Gramps,

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

John

Answer

John,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gramps

Gramps,

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

Hinckley

Answer

Hinckley,

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

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

Gramps,

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

Chase

Answer

Chase,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Church’s Gospel Topics material explains:

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

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

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

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

President Ezra Taft Benson explained this distinction very directly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Ezra Taft Benson famously taught:

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

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

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

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

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

Gramps

Hi Gramps,

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

Eliza

Answer

Eliza,

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

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

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

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

That’s pretty significant.

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

President Dallin H. Oaks taught:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New Testament gives this instruction:

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

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

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

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

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

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

No.

She can pray.

She can exercise faith.

She can ask Heavenly Father for protection.

She can call upon Jesus Christ.

She can read the scriptures.

She can invite the Holy Ghost into her home.

She can leave the situation if she feels unsafe.

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

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

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

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

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

She can gather those in her household and pray.

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

She can ask for protection.

She can invite the Holy Ghost to dwell there.

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

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

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

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

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

She can ask for the Savior’s protection.

She can receive personal revelation.

She can feel the Holy Ghost.

She can resist evil.

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

And she can have confidence that Heavenly Father hears her.

Gramps

Gramps,

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

Colin

Answer

Colin,

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

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

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

The prayer for the water follows the same pattern:

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

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

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

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

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

The General Handbook explains:

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

That distinction is important.

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

Notice the wording carefully:

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

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

He says, “We ask thee to bless.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Russell M. Nelson taught:

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

The sacrament beautifully illustrates this principle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gramps

Gramps,

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

Edith

Answer

Edith,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gramps

Gramps,

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

Samuel

Answer

Samuel,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gramps

Gramps,

Doctrine & Covenants 89:2 says the word of wisdom is, “To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—“

This says it’s not a commandment, so why is it treated as one?  Specifically, if one does not follow it, they cannot attend the temple. I’m genuinely confused by this. Has it been addressed anywhere?

Dawn

Answer

Dawn,

The key is that the Word of Wisdom was not originally given as a commandment, but its status changed over time.

When the revelation was received on February 27, 1833, many practices prohibited by the Word of Wisdom were common in American life. Alcohol consumption was widespread, tobacco use was common, and coffee and tea were everyday beverages for many people.

The Church teaches that the Lord allowed the Saints time to adjust rather than requiring strict observance immediately.

President Joseph F. Smith explained:

“If [the Word of Wisdom] had been given as a commandment it would have brought every man, addicted to the use of these noxious things, under condemnation; so the Lord was merciful and gave them a chance to overcome, before He brought them under the law.”

The Church’s Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual cites this statement from President Joseph F. Smith’s October 1913 general conference address.

In other words, the phrase “not by commandment or constraint” described how the revelation was initially given in 1833. It does not necessarily mean the Lord intended it never to become a commandment.

That distinction is important because early Latter-day Saints did not always observe the Word of Wisdom the way Church members are expected to today. Some continued drinking coffee or tea, using tobacco, or consuming alcoholic beverages. Even some prominent early Church leaders did so.

The transition happened gradually.

In 1851, President Brigham Young proposed during general conference that the Saints formally covenant to abstain from tea, coffee, tobacco, whiskey, and other things prohibited by the Word of Wisdom. According to Church historical sources, those present accepted the proposal.

Later, the requirement became even clearer. Church educational materials state that on October 13, 1882, the Lord revealed to President John Taylor that the Word of Wisdom was to be considered a commandment.

Still, enforcement and expectations were not immediately identical to what they are today. During the nineteenth century, Church leaders continued to teach the Word of Wisdom while its application became progressively stricter.

By the early twentieth century, observance had become firmly connected with temple worthiness. The Church History Library reports that in 1919, the First Presidency, under President Heber J. Grant, instructed stake presidents not to issue temple recommends to members who did not observe the Word of Wisdom. An official Church history topic describes this development as being firmly established by 1921.

So there really are two different questions involved. Was the Word of Wisdom a commandment when it was originally revealed in 1833? No.

Is obedience to the Word of Wisdom considered a commandment and a requirement for temple worthiness today? Yes.

That helps explain why simply pointing to the words “not by commandment” in verse 2 does not settle the question of present Church practice.

There is another interesting part of the revelation worth noticing. Immediately after saying “not by commandment or constraint,” the Lord calls the Word of Wisdom:

“A principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.” (Doctrine and Covenants 89:3)

The revelation, therefore, contained a divine standard and promised blessings from the beginning, even though strict observance was not initially imposed upon every member.

This fits a broader Latter-day Saint understanding of continuing revelation. LDS doctrine does not teach that every practice of the Church must remain exactly as it was when a revelation was first received. The Church believes Jesus Christ continues to direct His Church through living prophets. A principle may be introduced and its application clarified as the Church moves forward.

That is essentially what Church leaders teach happened with the Word of Wisdom.

It also helps explain the temple connection. A temple recommend does not simply measure whether someone is a “good person.” It represents whether a member is willing to live by certain standards that the Church currently teaches as part of discipleship and preparation for temple worship.

Today, living the Word of Wisdom is one such standard.

There is, however, an important distinction between the entire text of Doctrine and Covenants 89 and the specific standard used for Church worthiness.

For example, Doctrine and Covenants 89 speaks about eating meat “sparingly.” Yet a member is not denied a temple recommend for eating meat frequently. Likewise, the revelation praises grains, fruits, and wholesome herbs, but bishops do not conduct detailed examinations of members’ diets.

Instead, Church leaders have defined how the Word of Wisdom is applied today. The Church teaches members to abstain from alcoholic drinks, tobacco, tea, coffee, illegal drugs, and other harmful or addictive substances.

So the confusion is understandable. Reading Doctrine and Covenants 89 by itself, someone could reasonably ask, “Didn’t the Lord just say this wasn’t a commandment?”

Historically, the answer is yes—it wasn’t at first.

According to LDS teaching, however, the Lord later directed His Church through living prophets to treat the Word of Wisdom as a commandment. Over time, obedience to that standard also became part of the criteria for determining worthiness to enter the temple.

Rather than saying Doctrine and Covenants 89:2 never meant what it says, the Church’s explanation is that it accurately describes how the Word of Wisdom was introduced in 1833, but it does not mean its status and application could never change through continuing revelation.

Gramps

Gramps,

Why was God absent from giving revelation to the Jews during the 400 year intertestamental period (in between Malachi & John the Baptist)? What happened or caused it?   I had wondered about that.  Also, why did the Nephites, in stark contrast, still have revelation from God during that time? Thanks.

Beverly

Answer

Beverly,

Many Christians have heard about the “400 years of silence”—the period between the prophet Malachi in the Old Testament and the appearance of John the Baptist in the New Testament. During those centuries, no new books of scripture were added to the Bible, and no recognized prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Malachi existed. This naturally raises an interesting question: Did God stop speaking?

For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, an even more fascinating question follows: If there was little or no recorded revelation among the Jews during that time, why were the Nephites in the Book of Mormon still receiving prophets and revelation?

The answer teaches us an important lesson about how God works with His children.

First, it helps to understand what people mean by the “400 years of silence.” The last book of the Old Testament, written by the prophet Malachi, is generally dated around the fifth century BC. John the Baptist began his ministry about four centuries later. During that time, the Bible records no new prophets ministering to the covenant people in Judea and no additional books of scripture being written.

However, the lack of recorded scripture does not necessarily mean God completely withdrew from His people. Throughout those centuries, He continued to direct events in remarkable ways.

The Jewish people survived foreign domination under several powerful empires. The spread of the Greek language following the conquests of Alexander the Great eventually allowed the gospel to be preached across much of the known world using a common language. Later, the Roman Empire established roads and relative peace, making missionary travel far easier as Jesus Christ’s Apostles took the gospel to many nations. Looking back, it becomes clear that the Lord was preparing the world for the coming of His Son, even if He was not calling Old Testament-style prophets whose writings became part of the Bible.

So why weren’t there recognized prophets in Judea during that time?

The scriptures teach that revelation and prophetic leadership are closely tied to priesthood authority and to people’s willingness to receive God’s word. Throughout the Old Testament, periods of spiritual darkness often followed widespread rejection of the Lord and His prophets.

The prophet Amos foretold such a time:

“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord” (Amos 8:11).

Many Latter-day Saints understand this prophecy to have multiple fulfillments, including the period leading up to Christ’s mortal ministry. Likewise, Hosea warned Israel:

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee” (Hosea 4:6).

While these passages do not explicitly refer to the intertestamental period, they illustrate an important principle: when people repeatedly reject divine guidance, the Lord may withdraw prophets for a time. Even so, He never abandons His covenant people.

In fact, the Lord was anything but absent. He continued preparing the world for the Savior’s birth and ministry. His timing has always been perfect, even when His hand is not immediately obvious.

This is where the Book of Mormon provides remarkable insight.

While there may have been no recognized prophetic ministry in Jerusalem, the Lord had established another covenant people in the Americas through the prophet Lehi around 600 BC. From that point forward, He continued calling prophets to lead the Nephites and record His dealings with them.

Those prophets included Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Jarom, Omni, Mosiah, King Benjamin, Alma, Helaman, Nephi the son of Helaman, Samuel the Lamanite, Mormon, and Moroni. Throughout the centuries, often called the “silent years,” revelation continued among the Nephites.

Why?

One reason is that the Lord had preserved priesthood authority among them. Beginning with Lehi, an unbroken prophetic line was established by divine calling. As long as faithful prophets remained and the people were willing to receive revelation, the heavens remained open.

Another reason was the unique mission of the Nephite record itself. The Lord intended the Book of Mormon to come forth in the latter days as another testament of Jesus Christ. To accomplish that purpose, He continued revealing His will to prophets who faithfully recorded His words.

The Book of Mormon also teaches an important truth that expands our understanding of revelation. Through the prophet Alma, we read:

“For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word” (Alma 29:8).

Likewise, the Lord declared:

“I command all men, both in the east and in the west…that they shall write the words which I speak unto them” (2 Nephi 29:11).

These scriptures remind us that God’s work has never been confined to one nation or one continent. If revelation became limited among one covenant people for a season, that did not mean the Lord stopped speaking altogether. He continued guiding His children elsewhere according to His wisdom and purposes.

Could there have been faithful individuals among the Jews who received personal revelation during those 400 years? Certainly. The absence of recorded scripture does not mean righteous people were left entirely without God’s influence. Faithful men and women undoubtedly prayed, received answers, and were guided by the Holy Ghost. However, there is no biblical evidence of a recognized succession of covenant prophets comparable to those found before Malachi or among the Nephites during the same period.

The Restoration beautifully answers the question of the “400 years of silence.” While many assume heaven was quiet between the Old and New Testaments, the Book of Mormon reveals that God was still revealing His will through living prophets on another continent. The heavens had not closed. Rather, the Lord was accomplishing His purposes in different places according to His perfect plan.

President Russell M. Nelson taught:

“One of the things the Spirit has repeatedly impressed upon my mind since my new calling as President of the Church is how willing the Lord is to reveal His mind and will. The privilege of receiving revelation is one of the greatest gifts of God to His children.”

That same principle applies throughout history. Whether He was speaking through prophets in ancient Israel, through Nephite prophets in the Americas, or through living prophets today, the Lord has always been willing to reveal His will to those prepared to receive it.

President Nelson also reminded us:

“If Joseph Smith’s transcendent experience in the Sacred Grove teaches us anything, it is that the heavens are open and that God speaks to His children.”

The “silent years” ultimately remind us not that God stopped communicating, but that His work is far greater and more expansive than we sometimes realize. His love, His purposes, and His willingness to reveal truth have never been limited by time, geography, or circumstance. Just as He prepared the world for the coming of Jesus Christ, He continues to guide His Church and His children today through continuing revelation.

Gramps

Gramps,

The scriptures are full of instances in which glorified, resurrected beings appear to mortals in less-than-glorified form (e.g., Christ on the road to Emmaus). Can God the Father do this as well? Is there any reason why He couldn’t or wouldn’t ever appear as anything less than His fully glorified self?

For example, could God the Father appear as an old man, walk and talk with a mortal being, shake their hand, etc.? Or would this somehow violate His divine nature?

Josh

Answer

Josh,

The honest answer is that the Lord has never directly revealed the answer to that question. Because of that, it’s important to distinguish between what the scriptures clearly teach and what we can reasonably infer. While we should avoid presenting speculation as doctrine, there are scriptural principles that help us think about the possibility.

One of the clearest examples comes from the resurrected Savior Himself. After His Resurrection, Jesus walked for several miles with two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They discussed recent events, talked about the scriptures, and even shared a meal together, yet neither disciple realized they were speaking with the risen Lord.

Luke explains simply, “But their eyes were holden that they should not know him” (Luke 24:16). Only later, after Jesus blessed and broke bread, were “their eyes… opened, and they knew him” (Luke 24:31).

The account doesn’t suggest that Jesus had ceased to be a glorified, resurrected being. Rather, for His own purposes, He was not immediately recognized. Whatever the exact mechanism, the story demonstrates that a resurrected being’s glory or identity is not always fully revealed to those around Him.

The same principle appears again only a short time later. When Mary Magdalene encountered the resurrected Savior outside the empty tomb, she initially mistook Him for the gardener (John 20:15). Once again, someone who knew Jesus well did not immediately recognize Him. Whether that was because of Mary’s grief, the circumstances, or the Lord intentionally withholding His identity for a time, the account reminds us that resurrection does not necessarily entail constant public recognition.

The Book of Mormon provides another interesting example. The Three Nephites were translated rather than resurrected, but they were nevertheless changed so they could remain on the earth and continue their ministry. Mormon records that “they are among the Gentiles, and the Gentiles know them not” (3 Nephi 28:27). The Lord also declared that they would become “as the angels of God” (3 Nephi 28:30). Their ministry shows that heavenly servants can move among ordinary people without drawing attention to who they really are.

Even angels frequently appear in very ordinary ways. Abraham welcomed three visitors before realizing that one of them represented the Lord (Genesis 18). Lot received heavenly messengers who appeared simply as men (Genesis 19). Throughout scripture, God’s messengers often look remarkably ordinary until the Lord chooses to reveal more about them.

Taken together, these examples establish an important principle. Heavenly beings are not necessarily required to manifest all of their glory every time they appear to mortals. The Lord seems able to reveal as much—or as little—as accomplishes His purposes.

That brings us back to the original question: Does that principle apply to Heavenly Father?

The Restoration teaches plainly that the Father is not merely a spirit or an unknowable force. He is a glorified, resurrected being with a tangible body. Doctrine and Covenants 130:22 declares, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also.”

Likewise, Joseph Smith taught, “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith).

Because the Father possesses a real, tangible body, there is certainly nothing unusual about the idea that He could physically walk, speak, sit, or shake hands. In fact, Joseph Smith’s First Vision leaves little doubt that the Father is a personal Being who can be seen and heard. Joseph testified, “I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description” (Joseph Smith—History 1:17).

Other prophets experienced similar manifestations. Stephen saw the Father and the Son before his martyrdom (Acts 7:55–56), and Moses was brought into God’s presence after being spiritually prepared to endure His glory.

That preparation is an important part of the discussion. After Moses’ vision, he explained, “Mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes… for my natural eyes could not have beheld” (Moses 1:11). Likewise, the Lord taught, “No man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God” (Doctrine and Covenants 67:11).

These passages teach that when God reveals His full glory, mortals ordinarily must be spiritually strengthened to endure the experience. However, they do not say that God is incapable of appearing in a different manner if He chooses. They simply describe the circumstances surrounding the revelations recorded.

At this point, we arrive at the limits of what has actually been revealed. The scriptures never tell us that Heavenly Father has appeared disguised as an ordinary man, nor do they say that He never could. There simply isn’t a revelation that directly addresses the question.

That means we should be careful not to go beyond what the Lord has revealed. President Dallin H. Oaks has frequently reminded members of the Church to avoid speculation when revelation is silent. That counsel fits this subject well.

Still, it’s also fair to recognize what the scriptures do teach. They consistently demonstrate that glorified heavenly beings can control how much of themselves they reveal. The resurrected Savior was not always recognized. Angels often appeared as ordinary men. The Three Nephites minister unnoticed among the people. Those examples don’t prove that Heavenly Father has done the same thing, but they do show that there is nothing inherently contradictory about a glorified being interacting with mortals without displaying overwhelming glory.

It’s also worth remembering that the Father often accomplishes His work through His Son, through angels, and through authorized servants. Personal appearances by the Father are relatively rare in scripture, not because He is unable to appear, but because He has established an order through which much of His work is carried out. When He has chosen to reveal Himself directly, those experiences have generally been moments of profound revelation, such as the First Vision or His declaration at the Savior’s baptism and on the Mount of Transfiguration.

In the end, the safest conclusion is also the simplest one. We know that Heavenly Father is an exalted, glorified being with a tangible body of flesh and bones. We know He has appeared to prophets in glory. We also know that other glorified heavenly beings have, at times, interacted with mortals without immediately revealing who they were.

Whether Heavenly Father has ever chosen to veil His glory in a similar way is something the Lord has not revealed. There is no doctrinal reason to declare it impossible, but neither is there any revealed doctrine that says He has done so. Faithful Latter-day Saints can comfortably acknowledge that distinction, recognizing that some questions simply await further revelation.

Until then, perhaps the greater lesson is not how God appears, but that He does appear according to His own wisdom and purposes. Whether through His Son, through angels, through the Holy Ghost, or on the rare occasions when He has manifested Himself personally, Heavenly Father has always found ways to reveal Himself to His children when doing so accomplishes His divine purposes.

Gramps

Gramps,

Does time exist in the next life?

Bruce

Answer

Bruce,

Latter-day Saint doctrine does not fully explain how time works in the next life. However, the scriptures and teachings of modern prophets do provide several clues. Those clues suggest that while our experience of time will likely be very different from what we know now, there is still sequence, progression, and purpose in eternity.

One of the scriptures that often starts this discussion is found in the Doctrine and Covenants. While explaining the nature of God’s knowledge, the Lord revealed:

“The Lord God… all things are present before mine eyes.” (Doctrine and Covenants 38:2)

This verse tells us that God sees all things at once. He is not limited by the past, present, and future the way we are. That doesn’t necessarily mean time doesn’t exist for God. Rather, it means that God’s knowledge is not limited by time. He perfectly sees the beginning, the middle, and the end.

Another important scripture is found in the Book of Abraham:

“Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was…” (Abraham 3:22)

A few verses later, the Lord teaches that one revolution of the star Kolob is equal to one thousand years according to the earth’s reckoning (Abraham 3:4). This is fascinating because it suggests that time can be measured differently depending on where you are. God’s way of measuring time is not the same as ours.

Peter taught something similar in the New Testament:

“One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” (2 Peter 3:8)

Peter wasn’t giving us a mathematical formula. Instead, he was emphasizing that God is not constrained by the clock the way we are. His perspective is eternal.

Some people assume that because eternity has no end, there can be no time. But the scriptures suggest otherwise. Consider what happens after resurrection. We know that people continue to learn, serve, worship, and grow. Temple sealings continue to have an eternal effect. Families continue forever. God’s work of bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of His children continues (see Moses 1:39).

All of those activities involve sequence. One event happens after another. We make choices. We gain experience. We continue to progress. That strongly suggests that some form of time—or at least order and progression—still exists.

President Russell M. Nelson has repeatedly taught that “time is running out” and has called the gathering of Israel the most important work taking place on earth today.

Elder Neal A. Maxwell frequently spoke about eternity and God’s perspective. He explained:

“God does not live in the dimension of time as do we.” (The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual)

Although Elder Maxwell acknowledged that we do not fully understand how God experiences time, he emphasized that God’s eternal perspective is far greater than ours.

One important point to remember is that eternal life does not mean simply existing forever. Eternal life means becoming like our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. That kind of growth implies continual learning and development.

The Lord declared:

“This is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” (Moses 1:39)

Work involves action. Glory involves accomplishment. These ideas suggest movement and progression rather than complete stillness.

Joseph Smith also taught that learning continues beyond this life:

“Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.

 

And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life… he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:18–19)

This is another indication that life after death is active rather than static. We continue to grow in knowledge and understanding. Growth naturally involves progression from one point to another.

So, will we have calendars, clocks, or twenty-four-hour days in the celestial kingdom? The scriptures simply do not say. Those are mortal ways of measuring time based on the rotation of the earth and the movement of the sun. Since resurrected beings will not be living under the same physical conditions, it seems unlikely that time will be measured exactly as it is now.

Instead, the scriptures seem to point toward something much greater. God’s children will continue to progress, learn, create, and serve in ways that are perfectly ordered according to His eternal purposes. There is a sequence without the pressures of mortality. There is progression without deadlines. There is purpose without decay.

Perhaps the best way to think about it is this: our experience of time will probably change dramatically, but eternity is not described as endless inactivity. Rather, it is described as endless life, endless joy, endless learning, and endless opportunities to become more like our Heavenly Father.

In the end, we simply do not know all the details. The Church has no official doctrine explaining exactly how time functions after this life. What has been revealed is enough for us to know that God lives above the limitations we experience, that He sees all things perfectly, and that His faithful children will continue to progress forever.

That truth is both comforting and exciting. Whatever “time” looks like in eternity, we can trust that Heavenly Father has prepared a future far more wonderful than we can currently imagine.

Gramps

Gramps,

In the Book of Luke, it states that “And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.” (Luke 22:43)

From this verse, do we have any clue who the angel is that comforted Jesus Christ in Gethsemane? Thank you for answering my question.

Regards,
Arcee

Answer

Arcee,

One of the most moving moments in the New Testament takes place in the Garden of Gethsemane. It was there that Jesus Christ began the infinite and eternal sacrifice that would make salvation possible for every one of God’s children. As He took upon Himself the sins, pains, sorrows, sicknesses, and grief of all mankind, He experienced suffering beyond anything we can truly comprehend. In the middle of Luke’s account, we find a brief statement that has caused many readers to wonder about an intriguing question:

“And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.” (Luke 22:43)

The verse is only a single sentence, yet it naturally leads us to ask: Who was this angel?

The honest answer is that we simply don’t know. Neither the Bible nor modern revelation identifies the angel by name, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never officially taught who this heavenly messenger was. While there have been various ideas over the years, they remain nothing more than personal opinions because the Lord has not revealed the answer.

Although that may seem a little disappointing, it also teaches us an important principle. Sometimes the scriptures leave out details because they are not the main point of the story. Rather than focusing on the angel’s identity, Luke seems more interested in helping us understand that Heavenly Father did not leave His Beloved Son completely alone during the greatest suffering ever experienced.

The angel’s appearance also reminds us that although Jesus was the Son of God, He was living a fully mortal life. He willingly accepted all the limitations and pains that come with mortality. Luke goes on to describe the intensity of that suffering:

“And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” (Luke 22:44)

Latter-day Saints understand that Gethsemane was a vital part of the Savior’s Atonement. It was there that He began taking upon Himself everything that would ever afflict the human family. The prophet Alma explained why this was necessary:

“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)

Knowing this makes Luke’s brief comment about the angel even more meaningful. The Father did not remove the suffering or lessen the demands of the Atonement. Jesus still had to drink the bitter cup completely. Instead, Heavenly Father sent divine strength so that His Son could continue to accomplish the mission He had willingly accepted before the foundation of the world.

Naturally, people have wondered who that angel might have been. Some have suggested Gabriel, who was Noah in mortality. Others have wondered if it was Michael, who is Adam, or perhaps another righteous prophet who had already entered the spirit world. Since angels often appear throughout scripture to deliver messages, provide comfort, and strengthen the servants of God, these ideas are understandable. The problem is that the scriptures never identify the angel, and no modern prophet has revealed his identity.

It is certainly interesting to wonder, but it is even more valuable to focus on what the Lord has chosen to teach us through the account.

In fact, Luke’s emphasis seems to be less on who the angel was and more on what the angel did. The angel came to strengthen the Savior. That simple act teaches something beautiful about the character of our Heavenly Father. Even while requiring His Son to complete the infinite Atonement, the Father was fully aware of His suffering. He did not abandon Him. He sent heavenly help at exactly the right moment.

This wasn’t the first time angels had ministered to Jesus during His earthly ministry. After His forty-day fast and temptation in the wilderness, Matthew records:

“Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.” (Matthew 4:11)

Throughout the scriptures, angels are sent to comfort, teach, protect, warn, and strengthen God’s children. Modern revelation confirms that their ministry continues today. Doctrine and Covenants 13:1 teaches that angels are involved in calling people to repentance and helping fulfill the Father’s covenants with His children.

We’ve been told by many of our Church leaders that the Lord has declared that He will have ‘a place prepared’ for His faithful Saints and that angels are engaged in helping accomplish His work.

Someday we may learn the identity of the angel who strengthened Jesus in Gethsemane. Until then, it is enough to know that Heavenly Father was perfectly aware of His Son’s suffering and provided the strength He needed to complete His divine mission.

That same principle offers hope to each of us. There are times when Heavenly Father does not immediately remove our burdens or answer our prayers as we hope. Instead, He often gives us the strength to endure, just as He strengthened His Son. That strength may come through the Holy Ghost, the scriptures, priesthood blessings, loving family members, faithful friends, or quiet spiritual impressions that remind us we are not alone.

The angel in Gethsemane remains unnamed, but his brief appearance points us to something far greater than his identity. It reminds us that heaven is aware of suffering, that God does not forget His children, and that His strength is available precisely when it is needed most. In the end, that message is far more important than knowing the angel’s name.

Gramps