Second, the revealed doctrine about the temple remains unchanged. The temple is holy because it belongs to the Lord.

If someone continues to experience frightening episodes, it may be wise to seek priesthood blessings, continue praying, speak with trusted Church leaders if needed, and consult qualified medical professionals to rule out physical or emotional causes. Seeking medical care is not a lack of faith; it is often one of the ways the Lord blesses His children.

Ultimately, the restored gospel gives us every reason to approach the temple with confidence rather than fear. The Lord’s house is a refuge from the world. It is a place where sacred covenants are made, where families are sealed for eternity, and where the Savior’s power is felt in remarkable ways.

While Satan continues to oppose God’s work, he does not overcome it. The light of Jesus Christ is greater than the powers of darkness. The scriptures and the words of modern prophets consistently teach that the temple is a place of holiness, protection, revelation, and peace.

So, can dark spirits exist in the House of the Lord? LDS doctrine gives us every reason to trust that dedicated temples remain holy sanctuaries under the Lord’s care. Individuals may experience fear, opposition, or circumstances we do not fully understand, but those experiences should never cause us to doubt the sanctity of the Lord’s house. Instead, they remind us to place our trust in Jesus Christ, whose power is always greater than the adversary’s.

Gramps

Gramps,

If a person dies without knowledge of the Gospel and, as we are told, accepts it in the spirit world, and accepts the proxy work that is done for them, what resurrection will they come forth in, with what type of resurrected body? Will there be a “class” of spirits currently in the Spirit World, having accepted the Gospel there, that, having their work done during the Millennium, will receive a Celestial body during the Millennium?

Darryl

Answer

Darryl,

One of the beautiful doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that Heavenly Father provides every one of His children a fair opportunity to receive the gospel of Jesus Christ. Because billions of people have lived and died without hearing the restored gospel, many members naturally wonder what happens to those individuals after death.

While not every detail has been revealed, LDS doctrine gives us several important principles that help answer these questions.

The starting point is understanding that the preaching of the gospel continues after death.

The Apostle Peter taught that Christ ministered to the spirits in the spirit world:

“For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.” (1 Peter 4:6)

The Lord revealed much more about this work through President Joseph F. Smith in the vision now recorded as Doctrine and Covenants 138. He saw that righteous spirits continue preaching the gospel to those who died without knowledge of the truth.

“The dead who repent will be redeemed, through obedience to the ordinances of the house of God.” (Doctrine and Covenants 138:58)

This doctrine teaches that those who never received a fair opportunity in mortality are not condemned because of circumstances beyond their control.

One of the clearest revelations on this subject came when Joseph Smith saw his deceased brother Alvin in the celestial kingdom, even though Alvin had died before baptism was available to him.

The Lord explained:

“All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God.” (Doctrine and Covenants 137:7)

This is a remarkable statement. It tells us that those who would have accepted the gospel in mortality are not disadvantaged because they happened to live in a different time or place.

President Dallin H. Oaks has reminded members that we should be cautious about claiming knowledge beyond what has been revealed concerning the spirit world. He taught:

“Beyond these basics, our canon of scripture contains very little about the spirit world that follows death and precedes the Final Judgment.” (Trust in the Lord)

That caution is important. We should distinguish between what has been revealed and what we reasonably infer from revealed doctrine.

So what kind of resurrection will faithful individuals who accept the gospel in the spirit world receive?

The scriptures teach that there are different degrees of glory and corresponding resurrections.

Paul wrote:

“There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars.” (1 Corinthians 15:41)

The Lord expanded on this doctrine in Doctrine and Covenants 76 and 88, explaining the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial kingdoms.

President Russell M. Nelson reaffirmed that the kind of resurrected body a person receives is connected to the laws he or she chooses to live:

“Your choices today will determine three things: where you will live throughout all eternity, the kind of body with which you will be resurrected, and those with whom you will live forever.” (Think Celestial!)

Later in the same address, President Nelson taught:

“Thus, if we unwisely choose to live telestial laws now, we are choosing to be resurrected with a telestial body.”

These statements reinforce the doctrine taught in Doctrine and Covenants 76 and 88 that there are different degrees of glory and corresponding resurrected bodies. The resurrected body a person receives corresponds to the kingdom of glory he or she is prepared to inherit.

It is also important to understand that accepting the gospel in the spirit world does not automatically place a person into either the celestial or terrestrial kingdom. The final inheritance depends on how that individual responds to the light and opportunities God gives.

Doctrine and Covenants 76 teaches that some inherit the terrestrial kingdom because they were not valiant in the testimony of Jesus:

“These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:75)

and

“These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus.” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:79)

At the same time, Doctrine and Covenants 137 teaches that those who would have accepted the gospel had they been given the opportunity in mortality can inherit the celestial kingdom.

“All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God.” (Doctrine and Covenants 137:7)

Therefore, LDS doctrine does not teach that accepting the gospel in the spirit world automatically results in a terrestrial inheritance. Rather, the determining factor is the individual’s faithfulness, desires, and willingness to accept and live according to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

If an individual accepts the gospel in the spirit world, receives and accepts proxy ordinances, and ultimately qualifies for celestial glory through the grace of Jesus Christ, that person would receive a celestial resurrected body.

The next question concerns timing. Will there be people currently in the spirit world who have accepted the gospel and who will receive celestial bodies during the Millennium? The scriptures indicate that the answer is very likely yes. The resurrection of the just begins with Christ’s coming and continues during the Millennium.

The Doctrine and Covenants teaches:

“They are Christ’s, the first fruits, they who shall descend with him first, and they who are on the earth and in their graves, who are first caught up to meet him.” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:98)

Church leaders have taught that righteous spirits who accept the gospel beyond the veil continue to look forward to the completion of ordinances performed on their behalf.

President Dallin H. Oaks explained:

“The spirit-world bondage that applies to righteous converted souls is their need to await—and perhaps even be allowed to prompt—the performance of their proxy ordinances on earth so they can be baptized and enjoy the blessings of the Holy Ghost.” (Trust in the Lord)

This statement is particularly significant because it confirms that righteous spirits have accepted the gospel and are awaiting the completion of ordinances performed in temples on earth. It harmonizes beautifully with Doctrine and Covenants 138, which teaches that missionary work continues among the dead and that those who repent may be redeemed through the ordinances of the house of God.

Doctrine and Covenants 128 also teaches:

“For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect.” (Doctrine and Covenants 128:18)

Putting these doctrines together, many Latter-day Saints understand that there are undoubtedly spirits today who have accepted the gospel in the spirit world and are awaiting the completion of ordinances on their behalf. As temple work accelerates during the Millennium, many of these individuals may participate in the ongoing First Resurrection and receive glorified celestial bodies.

However, exactly when specific individuals will be resurrected has not been revealed. President Oaks cautioned that while we know certain fundamental truths about the spirit world and the Resurrection, many details remain unrevealed.

What we do know is profoundly reassuring. Every child of God will receive a fair opportunity. Those who have never heard the gospel are not eternally disadvantaged. Through missionary work in the spirit world, temple ordinances performed by proxy, the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and the Resurrection, every person will have the opportunity to receive all that he or she is willing to accept.

According to revealed LDS doctrine, a person who dies without knowledge of the gospel, accepts it in the spirit world, receives and accepts proxy ordinances, and remains faithful to those covenants may inherit the celestial kingdom. If they inherit celestial glory, they will receive a celestial resurrected body. It is also consistent with revealed doctrine that many such individuals will come forth in the resurrection of the just during the Millennium as the great work of redemption for the dead continues on both sides of the veil.

Gramps

Gramps,

If it’s said Jesus was resurrected on Sunday, then on what weekday could He have been born?

Samuel

Answer

Samuel,

It’s one of those questions that makes you stop and think for a moment. The New Testament clearly teaches that Jesus Christ was resurrected on the first day of the week—Sunday. Since we know that with certainty, it’s natural to wonder whether we can also determine what day of the week He was born.

The simple answer is that we can’t.

The scriptures never reveal the day of the week on which Jesus was born. In fact, they never explicitly give us His calendar birth date. While there are faithful opinions about when He was born, there is no revealed answer to the question of what weekday His birth occurred.

What the Lord has revealed is far more important than the day itself.

In The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles begin with this powerful testimony:

“As we commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ two millennia ago, we offer our testimony of the reality of His matchless life and the infinite virtue of His great atoning sacrifice. None other has had so profound an influence upon all who have lived and will yet live upon the earth.”

What we do know with certainty is that Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week. All four Gospel writers record this sacred event. Matthew says that “in the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,” faithful women came to the tomb and found it empty (Matthew 28:1). Mark writes that they arrived “very early in the morning the first day of the week” (Mark 16:2). Luke and John record the same witness (Luke 24:1; John 20:1).

Because of the Savior’s Resurrection, the early Christians began gathering for worship on the first day of the week. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints continue that pattern today by observing the Sabbath on Sunday in remembrance of the risen Lord.

The Resurrection stands at the heart of the gospel. It is the assurance that death has been conquered and that every person who has ever lived will one day be resurrected because of Jesus Christ.

When we turn to the Savior’s birth, however, the scriptures become much less specific.

The Bible tells us that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. It tells us about Mary and Joseph, the shepherds, the heavenly host, and later the visit of the Wise Men. The Book of Mormon adds another remarkable witness by describing the miraculous night when there was no darkness at the time of Christ’s birth (see 3 Nephi 1:15-21).

Yet nowhere do the scriptures tell us the day of the week on which Jesus was born.

In fact, they don’t explicitly give us the calendar date either.

Latter-day Saints are familiar with Doctrine and Covenants 20:1, which states that the Church was organized “one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh.”

Because the Church was organized on April 6, 1830, many faithful members have understood this verse to suggest that Jesus was born on April 6. Elder James E. Talmage accepted that interpretation in Jesus the Christ, and several later Church leaders also referred to April 6 as the anniversary of the Savior’s birth.

At the same time, faithful Latter-day Saint scholars have noted that Doctrine and Covenants 20:1 may simply identify the year in which the Church was organized rather than reveal Christ’s exact birthday. Because of this, the Church has not issued an official doctrinal statement requiring members to accept a specific calendar date for the Savior’s birth. As with many historical questions, faithful members have reached different conclusions while remaining united in their testimony of Jesus Christ.

Even if we somehow knew that Jesus was born on April 6, we still could not confidently determine the day of the week.

Why?

First, historians are not certain of the exact year of Christ’s birth. Most place it several years before the death of Herod the Great, likely between 6 and 4 B.C. Second, the modern Gregorian calendar did not exist in New Testament times. The Jews followed their own calendar, while the Roman Empire used the Julian calendar. Converting dates between ancient calendars and our modern calendar introduces uncertainties that simply cannot be resolved with complete confidence.

In other words, there is no reliable way to calculate whether Jesus was born on a Monday, Wednesday, Friday, or any other weekday.

That may seem a little disappointing, but perhaps it teaches us something important.

The Lord has revealed everything we need to know for our salvation. We know that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of the Father in the flesh. We know He lived a perfect, sinless life. We know He suffered for our sins in Gethsemane, gave His life on the cross, and rose again on the third day. We know that because He lives, every son and daughter of God will also live again.

Questions like this can actually strengthen our scripture study. They remind us to distinguish between revealed doctrine, thoughtful scholarship, and sincere speculation. There is nothing wrong with asking questions. The Lord encourages us to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:118). But He has also chosen not to reveal every historical detail.

So if someone asks, “If Jesus was resurrected on Sunday, then what day of the week was He born?” the most accurate answer is also the simplest:

We don’t know.

The Bible doesn’t tell us. Modern revelation doesn’t specify it. History cannot determine it with certainty.

But perhaps that’s exactly as the Lord intended. The scriptures focus our attention not on the weekday of His birth, but on who He is and what He accomplished.

As The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles concludes:

“His way is the path that leads to happiness in this life and eternal life in the world to come.”

In the end, whether Jesus was born on a Monday, Thursday, or any other day of the week is an interesting question—but it isn’t a saving truth. The saving truths are that He was born into the world as the promised Messiah, lived a perfect life, performed the infinite Atonement, died for our sins, and rose triumphantly from the tomb on the first day of the week. Because He lives, death is not the end, hope has replaced despair, and all mankind will one day be resurrected.

That is the message the scriptures proclaim. And that is a truth worth celebrating every day of the week.

Gramps

Gramps,

I tried a new energy drink the other day without reading the ingredients and really enjoyed it. Just for kicks and giggles, I looked at the ingredients and noticed that the caffeine is sourced from coffee beans. Is drinking caffeine sourced from coffee beans the same as drinking coffee itself when it comes to the word of wisdom?

Ryan

Answer

Ryan,

The honest answer is that the Church has never specifically addressed this exact situation. Because of that, it’s important to distinguish between what the Church has officially taught and what members may conclude on their own.

The Word of Wisdom is found in Doctrine and Covenants 89. The revelation instructs the Saints to avoid “wine or strong drink,” tobacco, and “hot drinks” (see Doctrine and Covenants 89:5-9). For many years, Church leaders have consistently taught that “hot drinks” refers specifically to coffee and tea, regardless of whether they are served hot or cold.

The Church History Topic on the Word of Wisdom explains:

“Sources make clear that many early Latter-day Saints understood ‘hot drinks’ to refer to coffee and tea.”

That understanding goes all the way back to Hyrum Smith, who explained the revelation in 1842:

“And again ‘hot drinks are not for the body or belly;’ there are many who wonder what this can mean… I say it does refer to tea and coffee.”

Notice what those statements focus on. They identify coffee and tea as the prohibited beverages. They do not discuss every individual chemical compound or ingredient that might come from those plants.

That brings us to caffeine.

For many years, people—both inside and outside the Church—have assumed that caffeine itself is forbidden. However, the Church has repeatedly clarified that this is not the case.

In an official Newsroom statement correcting media misunderstandings, the Church wrote:

“The Church revelation spelling out health practices (Doctrine and Covenants 89) does not mention the use of caffeine. The Church’s health guidelines prohibit alcoholic drinks, smoking or chewing of tobacco, and ‘hot drinks’—taught by Church leaders to refer specifically to tea and coffee.”

That statement is significant because it makes two things very clear.

First, coffee is prohibited.

Second, the Word of Wisdom itself does not prohibit caffeine.

The Church History Topic adds another important principle. It explains that the revelation “did not anticipate or specifically address many substances that have since become common.” It goes on to say that over time, Church leaders have emphasized the principles behind the revelation and, in some cases, have given additional guidance, such as prohibiting recreational drugs while allowing the proper use of prescription medications.

That historical perspective is helpful because energy drinks, caffeine extraction, and many modern food-processing methods simply did not exist in 1833.

President Boyd K. Packer also reminded members that the Word of Wisdom is more than just a checklist.

He taught:

“The Word of Wisdom was ‘given for a principle with promise.'”

He further observed that there are:

“…many habit-forming, addictive things… not mentioned in the revelation.”

His point was that faithful disciples should not merely ask, “Is this specifically on the forbidden list?” They should also consider whether a product is wise, healthy, or potentially addictive.

That principle applies well to many modern energy drinks. Even if a particular beverage does not violate the Word of Wisdom, it may still contain extremely high amounts of caffeine, sugar, or other stimulants. Each member should exercise good judgment and moderation.

So what about caffeine extracted from coffee beans? This is where we should be careful not to go beyond what the Church has actually said. The Church has never issued an official statement stating that purified caffeine extracted from coffee beans violates the Word of Wisdom. Likewise, the Church has never issued an official statement declaring that it is completely acceptable. In other words, there is no official doctrine on that specific question.

Instead, we know these facts:

• Coffee is prohibited.
• Tea is prohibited.
• The Word of Wisdom does not mention caffeine.
• The Church has not taught that every ingredient originating from a coffee bean is automatically equivalent to drinking coffee.
• The Church has not specifically addressed purified caffeine extracted from coffee beans.

Because of that, faithful members may arrive at different personal conclusions.

Some may decide that if an ingredient originated with the coffee plant, they would rather avoid it entirely. Others may conclude that purified caffeine is not the same thing as drinking coffee because the prohibited beverage itself is absent.

Both individuals can sincerely desire to obey the Lord.

Unless the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles provides additional guidance in the future, it would be unwise for members to declare either position as official Church doctrine.

Perhaps the best approach is to remember the purpose of the Word of Wisdom itself. The Lord didn’t simply give a list of rules; He gave “a principle with promise” (Doctrine and Covenants 89:3). Those who strive to obey it are promised health, wisdom, knowledge, and spiritual blessings (see Doctrine and Covenants 89:18-21).

So if you accidentally drank an energy drink before realizing its caffeine came from coffee beans, there is no reason to panic. You did not intentionally drink coffee, and the Church has never taught that isolated caffeine derived from coffee beans is equivalent to drinking coffee.

If learning where the caffeine comes from makes you uncomfortable, you can certainly choose another product in the future. If, after studying the issue and prayerfully considering the official teachings of the Church, you feel comfortable using such a product, that remains a matter of personal judgment because the Church has not spoken on the issue.

In the end, discipleship is often about resisting the temptation to add rules that the Lord has not given while also seeking the guidance of the Holy Ghost in areas where the Lord has left room for personal judgment. By following the clear teachings of the Word of Wisdom and exercising wisdom in our choices, we can honor both the letter and the spirit of the Lord’s law.

Gramps

Gramps,

Why don’t either the Church website or its Gospel Library app have archives of pre-Ensign magazines like Improvement Era and Millennial Star? Surely those could also be helpful resources when about to give a talk in sacrament meeting, stake conference, and other Church functions.

Samuel

Answer

Gramps,

It’s a fair question, and one that doesn’t have a simple official answer.

The Church has never published a detailed explanation for why these older magazines aren’t part of the Gospel Library app or the main Church website’s standard library. However, several reasonable explanations help make sense of the decision.

One of the biggest reasons is the purpose of the Gospel Library itself. The app isn’t intended to be a complete historical archive of everything the Church has ever published. Instead, it’s intended to serve as the Church’s current study library. Its primary purpose is to provide members with the scriptures, General Conference messages, current Church magazines, handbooks, manuals, and other approved teaching resources that support worship, personal study, family study, missionary work, and Church callings.

If every Church publication from the past 190 years were included, the library would become enormous. Thousands of issues of magazines, journals, and newsletters would make it much more difficult for members to quickly find the resources they use every week. By limiting the collection to current, correlated materials, Gospel Library remains simple, organized, and easy to navigate.

Another important consideration is the nature of many of those older publications.

Magazines like the Improvement Era and Millennial Star are wonderful historical resources, but they were produced during a very different period in Church history. Before the Church’s correlation program was developed during the 1960s and 1970s, magazines often included articles by Church leaders, scholars, historians, and other contributors that expressed their understanding of gospel topics. While many of these articles remain inspiring and insightful, not every article represented official Church doctrine or policy.

In other words, the fact that something appeared in an official Church magazine decades ago doesn’t necessarily mean it was intended to become a binding doctrine for the Church. Some articles reflected personal opinions, interpretations, or scholarship that may have changed as additional revelation and understanding came through living prophets and apostles.

That doesn’t diminish the value of those magazines. It simply means they need to be read with an understanding of the historical context in which they were written.

Today’s Gospel Library focuses on resources that have been carefully reviewed and correlated to reflect current doctrine and current Church practices. That helps ensure members are studying materials that align with the teachings of the living prophets and apostles.

There are also practical reasons why these older magazines may not appear in Gospel Library.

Digitizing, proofreading, indexing, tagging, and maintaining well over a century of publications is a tremendous undertaking. Even after old magazines have been scanned, they often require extensive work to make them searchable and accurate. Maintaining such a massive archive within an app used by millions of members every day would require significant ongoing resources.

Fortunately, the Church has not hidden these publications.

Many older Church magazines are available through the Church History collections and other online historical archives. Researchers, historians, and interested members can still access much of this material when they want to study the development of Church history, learn about early missionary work, or read teachings from previous generations.

So, can these magazines still be useful today?

Absolutely.

If you’re preparing a sacrament meeting talk, teaching a class, or giving a presentation at another Church function, an older magazine article can provide interesting historical background or a thoughtful quotation. Sometimes these publications contain beautiful insights that are just as meaningful today as when they were first published.

However, it’s generally wise to use them as supplemental resources rather than primary sources.

The Church consistently encourages members to build lessons and talks primarily from the scriptures, recent General Conference addresses, current Church manuals, and the Liahona. These resources represent what the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are emphasizing for the Church today.

This reflects an important principle of Latter-day Saint belief: we are led by living prophets. While we treasure the teachings of past prophets and leaders, we also recognize that continuing revelation means the Lord continues to guide His Church. Sometimes policies change. Sometimes emphasis changes. Occasionally, our understanding of a doctrine becomes clearer over time.

Because of that, when an older statement appears to differ from more recent teachings, members generally give greater weight to the scriptures and the current teachings of the living prophets and apostles.

This doesn’t mean older publications are unreliable or unimportant. Quite the opposite—they are valuable windows into the history of the Restoration. They help us understand how the Church grew, how members lived the gospel in earlier generations, and how the Lord has continued to guide His people over time.

In many ways, the difference comes down to purpose.

Historical magazines like the Improvement Era and Millennial Star serve as archives that preserve the Church’s rich history. Gospel Library, on the other hand, serves as the Church’s modern study library—a carefully selected collection of resources intended to help members live and teach the gospel today.

Both have great value, but they serve different needs.

So while it would certainly be convenient to have every historical Church publication available inside Gospel Library, the Church appears to have chosen a different approach. Members who want current, authoritative teaching have an organized library that reflects the Church’s present emphasis. Those who wish to explore the rich history of the Restoration can still access many historical publications through the Church’s archival resources.

In the end, the two collections complement one another. One helps us understand where we’ve been, while the other helps guide us where the Lord is leading His Church today.

Gramps

Gramps,

It says in Exodus 33:20 that no one can see God’s face and live.  This confuses me about how Joseph Smith saw God.

Colleen

Answer

Colleen,

One of the verses that often confuses people is Exodus 33:20. In that passage, the Lord tells Moses:

“Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.”

At first glance, that seems pretty straightforward. If no one can see God’s face and survive, then how could Joseph Smith testify that he saw both Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision? Doesn’t that contradict the Bible?

According to Latter-day Saint doctrine, the answer is actually simpler than it may seem. The key is understanding the context of Exodus 33 and recognizing that God has, on several occasions, allowed mortals to see Him by His own power.

First, it’s worth noting something interesting about Moses himself. Just a few verses earlier in Exodus 33:11 we read:

“And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.”

That sounds very different from verse 20. If Moses had already spoken with God “face to face,” then verse 20 can’t mean that it is absolutely impossible for any mortal to ever see God under any circumstances.

So what is happening?

Latter-day Saints understand Exodus 33:20 to mean that fallen, mortal man cannot endure the full glory of God by his own natural strength. God’s glory is so overwhelming that mortal flesh cannot withstand it unless God Himself intervenes.

The very next chapter helps explain this idea. Exodus 34 describes Moses descending from Mount Sinai after being in the Lord’s presence. His own face shone so brightly that the Israelites were afraid to come near him. If merely being in God’s presence caused Moses’ face to radiate with glory, imagine the glory of God Himself.

The scriptures contain several examples of God strengthening individuals so they could endure His presence.

One of the clearest examples is Moses’ vision recorded in the Pearl of Great Price. There, we learn something that is not found in the King James Version of Exodus.

In Moses 1:2 we read:

“And he saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence.”

That last phrase is important: “the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence.”

Moses did not survive God’s presence because he was naturally capable of doing so. He survived because God clothed him with divine glory and power.

Later, after the vision ended, Moses lost that heavenly strength and said:

“Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed.” (Moses 1:10)

This fits perfectly with the Latter-day Saint understanding of Exodus 33:20. Mortals cannot simply walk into God’s presence in their fallen condition. But God can prepare, strengthen, or transform a person so they can safely behold Him.

Joseph Smith’s First Vision follows that same pattern.

Joseph described praying in a grove of trees when he was overcome by a dark power. After calling upon God, he saw a pillar of light descend from heaven.

He wrote:

“When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air.”

Notice Joseph’s emphasis on their “brightness and glory.” This was no ordinary experience. It was a divine manifestation in which God revealed Himself to a prepared servant.

Latter-day Saints believe that Heavenly Father can reveal Himself whenever He chooses and can preserve the life of the person receiving that revelation. Joseph did not survive because God’s glory somehow became less glorious. He survived because God made it possible.

In fact, the scriptures contain many examples of people seeing God or divine beings.

Isaiah saw the Lord seated upon His throne (Isaiah 6).

Ezekiel saw a glorious heavenly vision (Ezekiel 1).

Stephen, just before his martyrdom, declared:

“Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” (Acts 7:56)

The Apostle John saw the Father and the Son in vision throughout the book of Revelation.

Even in the Old Testament, Jacob declared:

“I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” (Genesis 32:30)

Notice Jacob’s wording. He specifically acknowledges that his life had been preserved. That idea harmonizes beautifully with the Latter-day Saint understanding that seeing God is only possible because God preserves the individual.

Some Bible scholars also point out that Exodus 33:20 may have been referring to seeing the fullness of God’s glory. Earlier in the chapter, Moses had asked, “I beseech thee, shew me thy glory” (Exodus 33:18). God’s response may have been explaining that no mortal could behold the complete fulness of His glory in their natural condition.

Whether understood that way or through latter-day revelation, the principle is the same: God’s glory is overwhelming to fallen mankind, but He can enable whom He chooses to endure His presence.

This understanding is one of the reasons Latter-day Saints do not see a contradiction between Exodus 33:20 and Joseph Smith’s First Vision. Instead, they see a consistent pattern throughout scripture.

Whenever God reveals Himself to mortals, He also gives them the strength, protection, or transformation necessary to survive the experience.

The First Vision wasn’t an exception to the rule—it was another example of it.

Ultimately, Exodus 33:20 teaches us something profound about God’s majesty. His glory is far beyond anything mortal beings can naturally withstand. But it also teaches us something equally comforting: when God desires to reveal Himself, He has the power to prepare His children to receive that blessing.

Joseph Smith’s testimony that he saw Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ fits naturally within that biblical pattern. The same God who strengthened Moses, preserved Jacob, and opened the heavens to Stephen also preserved a 14-year-old boy in a grove of trees, allowing him to witness the beginning of the Restoration.

Gramps

Gramps,

Can you tell me what the Assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles calling was like and some of the history behind it?

Samuel

Answer

Samuel,

For many years in the Church, there was a calling that most younger Latter-day Saints have never heard of: Assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Although the position no longer exists today, it played an important role during a period of rapid Church growth. In fact, many well-known Church leaders—including Presidents Gordon B. Hinckley and James E. Faust, as well as Apostles Boyd K. Packer, Neal A. Maxwell, and Robert D. Hales—served in this calling before later becoming Apostles.

The calling existed for only 35 years, from 1941 until 1976. It was never intended to replace the Seventy or create another quorum of Apostles. Instead, it was an inspired solution to meet the needs of a rapidly growing Church.

By the late 1930s and early 1940s, the Church was expanding much faster than the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles could personally oversee. Stakes and missions were multiplying, missionary work was accelerating, and the Twelve simply could not be everywhere they needed to be. Church leaders recognized they needed trusted General Authorities who could represent the Twelve worldwide.

During the April 1941 General Conference, the First Presidency announced the creation of the new calling. The reason was explained very simply:

“The First Presidency and Twelve feel that to meet adequately their great responsibilities and to carry on efficiently this service for the Lord, they should have some help.”

The announcement went on to explain that men would be called as Assistants to the Twelve, serving under the direction of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in whatever assignments they received.

Five men were initially called, and over the following decades, additional Assistants were added as the Church continued to expand worldwide.

One interesting thing about the calling is that it was not a priesthood office. Unlike an Apostle or a Seventy, “Assistant to the Twelve” was simply a calling. Those who served remained High Priests but were sustained as General Authorities and assigned to assist the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. They acted under the direction of the Twelve rather than as members of a separate governing quorum.

Their work would sound very familiar to members of the Church today. They traveled throughout the world representing the Twelve wherever they were assigned. They organized stakes, presided at stake conferences, reorganized stake presidencies, visited missions, trained local priesthood leaders, spoke at conferences, and helped supervise missionary work. In many respects, they performed duties that are now carried out by General Authority Seventies.

Many members came to know these brethren well because there were relatively few General Authorities during that era. When an Assistant to the Twelve visited a stake conference, it was a significant event for local members.

Another fascinating aspect of the calling is how many future Apostles served in it. Of the 38 men who were called as Assistants to the Twelve, 13 later became members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Among them were Gordon B. Hinckley, Boyd K. Packer, Marvin J. Ashton, L. Tom Perry, David B. Haight, James E. Faust, Neal A. Maxwell, Robert D. Hales, and Joseph B. Wirthlin. Several also later served in the First Presidency.

This has caused some people to think the calling was intended as a training ground for future Apostles. While the experience undoubtedly prepared many of these men for future service, there is no indication that this was the purpose of the calling. Most Assistants to the Twelve never became Apostles. They simply served faithfully wherever the Lord needed them.

As the Church entered the 1970s, leaders began placing renewed emphasis on organizing the Church according to the pattern outlined in Doctrine and Covenants section 107. That revelation describes the Seventy as serving alongside the Twelve in helping administer the work of the Church.

Church historian Richard O. Cowan explains:

“The reactivation of the First Quorum of the Seventy and the discontinuance of the position of Assistant to the Twelve brought Church government more closely into harmony with the priesthood organization revealed in the Doctrine and Covenants.”

Under the direction of President Spencer W. Kimball, the First Quorum of the Seventy was reorganized in 1975. Then, during the October 1976 General Conference, N. Eldon Tanner announced:

“The office of Assistant to the Twelve will be discontinued. The brethren serving as Assistants to the Twelve will be ordained Seventies and become members of the First Quorum of the Seventy.”  (President N. Eldon Tanner, Presentation of the General Authorities, October 1976 General Conference (following President Spencer W. Kimball’s announcement of the reorganization).

Twenty-two men who were then serving as Assistants to the Twelve were ordained to the office of Seventy and became members of the First Quorum of the Seventy. This change aligned the Church organization more closely with the pattern established by revelation while still providing the worldwide leadership support that the growing Church required.

Today, General Authority Seventies perform many of the same responsibilities once handled by the Assistants to the Twelve. They travel throughout the world, organize stakes, train leaders, preside at conferences, oversee areas of the Church, and represent the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in countless assignments. The biggest difference is that today’s General Authority Seventies serve in the priesthood office of Seventy rather than in a separate administrative calling.

The Church History Department summarizes the position by noting that the calling existed from April 6, 1941, until October 2, 1976, after which it was discontinued as part of the reorganization of the First Quorum of the Seventy.

Looking back, the calling of Assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles demonstrates how the Lord guides His Church according to its needs. As membership expanded dramatically worldwide, inspired leaders answered a temporary call to help carry the growing workload. When the time was right, they reorganized the Church once again to more closely follow the pattern revealed in modern scripture.

Although the calling no longer exists, its legacy remains. Many beloved prophets and apostles once served as Assistants to the Twelve, and the work they performed continues today through the General Authority Seventies. It’s another example of how the Church’s organization can adapt to meet changing needs while remaining firmly rooted in the principles revealed by the Lord.

Gramps

]]> https://askgramps.org/what-was-the-calling-assistant-to-the-quorum-of-the-twelve-apostles-like-and-consist-of/feed/ 0