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,

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

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,

Is it against Church policy, worthiness, or otherwise incompatible with the Church to say that you may believe a prophet was wrong? We know prophets have been wrong in the past. However, if I believe someone was wrong in the past, am I to be wrong according to Church doctrine?

John

Answer

John,

The short answer is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that prophets are called of God but are not infallible. Believing that a prophet was wrong about something is not, by itself, contrary to Church doctrine. However, how we approach such questions matters greatly.

From the beginning, the Church has taught that prophets are mortal men who continue to learn, grow, and sometimes make mistakes. The Bible itself provides numerous examples. Moses struck the rock when he should have spoken to it  (Numbers 20:7-12). Jonah initially resisted the Lord’s command to preach to Nineveh. Peter struggled to understand that the gospel should be taken to the Gentiles until he received further revelation (Acts 10). Yet all of these men remained prophets and servants of God.

The Doctrine and Covenants openly acknowledges the reality of prophetic weakness. In speaking about the revelations received through Joseph Smith, the Lord declared:

“These commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:24).

That verse is remarkable because the Lord does not present His servants as flawless. Rather, He explains that revelation comes through mortal people who have weaknesses and limitations.

Joseph Smith himself never claimed perfection. In a sermon delivered shortly before his death, he stated:

“I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.” (History of the Church, Volume 6, page 366)

Joseph understood that there was a difference between divine revelation and the personal imperfections of the prophet receiving it. His statement suggests that while revelation comes from God, prophets themselves remain mortal and fallible.

Modern Church leaders have repeatedly taught this same principle. In General Conference, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf made a statement that surprised some members because of its candor:

“To be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. Things were said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.” (Come, Join With Us)

It is one of the clearest acknowledgments from a member of the First Presidency that Church leaders can make mistakes.

Similarly, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland taught:

“Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with.” (Lord, I Believe)

His observation applies to every prophet in scripture and Church history. God’s work has always moved forward through imperfect servants.

Because of this, many faithful Latter-day Saints recognize that prophets have occasionally been mistaken in their opinions, assumptions, interpretations, or administrative decisions. Church leaders themselves have acknowledged this reality.

The more important question is whether concluding that a prophet was wrong is incompatible with faithfulness or worthiness.

The answer appears to be no.

The Church does not require members to believe that every statement ever made by a prophet was correct. Worthiness interviews do not ask whether members believe every prophetic statement throughout history was free from error. Rather, members are asked whether they sustain the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.

Sustaining a prophet is not the same thing as believing he is incapable of making mistakes. In LDS understanding, sustaining means supporting, praying for, and recognizing the divine authority of those whom God has called. A member can believe that a prophet was mistaken on a particular issue while still sustaining that prophet’s calling.

In fact, the Restoration itself demonstrates that prophetic understanding often develops over time. One recurring theme in Church teachings is that revelation is received gradually. The Church’s Gospel Topics resource on plural marriage notes that revelation is often a process received “line upon line.” (Plural Marriage)

This principle can help explain why faithful members may occasionally view certain historical statements or actions differently than previous generations did. The existence of continuing revelation means that understanding can increase over time.

At the same time, LDS doctrine does not encourage a casual dismissal of prophetic counsel. There is a difference between acknowledging prophetic fallibility and adopting a posture of constant skepticism toward prophetic leadership.

The restored gospel invites members to seek spiritual confirmation for themselves. Moroni taught:

“And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things” (Moroni 10:5).

Likewise, the Lord instructed the Saints:

“Seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:118).

These passages teach that disciples should combine faith, study, and personal revelation. Members are not expected to abandon reason or historical inquiry. Instead, they are encouraged to seek understanding through both spiritual and intellectual means.

This means that if a member studies Church history and concludes that a prophet was mistaken on a particular issue, that conclusion alone does not place the member outside Church doctrine. The Church’s own teachings regarding prophetic fallibility leave room for such conclusions.

However, LDS doctrine also encourages humility. Just as prophets can make mistakes, individual members can also misunderstand history, doctrine, or circumstances. For that reason, many faithful Saints approach difficult questions with caution. Rather than claiming perfect certainty, they recognize the possibility that additional information or revelation may provide greater understanding.

Ultimately, the restored gospel is centered on Jesus Christ rather than on the perfection of mortal leaders. The testimony that prophets are called by God does not require a belief that they never err. Scripture, Church history, and modern prophetic teachings all point to the same conclusion: God works through imperfect people.

Therefore, according to LDS doctrine, it is not inherently against Church policy, worthiness, or faithful membership to believe that a prophet was wrong about something in the past. The Church has never taught prophetic infallibility. What it teaches is that God calls prophets, works through imperfect servants, and invites all members to seek the witness of the Holy Ghost as they navigate questions of doctrine, history, and prophetic counsel.

A faithful Latter-day Saint can simultaneously believe that prophets have occasionally been mistaken and also believe that God continues to guide His Church through living prophets today.

Gramps

]]> https://askgramps.org/is-against-church-doctrine-affect-my-worthiness-disagree-with-something-a-prophet-said/feed/ 0 https://askgramps.org/what-does-the-lds-church-say-about-wars-whether-on-our-soil-or-foreign-soil/ https://askgramps.org/what-does-the-lds-church-say-about-wars-whether-on-our-soil-or-foreign-soil/#respond Sun, 28 Jun 2026 08:00:43 +0000 https://askgramps.org/?p=74953 Question

Gramps,

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

JJ

Answer

JJ,

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

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

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

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

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

The Savior Himself taught:

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

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

The First Presidency taught:

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

They further explained:

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

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

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

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

Alma records:

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

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

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

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

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

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

“outlined the circumstances when war is justified.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He said:

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

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

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

“We of this Church are people of peace.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gramps

Gramps,

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

Josh

Answer

Josh,

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Salt Lake Temple renovation follows the same principle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another important consideration is stewardship.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely. Latter-day Saints firmly believe He could.

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

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

The answer throughout scripture appears to be no.

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

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

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

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

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

Gramps

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

Gramps,

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

Connie

Answer

Connie,

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

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

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

What has changed is the way modesty is often discussed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gramps

Gramps,

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

Michael

Answer

Michael,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example, Russell M. Nelson taught:

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

In that same message,Elder Nelson also asked:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the same time, there are important cautions.

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

The Church’s handbook teaches:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gramps

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

Gramps,

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

Annie

Answer

Annie,

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

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

An older Church handbook policy stated:

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

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

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

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

The Apostle Paul taught:

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

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

The Church Handbook teaches:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Church tries to avoid that.

Elder Richard G. Scott once taught:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gramps

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

Gramps,

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

Dadi Bear

Answer

Dadi Bear,

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

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

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

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

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

Another example comes when Christ blessed little children:

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

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

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

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

That simplicity is important.

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

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

That principle applies well here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Lord declared:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example, there is no official doctrine stating:

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

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

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

The power does not come from:

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

The power comes from:

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

That perspective keeps ordinances sacred without turning them into superstition.

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

Gramps

]]> https://askgramps.org/is-there-a-correct-position-of-hands-on-someones-head-during-temple-ordinances/feed/ 0 https://askgramps.org/can-i-ask-for-another-patriarchal-blessing/ https://askgramps.org/can-i-ask-for-another-patriarchal-blessing/#respond Mon, 18 May 2026 08:00:25 +0000 https://askgramps.org/?p=73998 Question

Gramps,

Firstly, I don’t want to suggest that I am unhappy with my blessing, but I want to know if there is a policy or precedent to asking for another blessing? Truthfully, I can’t help but seek guidance as I don’t feel like my blessing is for me anymore, and could use some renewed insight and direction.

Luke

Answer

Luke,

This is actually a really thoughtful question, and it comes up more often than people might expect. A patriarchal blessing can feel so personal, so tailored, and so spiritually significant that it’s natural to wonder: what if something changes? What if I didn’t fully understand it? Can I receive another one?

Gramps