Gramps,

How do I explain to a non-member in a way that is easy to understand why we, as Latter-day Saints, say we belong to the one true Church?

Tyler

Answer

Tyler,

For many people outside of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, one phrase can sound uncomfortable or even arrogant: the idea that Latter-day Saints believe theirs is the “one true church.” At first glance, it can sound like members are saying everyone else is wrong, that no other religion has truth, or that God only cares about one group of people.

But that is not actually how Latter-day Saints generally understand the doctrine.

According to LDS theology, the belief that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the “true church” is tied to the idea of the Restoration. Members believe that Jesus Christ originally established His Church during His mortal ministry, complete with apostles, priesthood authority, ordinances, and revelation from God. After the deaths of the original apostles, however, that authority and many gospel truths were gradually lost or changed over time.

Latter-day Saints believe that through Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ restored His original Church to the earth.

That belief is rooted in scripture, modern revelation, and personal spiritual conviction.

One of the key scriptures Latter-day Saints point to is Doctrine and Covenants 1:30, where the Lord refers to the Church as:

“The only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth.”

For many people, that verse raises immediate questions. Does this mean other churches are completely false? Does it mean Latter-day Saints think they are better than everyone else?

Not at all.

LDS leaders have repeatedly taught that truth exists in many religions and among many sincere believers.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks explained:

“We believe that most Christian churches teach some truths and do much good. But we also believe that the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith.” (Summarized)

In LDS theology, the Church is considered “true” because Latter-day Saints believe it contains the fullness of Christ’s gospel, priesthood authority, and saving ordinances. It is considered “living” because members believe Jesus Christ continues to guide it through ongoing revelation.

That last part matters a lot.

Latter-day Saints do not believe God stopped speaking after the Bible was completed. They believe He still calls prophets and apostles today.

One of the biggest reasons Latter-day Saints believe the Church is Christ’s restored Church is priesthood authority.

According to LDS belief, authority to act in God’s name was given to prophets and apostles in ancient times. Members believe that after a long period of apostasy, authority was restored to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery through heavenly messengers.

John the Baptist is believed to have restored the Aaronic Priesthood. (Doctrine & Covenants 13:1)

Peter, James, and John are believed to have restored the Melchizedek Priesthood. (Melchizedek Priesthood)

This priesthood authority is central to LDS belief because ordinances such as baptism, confirmation, temple ordinances, and sealing are believed to require God’s authority.

Jesus Himself emphasized the importance of authority when He called and ordained apostles in the New Testament:

• Matthew 10:1
• John 15:16

Because of this, Latter-day Saints believe the Restoration was not just about restoring teachings, but restoring divine authority.

Another major reason Latter-day Saints believe the Church is true is the belief in continuing revelation.

The ninth Article of Faith states:

“We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

That idea of ongoing revelation is deeply woven into LDS theology.

President Russell M. Nelson taught:

“We’re witnesses to a process of restoration.” (Quoted by LeGrand R. Curtis Jr. The Ongoing Restoration)

Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus Christ actively directs His Church today through prophets and apostles, just as He did in ancient times.

Elder David A. Bednar explained:

“This restored Church is true because it is the Savior’s Church… And it is a living church because of the workings and gifts of the Holy Ghost.” (Seminary Teacher Manual)

For members, this belief makes the Church feel dynamic rather than frozen in the past.

The Book of Mormon is also central to why Latter-day Saints believe the Church is true.

Joseph Smith described it as:

“the most correct of any book on earth.” (Book of Mormon Introduction)

Latter-day Saints believe the Book of Mormon testifies of Jesus Christ, supports the Bible, and serves as evidence that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

The introduction to the Book of Mormon promises:

“Those who prayerfully study the book and ask God in sincerity if it is true will gain a testimony of its truth and divinity by the power of the Holy Ghost.”

For many members, their testimony of the Church is closely tied to personal experiences praying about the Book of Mormon.

James 1:5 is especially important in LDS history because Joseph Smith said it inspired him to pray for guidance:

That prayer eventually led to what Latter-day Saints call the First Vision.

One important part of LDS theology is that believing the Church is true does not mean believing other religions are worthless.

Latter-day Saints believe God loves all His children and inspires people everywhere.

The Church itself teaches:

“The restored gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to love and serve all people. We affirm the value of religious freedom, kindness, and respect toward people of all faiths.”

President Gordon B. Hinckley taught:

“Bring with you all that you have of good and truth which you have received from whatever source, and come and let us see if we may add to it.” (The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith)

That attitude has shaped how many Latter-day Saints approach conversations with people of other faiths.

Ultimately, Latter-day Saints believe the Church is true because they believe it is Christ’s restored Church.

That belief is not supposed to lead to pride or superiority. Ideally, it should lead to greater discipleship, humility, and gratitude.

Members believe the Church exists to help people come unto Jesus Christ through covenants, ordinances, service, repentance, and faith.

As the Book of Mormon teaches:

“We talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ.” (2 Nephi 25:26)

For Latter-day Saints, the claim that the Church is “true” is not mainly about winning arguments. It is about a conviction that Jesus Christ restored His gospel, His authority, and His Church in modern times.

And, as with every spiritual conviction, members believe that testimony ultimately comes through personal study, prayer, and revelation from God.

Gramps

Gramps,

Rudgar Clawson implied in General Conference  (1908) that non-member couples are separated from each other until sealed together by someone in the temple. Is that true?

Len

Answer

Len,

In the October 1908 General Conference, Rudger Clawson made a statement that has led some readers to wonder: Do Latter-day Saints believe that non-member couples are separated from each other after death until they are sealed in the temple?

At first glance, his words can sound stark. But when we place his teaching alongside the broader framework of Latter-day Saint doctrine—especially teachings on eternal marriage, the spirit world, and proxy ordinances—a clearer and more hopeful picture emerges.

Clawson’s message centered on priesthood authority and the eternal nature of marriage covenants. In that 1908 conference, he stated:

“We understand that no marriage is valid in the sight of God, unless it be performed by one having authority… for time and for all eternity.”
(Conference Report, October 1908, pp. 46–47)

This statement reflects a key doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: marriage, to continue beyond death, must be sealed by priesthood authority. Civil marriages, while meaningful and binding in mortality, are not automatically eternal in this theological framework.

However, it is important to notice what Clawson did not explicitly say. He did not describe in detail how relationships function in the spirit world, nor did he clearly declare that couples are consciously “separated” in an emotional or relational sense after death. His focus was on the validity of ordinances, not the mechanics of post-mortal relationships.

A crucial piece of Latter-day Saint belief that reshapes this question is the doctrine of the spirit world. According to scripture, those who did not receive the gospel in mortality are not left without hope. Through a vision received by Joseph F. Smith, now recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 138, we learn:

“The Lord… organized his forces and appointed messengers… to carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness.”
(Doctrine and Covenants 138:30)

And further:

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

These teachings are essential because they show that those who were not sealed in life are not permanently cut off from that opportunity. The gospel is preached in the spirit world, and individuals may accept it there.

Latter-day Saints also practice proxy ordinances in temples, including baptisms and sealings, performed on behalf of those who have died. These ordinances do not override agency; rather, they extend the opportunity for individuals to accept the blessings of the gospel. This means that a couple married outside the Church is not permanently excluded from eternal marriage. If they accept the gospel in the spirit world, and if a sealing is performed for them by proxy, their marriage can become eternal at that point.

One concern that naturally arises is fairness—what about those who never had a real opportunity to accept the gospel or receive temple ordinances during their lifetime? Modern Church leaders have addressed this clearly. Dallin H. Oaks taught:

“Many of the most important deprivations of mortality will be set right in the Millennium.”
(“The Great Plan of Happiness,” Oct. 1993)

This reinforces a central Latter-day Saint belief that God is perfectly just and merciful, ensuring that every person will have a full and fair opportunity to receive all saving ordinances and blessings.

Rather than emphasizing separation, Latter-day Saint doctrine consistently emphasizes the continuation of families. President Gordon B. Hinckley taught:

“The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave..”
(“The Family: A Proclamation to the World“)

With all of this in view, a more precise answer emerges. It is true that marriages not sealed by priesthood authority do not yet carry the promise of eternal continuation. In that sense, they are not fully “bound” beyond death. However, it is not accurate to say that non-member couples are permanently separated or that they are denied the possibility of being together.

Latter-day Saint teachings do not provide detailed descriptions of whether couples are physically or socially separated in the spirit world. That idea goes beyond what has been clearly revealed. What has been revealed is that eternal marriage requires covenant sealing, and that God has provided a way for everyone to receive it—either in this life or the next.

When Rudger Clawson’s 1908 statement is read in isolation, it can sound like a harsh dividing line. But when placed within the full scope of Latter-day Saint doctrine, it becomes something quite different. It is not a declaration of permanent separation, but a statement about divine authority and the necessity of sacred ordinances. And those ordinances are not limited to mortality.

Through the preaching of the gospel in the spirit world, the work performed in temples, and the enduring principle of agency, Latter-day Saint theology ultimately points toward a God who is working to unite families rather than divide them. Relationships formed in love are not casually discarded; instead, they are invited into something greater—something eternal—through the ordinances He has provided.

Gramps

]]> https://askgramps.org/are-non-member-couples-separated-after-death/feed/ 0 https://askgramps.org/does-church-doctrine-state-there-will-be-polygamy-in-the-celestial-kingdom/ https://askgramps.org/does-church-doctrine-state-there-will-be-polygamy-in-the-celestial-kingdom/#respond Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:00:14 +0000 https://askgramps.org/?p=73579 Question

Gramps,

Is there anything in church doctrine about whether polygamy will exist in the Celestial Kingdom? I have heard this, but wanted to know if it is church doctrine.

Charlene

Answer

Charlene,

This is one of those topics that tends to pop up in quiet conversations, late-night questions, or even just a passing comment in a Sunday School class: Will polygamy exist in the Celestial Kingdom? And more importantly, is that actually official doctrine in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—or just something people have speculated about over time?

Let’s take a breath and sort through it together, because there’s a lot of history, a little bit of doctrine, and a fair amount of misunderstanding wrapped up in this question.

Let’s start with the scriptural foundation. Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants is the primary source for discussing plural marriage. It presents eternal marriage as essential to exaltation and includes plural marriage as part of a commandment given at a specific time and in a specific context by Joseph Smith.

But here’s the key: even though plural marriage appears in that revelation, the Church today does not teach that it is required for exaltation.

That idea is reinforced in modern teaching. For example, the Church’s official instruction manual, Gospel Topics, states plainly:

“The standard doctrine of the Church is monogamy… Plural marriage was practiced only for a period of time under commandment from God.” (“Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” Gospel Topics Essay)

That alone already corrects a common misconception—that polygamy is somehow a standing or ongoing requirement. It’s not.

Now, where things get more complicated—and where your question really lives—is in the idea of eternity.

Some people point to the fact that a man can be sealed to more than one woman (for example, after the death of a spouse) and assume that means plural marriage must continue in the Celestial Kingdom. But Church leaders have been careful not to draw that conclusion.

In fact, Dallin H. Oaks addressed this very issue in a general conference talk. Speaking about complex sealing situations, he said:

“There is so much we do not know that our only sure reliance is to trust in the Lord and His love for His children.” (Trust in the Lord, Oct. 2019)

That’s a pretty direct acknowledgment: we don’t have all the details. And just as important, we’re not expected to figure them out on our own.

Elder Oaks has also spoken more personally about this. Because he himself is sealed to two wives (his first wife passed away), he’s had real-life reason to wrestle with the question. And his consistent message has been one of trust rather than speculation.

Similarly, Russell M. Nelson has emphasized focusing on covenants rather than trying to map out eternity. In one of his teachings on eternal marriage, he said:

“The ultimate objective of all we teach is to unite parents and children in faith in the Lord Jesus Christ… so that families can be sealed together eternally.” (Paraphrasing)

Notice what’s not there—there’s no emphasis on plural structure, only on eternal unity.

If we go back a bit further, earlier Church leaders sometimes spoke more openly about plural marriage as an eternal principle. But even then, there wasn’t a fully defined explanation of how it would function in the next life. And over time, the Church has moved away from speculation and toward a simpler, clearer focus: covenants, faithfulness, and trust in God.

President Gordon B. Hinckley made a very strong statement clarifying the Church’s position in modern times:

“I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy… If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated.”
(Mormons and Polygamy)

Now, that quote is about current practice, not eternity—but it reinforces something important: plural marriage is not part of the Church’s present doctrine or expectation for members.

So when people jump from “it existed” to “it must exist forever,” they’re filling in a gap that Church leaders themselves have intentionally left open.

And that brings us to what may be the most reassuring thread running through all of this.

Again and again, leaders emphasize who God is rather than exactly how everything will be arranged.

Elder Oaks’ statement that “all things will be made right” isn’t just a throwaway line—it’s actually the doctrinal anchor for questions like this.

Because if we’re being honest, the concern behind the question isn’t usually just theological—it’s personal. People wonder: Will eternity feel fair? Will it feel whole? Will it feel like something I actually want?

And the consistent answer from Church leaders is: trust God.

Not blindly, but based on His revealed character—just, loving, perfectly aware of each person.

So, where does all of this land go?

If you’re looking for an official Church statement that says, “Yes, polygamy will exist in the Celestial Kingdom,” it simply doesn’t exist.

What does exist is:

• Scripture that includes plural marriage as a past commandment
• Modern prophetic teaching that monogamy is the standard today
• Clear statements that we do not fully understand how eternal relationships will be organized
• Repeated reassurance that God will make everything right

So if someone confidently claims that polygamy is guaranteed in eternity, they’re stepping beyond what has actually been revealed.

A more accurate, grounded answer would be: The Church does not have an official doctrine stating that polygamy will exist in the Celestial Kingdom. The details of eternal relationships have not been fully revealed, and we trust God to organize them in a way that is perfectly just and loving.

And honestly, that leaves room for something better than speculation—it leaves room for faith.

Gramps

Gramps,

I know sexual intimacy is between a married man and woman. However, with that, I don’t know how much gray area there is when it comes to that kind of intimacy. Is the Church’s stance on this purely for the intention to conceive?

Isaac

Answer

Isaac,

From ancient scripture to contemporary prophetic counsel, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints places the marital bond at the heart of God’s plan. In the book of Abraham, it’s noted that “it is not good that the man should be alone” (see Abraham 5), leading to the creation of Eve and the commandment for Adam and Eve to be one flesh,” without shame. Physical intimacy, therefore, is established as a divine gift and commandment, meant to be exercised within the sacred confines of marriage.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks taught, “The expression of our procreative powers is pleasing to God, but He has commanded that this be confined within the relationship of marriage.” President Spencer W. Kimball further emphasized, “In the context of lawful marriage, the intimacy of sexual relations is right and divinely approved. There is nothing unholy or degrading about sexuality in itself, for by that means men and women join in a process of creation and in an expression of love.” This doctrine clarifies that marital relations—rooted in love, unity, and fidelity—are not only appropriate but essential for marital fulfillment and spiritual progression.

Physical intimacy binds couples, allowing them to fulfill the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth and to become one flesh, a union meant to transcend the carnal and embody the spiritual. As Elder Richard G. Scott explained, “Within the enduring covenant of marriage, the Lord permits husband and wife the expression of the sacred procreative powers in all their loveliness and beauty within the bounds He has set. … Another reason for these powerful and beautiful feelings of love is to bind husband and wife together in loyalty, fidelity, consideration of each other, and common purpose.”

Despite its doctrinal grounding, marital intimacy is not immune to challenge. Many Latter-day Saint couples encounter times when the sexual aspect of their marriage is troubled or even absent. While discussions in church settings often address the avoidance of sexual sin, far fewer engage with couples experiencing a lack of intimacy—a situation that can cause loneliness, frustration, and feelings of inadequacy for one or both partners.

The Church does not dictate how often couples should engage in sexual relations. Instead, it calls spouses to cultivate compassion, understanding, and patience when marital intimacy faces obstacles. Sexless marriages, though less common, may reflect underlying medical or psychological conditions or be symptomatic of deeper marital issues. The foundational principle remains: work with compassion, understanding, and patience to work through the issues.

Effective communication is vital. Couples are encouraged—before and during marriage—to address expectations, experiences, and feelings about sexuality openly. Understanding a partner’s upbringing, beliefs about sex, and any past trauma (such as abuse) is critical. Working through such challenges may require time, support, and, at times, professional help.

Both self-control and compassion are required when one partner’s sexual drive does not match the other’s. Church teachings explicitly discourage selfishness and prescribe that each spouse strive to be sensitive to the other’s comfort level and needs:

President David O. McKay counseled that marriage “does not give the man the right to enslave her, or to abuse her, or to use her merely for the gratification of his passion.” (Conference Report, Apr. 1952, 86)

 

President Spencer W. Kimball added, “If it is unnatural, you just don’t do it… all the family life should be kept clean and worthy and on a very high plane.” (Conference Report, Apr. 1974, 8–9; or Ensign, May 1974, 7)

 

President Howard W. Hunter declared, “Tenderness and respect—never selfishness—must be the guiding principles in the intimate relationship between husband and wife. … Each partner must be considerate and sensitive to the other’s needs and desires.” (Conference Report, Oct. 1994, 68; or Ensign, Nov. 1994, 51)

The aim, then, is not to conform to a prescribed frequency or checklist, but to foster a marital environment of love, trust, and mutual respect—a partnership where each person’s physical, emotional, and spiritual needs are valued and addressed.

One common worry among Latter-day Saints is reconciling the sacredness of spiritual pursuits with the physical passion found in marital intimacy. Some question whether feelings perceived as carnal or passionate might hinder one’s spirituality or standing before God. Yet, scriptural precedent and prophetic teaching affirm that marital intimacy, when exercised in covenant and love, is not only permitted but celebrated as a vital part of God’s plan.

Physical intimacy and spirituality are not mutually exclusive. The enjoyment of sexual union with a spouse can be a profound, spiritual experience, drawing couples closer both to each other and, through unity and selfless love, to God. Enjoy your relationship with your spouse in all of its facets—spiritually, emotionally, mentally, and physically. … As you live your life, you will find all the seemingly disparate areas of your life woven together in a magnificent, divine tapestry.

Rather than quenching the Spirit, marital intimacy, when characterized by love and respect, can enrich spiritual life. Over time, many couples discover that their physical union is deep, rich, and—yes—very spiritual, bearing testimony to the wholeness that God intends for His children in marriage.

While the Church provides foundational principles, it refrains from offering an explicit list of prohibited sexual behaviors between husband and wife. Instead, it teaches that what happens within the sacred bonds of matrimony should be between them and Heavenly Father. The guiding boundary is mutual consent, concern for each other’s comfort, and adherence to principles of fidelity, gentleness, and unselfish love.

This lack of explicit enumeration does not mean “anything goes.” Elder Howard W. Hunter taught that unworthy, domineering, or selfish behavior “is condemned by the Lord.” Both must feel comfortable in marital intimacy, and neither should use the other for personal gratification or act in ways that cause discomfort or harm. The Church upholds chastity before marriage and complete fidelity within it, as essential to personal holiness and the sanctity of the marital union.

In essence, a healthy intimate relationship is one in which spouses feel complete in each other, with love, happiness, and passion shared in a context of safety and trust. The Church explicitly forbids third parties and actions that degrade or dehumanize. Rather, sexual union is framed as the ultimate expression of emotional, spiritual, and physical oneness.

Latter-day Saints sometimes struggle with guilt, embarrassment, or confusion about sexuality, often shaped by a lifetime of hearing about chastity and the dangers of sexual transgression. Healthy sexuality within marriage can require a shift away from seeing sexual desire as inherently dangerous or sinful. Church teachings emphasize the divine origin of pleasure in sex and its role in promoting the happiness and unity of spouses.

As celebrated by leaders and scriptural teachings—from the pronouncements of Parley Pratt and President Boyd K. Packer to the wisdom of Proverbs—sexual union is intended to bring joy: “Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. … Be thou ravished always with her love.” (Proverbs 5:18-19)

Moreover, instead of reserving sexual intimacy only for ideal situations, spouses are encouraged to make time for each other even during hardship; loving intimacy can heal, comfort, and strengthen marriages through life’s challenges. Open communication, education, and mutual appreciation can dispel awkwardness and deepen connection.

Resources abound for couples seeking to improve communication and intimacy, from faith-aligned books to counseling that honors gospel principles. Building a joyful sexual relationship takes time, patience, and humility, but within the framework of the gospel, it becomes another avenue for discipleship, devotion, and happiness.

Gramps

Gramps,

I’ve been married to a non-member for 11 years. For the last month, I’ve been counseling with my Bishop about divorce. My husband is addicted to video games and plays 40-50 hours per week. We have 3 kids (he didn’t really want any but agreed to 2), and I have leukemia. He gets angry and loses patience a lot, especially with the kids. He barely talks to us and has even told me he doesn’t want me to do any temple work for him when he dies. When is divorce better than staying married?

Alisha

Answer

Alisha,

In the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, marriage is much more than a social contract—it’s an eternal covenant. Members are taught that marriage, especially when performed as a sealing in the temple, offers the possibility of family relationships enduring beyond this life. As President David O. McKay expressed, “In the light of scripture, ancient and modern, we are justified in concluding that Christ’s ideal pertaining to marriage is the unbroken home, and conditions that cause divorce are violations of his divine teachings. … It is Christ’s ideal that home and marriage should be perpetual—eternal.”

The decision to marry is regarded as one of life’s most important choices. However, the choice to remain married, day after day, is seen as equally crucial. The decision to stay committed in your marriage becomes just as important, if not more important, than deciding whom you should marry. It is a decision that requires an eternal commitment. If both you and your spouse have this commitment, it will guide you through not only the blissful moments but also the difficult challenges. The Church encourages couples to work through difficulties, seek help if needed (such as counseling or spiritual guidance), and strive to sustain marriages through love, forgiveness, and shared faith.

Nevertheless, the Church does not present marriage as free from challenges. Communication hurdles, unmet expectations, and life’s trials often test the strength of the marital covenant. Prophets and Church leaders have long counseled that love, humility, and commitment can heal many wounds. President Gordon B. Hinckley movingly pleaded,

“If every husband and every wife would constantly do whatever might be possible to ensure the comfort and happiness of his or her companion, there would be very little, if any, divorce. Argument would never be heard. Accusations would never be leveled. Angry explosions would not occur. Rather, love and concern would replace abuse and meanness.”

The standard is high, and the ideal is clear: marriage is intended to last forever. Yet, as history, scripture, and lived experience attest, exceptions are part of the mortal journey.

Despite the ideal of eternal marriage, the Church acknowledges that in a fallen world, not all marriages can or should continue. The heartache of betrayal, abuse, or persistent unhappiness weighs heavily on individuals and families. For some, remaining in a marriage would cause more harm than good.

One often-misunderstood aspect of Church doctrine is that while divorce is not encouraged, it is also not condemned when it is the lesser of two evils. There are legitimate, scripturally and historically supported grounds for ending a marriage. Abuse and adultery are two commonly acknowledged grounds, but there are also cases where the Lord may guide an individual through revelation and personal peace. A powerful reminder from early Church history notes that, “Women could obtain a divorce more easily in Utah than in any part of the United States at that time.” Contrary to common misconception, the Church has long left room for women (and men) to escape marriages that bring unbearable sorrow.

The process for considering divorce is deeply individual, involving prayer, counseling with Church leaders, and seeking spiritual confirmation. As one Church leader advised when confronted with a member pondering divorce: “When you contemplate divorce, do you feel peace?… Satan cannot imitate peace. I counsel you to ask the Lord if you should continue to work on your marriage and wait and see if that brings you some peace.” The principle is to seek the will of God, not just personal comfort or convenience.

Still, for many members, divorce feels like an admission of failure, a contradiction of gospel ideals, or a forfeiture of promised blessings. Yet, Church teachings, rooted in both doctrine and compassion, are unequivocal: The Lord does not desire His children to remain captives in relationships that debilitate rather than uplift. The Book of Mormon and Church history contain numerous examples of escape as part of our heritage, as individuals and families left dangerous circumstances for their spiritual and temporal well-being. Sometimes, the precious thing to leave behind is a marriage that is causing harm.

Importantly, the Church requires that separated couples refrain from dating until their divorce is official, maintaining fidelity until the marriage is legally and ecclesiastically dissolved.

Divorce, regardless of its justifications or necessity, is never easy. It can feel akin to a bereavement—a loss not only of a relationship, but of dreams, plans, and even spiritual expectations. One Church member reflected,

“In some ways, divorce seemed like experiencing the death of a loved one. I wondered whether the possibility of an eternal family for me was now void…. Over time, I learned I had to go through the steps of grieving—denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. I never experienced the steps in that exact sequence, and some of them still come and go, but I have faced each of them to some degree… Despite the abuse and heartache that happened in my own marriage and the shock and pain that accompanied my divorce, the learning and growth that continue to come from these experiences have been my greatest blessings. I have learned to rely on the Lord and to become an advocate for myself.”

Here, the journey of healing is not portrayed as linear, nor is it guaranteed to be complete within a set timeframe. Rather, it is a process requiring faith, self-reflection, and the support of loving friends and family.

The Church provides spiritual resources for the divorced, emphasizing that healing comes through Christ. President Thomas S. Monson once said, “Choose your love; love your choice.” This resonates in the context of healing: we can choose to heal, forgive, and move forward. Reading scripture, praying, and fostering healthy friendships can all help restore a sense of self-worth and belonging, as those who have been wounded by marital failure rediscover their identity as beloved children of God.

Forgiveness, both of oneself and an ex-spouse, is a particularly challenging but liberating part of this journey. Trusting in Christ’s healing power and His ability to “bind up the broken heart” (Isaiah 61:1–3) brings eventual peace—a peace that, as noted earlier, cannot be counterfeited or faked. The Church encourages members to remember that every soul’s worth is “priceless in the eyes of God,” and that suffering is never the end of the story but often the refining flame that brings new faith and wisdom.

The journey forward might include renewed spiritual practices, seeking professional counseling, serving others, or even, eventually, the hope of new, healthy relationships. Importantly, Church doctrine affirms that promises of eternal blessings are not forever lost because of divorce. Each person’s ultimate standing is determined by their worthiness and faithfulness, and the Lord, in His wisdom, will determine the status of each of us in the eternities.

Ultimately, each member is invited to seek personal revelation, exercise charity, and trust that the Lord will not only bind up broken hearts but will keep His promises, allowing for new hope and happiness ahead.

Gramps

Gramps,

Why should we care how others live their lives? 

Nathan

Answer

When Jesus was asked to identify the greatest law, He responded candidly: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. … And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (see Matthew 22:37-39). Notably, He attached equal significance to loving others as to loving God, emphasizing that “on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

Within the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this commandment is inseparable from the first. To love God is to love His children—all of them—without discrimination or exclusion. Love is a powerful motivator to perform good works. The Book of Mormon instructs us that if we have ‘faith, hope, and charity… [we] will always abound in good works.’” Charity, as described by the Apostle Paul and echoed in the Book of Mormon, is not easily provoked, thinks no evil, and endures all things.

Central to this doctrine is the understanding that charity—the pure love of Christ—makes loving one’s neighbor not just an obligation but an opportunity to transform both self and society. As Joseph Smith taught,

“Nothing is so much calculated to lead people to forsake sin as to take them by the hand, and watch over them with tenderness. When persons manifest the least kindness and love to me, O what power it has over my mind….”

The Church teaches that everyone is a literal child of Heavenly Father, and that showing genuine compassion brings us closer to Him and to each other.

One might assume it’s easy to love everyone when surrounded by like-minded individuals. Yet the world is teeming with diversity—different cultures, beliefs, political opinions, and life experiences. Even within a single congregation, complete uniformity of thought or personality is a myth.

Having the ability to compare and contrast ideas is a great blessing, enriching discussions and deepening friendships. But when differences turn into divisions—when other viewpoints are viewed as threats—kindness is often the first casualty. Social media, especially, creates what has been called an “echo chamber,” reinforcing our own views and making it even more difficult to truly listen or empathize with others.

How often do we justify not helping a neighbor? When we pass by someone in need—at a street corner or in our own community—it’s easy to rationalize inaction by blaming their circumstances or doubting their intentions. “Their own poor decisions are what got them there … so they aren’t my responsibility.” Yet, as Church leaders and scripture repeatedly point out, none of these justifications are valid. … We must do all we can do. … All we can see is what is right in front of us, and that should be motivation enough to help.

The Savior’s example in the parable of the Good Samaritan reminds us that love is not passive—it is proactive, crossing boundaries of comfort, prejudice, and even personal risk. True discipleship requires personal effort and an awareness that the responsibility to care for the poor and needy is not just collective but also individual.

Many find that real acts of love—delivering a meal, opening up to an outsider, or forgiving a hurt—can invoke anxiety, fear of rejection, or discomfort with difference. We do not grow if we remain in our comfort zones. Charity is a wonderful way to become more Christlike and to love people who are different than you.

Perhaps the highest test of loving our neighbor is the call to serve those we dislike or misunderstand. Words attributed to Abraham Lincoln, “I don’t like that man. I must get to know him better,” members are encouraged to reach out actively. Any act of service opens our hearts to those we serve. After all, we will truly be serving our Lord.

Notably, acts of service not only bring blessings to recipients but also healing, happiness, and spiritual refinement to the giver. President Dieter F. Uchtdorf taught,

“As we extend our hands and hearts toward others in Christlike love, something wonderful happens to us. Our own spirits become healed, more refined, and stronger. We become happier, more peaceful, and more receptive to the whisperings of the Holy Spirit.”

True inclusion—where we genuinely invite those different from us into our lives, not just our communities—requires effort, humility, and seeing others as God sees them. The early Christian Saints in Jerusalem and later the Nephites in the Americas experienced remarkable unity when “they had all things common among them … there were not rich and poor … but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift” (see Acts 2:44-47; 4 Nephi 1:2-3). Such unity, the Church teaches, does not demand sameness but celebrates the divine worth and agency of every child of God.

President Russell M. Nelson, addressing social and political divisions, urged:

“Simply stated, we strive to build bridges of cooperation rather than walls of segregation … We are all connected, and we have a God-given responsibility to help make life better for those around us. We don’t have to be alike or look alike to have love for each other. We don’t even have to agree with each other to love each other.”

Central to loving one’s neighbor is alleviating suffering and inequality. Scripture plainly states, “it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin” (Doctrine & Covenants 49:20). If each of us had as much concern for others as we have for ourselves, essentially all of our social problems would be solved. Selfishness and self-interest lie at the root of many of our social ills.

The Church’s welfare program and humanitarian relief, inspired by biblical teachings (see Matthew 25:35-36), show that one of the main factors in that final judgment will be how willing we were to help others during this life. Helping others is expected not out of compulsion, but as an act of the heart. As President Marion G. Romney noted, “The efficacy of our prayers depends upon our liberality to the poor.”

Many resources encourage beginning with what you have and where you are—whether delivering a meal, making a donation, or simply offering a listening ear. Whatever and however you choose to give, start giving. Right now. … The Lord commanded us to care for the poor and needy, not just collectively but individually. This is your charge and obligation.

If fear or social anxiety is holding you back, try stepping outside your comfort zone with a simple act. Even small acts ripple outward in ways we cannot predict or control.

If you struggle to love those very different from you, one useful principle is to understand men and women as they are, and not understand them as you are. As Brother Brigham Young counseled,

“Your hearts should be filled with kindness—with brotherly, angelic feeling—to overlook their faults as far as possible. … It is for God to judge, condemn, punish, reward … but not for men. He will forgive whom he will forgive, but of us he required to forgive all men.” 

Practice listening with humility and patience, even to those you disagree with. Whether in person or online, aim to build bridges, not walls. Cooperation and goodwill are the foundations of peace and progress.

Gramps

Gramps,

In the Book of Mormon, it is recounted that a previous Lamanite was recruited by the Nephites to trick the Lamanite guards into drinking strong wine, thereby helping rescue Nephite prisoners.  He, of course, lied that he was an escaped prisoner.  My question then is whether or not lying is sometimes justified, for example, a CIA agent must lie to serve their country.

Spencer

Answer

Spencer,

From childhood, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are taught that honesty is essential. The commandment “Thou shalt not lie” echoes through scripture and across the pulpits of Sunday meetings. There is no question that we need to be honest in our thoughts, actions, and comments … Satan is the father of all lies … [and] the Lord commands us … Thou shalt not lie; he that lieth and will not repent shall be cast out. He did not tell us that it was okay to tell a ‘white,’ ‘little,’ for ‘fun’ lie.”

Scriptural warnings associate lying with other gross sins, such as murder and adultery. To lie is as gross a sin as any of the others … because when one tells a lie, it can never do good, but only direct people to that which is not true or which will not happen or leave an unsavory false impression of the character of someone else. This view shows the serious consequences of dishonesty in spiritual and social life.

But is the moral command to be honest always absolute? Or do exceptional circumstances permit, or even require, a different approach?

Every day experiences often muddy the clarity of black-and-white moral rules. What about the call center worker required by an employer to lie to customers, or the parent who struggles over whether to keep the magic of Santa alive? What about lying to save a life in times of war or persecution?

To the call center worker: No one is forcing you to stay or to be dishonest. Whether or not you are dishonest is a choice you make every day. As such, you have the choice to remain or leave… if you feel you are being dishonest, then I hope you will actively seek another job opportunity to find peace within your own heart. This counsel highlights that integrity involves both action and intent. Excuses—no matter how practical or commonplace—do not erase the personal responsibility for one’s choices.

For many, the question of harmless or so-called “white” lies is especially alluring. Consider the issue of Santa Claus. Is it wrong to perpetuate childhood myths? 

The consensus? Each family must decide how they will handle it with their own children, monitoring not just words, but also the lessons those words teach. Kids are not what we say, but what we do; and we must set a good example for them to follow.

But what about deception used to shield the innocent or prevent harm? Church history, scripture, and even biblical precedent suggest occasions when withholding truth—or even outright lying—may serve a higher purpose.

The story of Abraham, who described his wife Sarai as his sister to the Pharaoh, is one such example: In order to prevent this from happening, Abraham obeyed the words of the Lord, and as a result, his life was spared … Did Abram speak the truth? Yes. Did Abram speak the whole truth? No. The bottom-line principle invoked is that, sometimes, protecting or preserving life may outweigh absolute transparency—especially when following divine command or revelation.

This complicated dilemma recurs throughout history. During World War II, hiding refugees or buying food on the black market presented moral quandaries. What would Jesus do? We know from the life of our Savior that Jesus trusted in His Father’s love, His Father’s will … He would have prayed to know His Father’s will; once revealed, he would have followed. In all such cases, whatever His Father revealed would be right and obeyed. In essence, the guidance of personal revelation and the alignment with God’s will take precedence during moral dilemmas.

Some situations require discernment between outright lying and skillful manipulation for good. Police stings, parental guidance, and even staged interventions may employ deception for righteous ends. Let’s differentiate between manipulation and bearing false witness: The police are manipulating a situation to attract those who normally engage in such activity … Parents manipulate their children to help them uncover the truth, identify the consequences of lying, and lead lives of integrity … the ends justify the means. While this viewpoint is not universally held, it reflects a pragmatic recognition of intent and outcome in specific cases.

Despite these nuanced considerations, the long-term consequences of dishonesty are clear within Church teaching. Lying destroys trust—a vital element in relationships with others and with God. When you lie, the person who will tell one lie can never be trusted with anything that he says, because if he lies about one thing, one never knows when he may be telling the truth. So it is useless to listen to, or therefore have anything to do with, a person who cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

Sin—especially habitual lying—can create spiritual chains that are too strong to be broken. Being trapped in the snares of dishonesty and misrepresentation does not happen instantaneously. One little lie or dishonest act leads to another until the perpetrator is caught in the web of deceit. This image is both cautionary and illuminating. Even when no apparent harm results, the spiritual toll on the liar can be profound, leading to guilt, loss of self-respect, and a diminished ability to feel the Spirit.

Repentance, here, requires more than a plea to God. When possible, it may necessitate confession, apology, and restitution to those deceived. What would be the harm in telling the person you lied to that it was a lie? Would you be embarrassed? … All of those are very real possibilities, but we need to ask ourselves, are we really trying to change our ways? True repentance is uncomfortable but ultimately liberating.

Church history itself grapples with complex questions of honesty and necessity. For example, Joseph Smith’s denials regarding the practice of plural marriage have drawn scrutiny. Historians suggest that Smith may have felt compelled to use evasive language to protect others and shield his faith community amid legal and social threats—a move reminiscent of biblical precedents. Brian C. Hale wrote: “When contextualized, the denials of polygamy appear to represent a singular behavior, rather than the tip of a prevarication iceberg for Joseph and the other Saints.” The line between divine mandate, personal risk, and truth-telling is seldom neat in history.

Furthermore, early Christian thinkers sometimes justified useful deception or air deception in the administration of church affairs to help [their communities] along or to protect the reach of evil, wicked, and conspiring men. While such reasoning has its critics, it does show how the imperative to do good often interacts in complicated ways with the command to be honest.

For individuals who have lied and feel the pangs of regret, all is not lost. Repentance and the demonstration of integrity in future actions can restore trust and self-respect, though the full resolution of this will take time. The trust can be rebuilt, but only as your actions demonstrate. The journey toward honesty is deeply personal, shaped by both divine guidance and our willingness to make amends.

Ultimately, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are encouraged to saturate their lives and testimony with truth. Hugh Nibley eloquently warns:

“By the word alone we make a common universe of discourse. So we can easily see why we should watch our words with fear and trembling, and why a lie is the most heinous of all crimes … The person who will tell one lie can never be trusted with anything that he says, because if he lies about one thing one never knows when he may be telling the truth.” The cumulative message is clear: a commitment to honesty is a divine mandate, necessary for real relationships, the building of Zion, and peace of soul. (Hugh Nibley, H. (1979). Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints. In The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley (Vol. 13, p. 390). [PDF])

In the end, honesty isn’t just about keeping rules—it’s about becoming a trustworthy soul, someone who can be entrusted by God and loved ones alike. As each of us faces our own dilemmas—big and small—may we have the integrity to both seek and act according to the highest truth.

Gramps

Gramps,

What religions are most similar to us? How can I relate to my friends of other religions?

Marlena

Answer

Marlena,

Despite real doctrinal differences, there is a surprising overlap among many world religions and the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Fundamental principles—love, service, kindness, forgiveness, and the quest for truth—can be found in nearly every religious tradition.

For example, the virtues of serving the needy, loving one’s neighbor, and practicing compassion are cornerstones in both Christianity and various other religions, such as Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. The experience of Khalid Al Ameri, a Muslim who broke his fast with a Latter-day Saint family, beautifully illustrates this point:

“What I have learned today from a family of Latter-day Saints … is that above all, the similarities in our religion is a foundation that we both share — and that is to be good people and to be kind to those around us … What the learned together is the importance of simply being good the best way we know how. When we look around, we find that and see that in other people. That is what brings us closer together; that is what makes this world a better place.”

A sincere exchange between faiths is as much about finding shared values as it is about understanding differences. Many religions, including Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, hold prayer, fasting, and studying sacred texts in high regard. Kindness, hope, faith, and humanitarian efforts are universally treasured. Embracing these commonalities can deepen one’s own spiritual life while fostering authentic bonds of friendship and respect.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has an explicit tradition of seeking and upholding truth wherever it is found. Brigham Young declared:

It is our duty and calling, as ministers of the same salvation and Gospel, to gather every item of truth and reject every error. Whether a truth be found with professed infidels, or with the Universalists, or the Church of Rome, or the Methodists, the Church of England, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Quakers, the Shakers, or any other of the various and numerous different sects and parties, all of whom have more or less truth, it is the business of the Elders of this Church (Jesus, their Elder Brother, being at their head) to gather up all the truths in the world pertaining to life and salvation, to the Gospel we preach, … to the sciences, and to philosophy, wherever it may be found in every nation, kindred, tongue, and people and bring it to Zion (DBY, 248).

Personal reflections and stories from Church members illustrate how learning about other religious traditions not only builds bridges but also strengthens character and deepens discipleship within the Church. Consider a few vivid examples:

Many Latter-day Saints admire the Catholic faith for its ancient traditions, rituals, and its global emphasis on service and healing. As one Latter-day Saint observed, lessons of compassion and prioritizing the needy—summed up by Pope Francis’s teaching that “the church needs most today … to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful”—can inspire increased acts of kindness and empathy amongst Latter-day Saints.

The evangelical community’s enthusiasm for the Bible, reliance on grace, and commitment to sharing faith are often cited as examples that Latter-day Saints can emulate to improve their own scripture study and outreach.

Jewish contributions to humanity—despite frequent adversity—demonstrate perseverance, scholarship, and a celebration of faith. These are traits that Latter-day Saints often admire and may strive to incorporate in facing their own challenges.

With half a billion followers, Buddhism’s emphasis on meditation, peace, and compassionate living offers lessons in humility, awareness, and intentional living that can enrich daily discipleship for Church members.

The Muslim focus on prayer, discipline, charity, and familial bonds echoes many Latter-day Saint priorities. Shared values exist in the daily application of one’s beliefs and in the struggle for fair representation and understanding in the public eye.

Even those of less familiar or more controversial traditions offer positive examples: Jehovah’s Witnesses excel in missionary outreach, and Scientologists are known for their addiction recovery programs. Each example is a building block for greater appreciation and understanding.

Notwithstanding these points of intersection, studies indicate that many Latter-day Saints are unfamiliar with other faiths. In a 2019 Pew Research Center survey, members of the Church averaged less than 7 out of 15 on a quiz covering world religions—one of the lowest scores among Christian denominations. Yet, increased religious knowledge is consistently linked to more positive views of other groups, creating a virtuous cycle of respect, dialogue, and friendship.

How can this change?

1. Having candid, respectful conversations with friends and neighbors of other faiths is the best way to gain understanding. Asking others about their beliefs with genuine interest can illuminate similarities and foster empathy, reducing fear and misunderstanding.

2. While sharing your faith is natural, authentic friendship should not be conditional on another’s interest in the Church. Relationships must be built—and maintained—on mutual respect, regardless of religious choices.

3. Comparative religion classes, books, and Church resources (such as “The Restored Gospel and World Religions” course in the Church’s Institute program) provide accessible and truthful platforms to gain understanding.

4. People outside the Church have spiritual experiences of their own. Validating these moments, rather than dismissing them, is a potent way to forge mutual respect.

5. At the end of the day, most people seek similar things: a strong family, a sense of purpose, kindness, and a better world. M. Russell Ballard taught,

“For the most part, our neighbors not of our faith are good, honorable people—every bit as good and honorable as we strive to be. … They are kind and loving and generous and faithful, just like we seek to be.”

Essential to the restored gospel is the notion of inclusivity and the recognition that “all spiritual paths have value.” In the words of Dr. Mauro Properzi, “Learning about other religions is a pragmatic necessity rooted in a spiritual foundation for Latter-day Saints who want to build effective and mutually fulfilling relationships of collaboration.” The balance between the Church’s unique doctrinal claims and its charitable recognition of general religious goodness creates a harmony that can encompass all truth.

The ties between the Church and world religions go even deeper when examining doctrines such as the eternal progression of the soul (paralleling Hindu beliefs in spiritual development), or universal compassion and oneness (echoes of Buddhist and Hindu thought). The gospel’s breadth allows for a perspective that is broad, inclusive, and transformative.

If you’re ready to widen your heart and enrich your understanding, start today. Ask a friend about their faith. Read a new perspective. Celebrate how much good can be found across the world’s faiths.

Gramps

Gramps,

I realize that we are to remain completely chaste before marriage, but what about cohabiting with single persons of the opposite sex in a completely platonic arrangement? Does church policy have a specific stance? If circumstances require that living arrangements be coed, and the law of chastity is not being broken,  it seems to me that this shouldn’t be a problem.

Sheldon

Answer

Sheldon,

One of the core teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is regarding sexuality and relationships, called the Law of Chastity. This commandment calls for complete abstinence from sexual relations before marriage and total fidelity within marriage. But the Law of Chastity is not limited to specific acts; it encompasses thoughts, actions, and living situations that may lead to temptation or the perception of moral compromise.

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, a senior leader in the Church, powerfully taught about the sacredness of intimate relationships and the necessity of expressing this intimacy solely within the bounds of marriage:

Human intimacy is reserved for a married couple because it is the ultimate symbol of total union, a totality and a union ordained and defined by God…” He then added, “Such a total union, such an unyielding commitment between a man and a woman, can only come with the proximity and permanence afforded in a marriage covenant, with solemn promises and the pledge of all they possess—their very hearts and minds, all their days and all their dreams.

Shared living spaces between unmarried men and women—even if intended to be purely platonic—can challenge adherence to the Law of Chastity and place individuals in situations that may erode the boundaries they wish to maintain. Many relationships that begin as strictly platonic can develop into something more, putting both individuals at risk of violating their values, even unintentionally.

When it comes to cohabitation between unmarried couples in a romantic relationship, the stance of The Church is clear. Living together before marriage is discouraged not merely because it increases the risk of sexual transgression (though it certainly does), but also because it undermines the level of commitment necessary for a strong marital foundation.

Research and experience show that couples who cohabit before marriage are, statistically, less likely to possess the lasting commitment integral to a stable marriage. In the words of one counselor responding to a concerned parent of a cohabiting son:

…cohabitation is both morally wrong and it increases the likelihood of break-up or divorce (85% of these relationships end within 5 years whether they get married later or not, according to the research we did).

This data reflects the experience that the stability of marriage is most secure when both parties are willing to make formal, binding commitments to one another before beginning life together. The Church teaches that marriage is not ‘just a piece of paper,’ but rather the sacred, public, and legal declaration of mutual commitment—a prerequisite for both the romantic and practical foundations of family life.

Some members, especially young single adults or college students, may wonder about purely platonic living arrangements with someone of the opposite sex. On this issue, the guidance is less about explicit rules and more about principles and wisdom. I’ve said in the past:

I’m not aware of any specific Church policy prohibiting the practice, but in general, platonic cohabitation strikes me as a most unwise arrangement both because it courts temptation and because it presents the appearance of evil, which we are taught to avoid.

This counsel emphasizes two critical concerns:

1. Human nature and experience show that boundaries can blur over time.

2. Even if no breach of chastity occurs, others may perceive impropriety. The Apostle Paul taught, “Abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:22).

In summary, while there may not be a direct prohibition against platonic cohabitation between single church members, the recommendation is strong against it due to the risks to one’s reputation, example to others, and emotional and spiritual well-being.

The emphasis on avoiding the “appearance of evil” is not just a matter of individual morality; it is a concern for the community. Members of The Church are taught to be “examples of the believers,” mindful that actions, however innocent in intention, may influence those with weaker faith or outside observers considering joining the faith.

President James E. Faust once said:

Staying away from the edge is an individual responsibility… Our moral agency requires us to know good from evil and choose the good. If we are trying to avoid, not only evil, but the very appearance of evil, we will act for ourselves and not be acted upon.

These principles are especially crucial given the Church’s high priority on family, youth, and missionary efforts. The example set by members in their everyday lives often speaks as powerfully as sermons or lessons.

Gramps

Gramps,

The New Testament says there will be no marriage in heaven. Yet we marry in the temple for time and eternity. What does the New Testament really say?

Shasta

Answer

Dear Shasta,

The verses which teach this principle are as follows:

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Mark 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

Doctrine and Covenants 132:16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

Note the parts I put in bold.  It does not say they are not in the state of being married.  It does not say no people are living within the bonds of marriage.  It says that the act or ceremony or ordinance of marrying is not performed.  For reasons that have not been revealed, this ordinance, like all others we are familiar with, must be performed in mortality, by mortals, either for themselves, or acting as a proxy for those who have died.

Now let’s look at the surrounding verses from Doctrine and Covenants 132:

13 And everything that is in the world, whether it be ordained of men, by thrones, or principalities, or powers, or things of name, whatsoever they may be, that are not by me or by my word, saith the Lord, shall be thrown down, and shall not remain after men are dead, neither in nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your God.

 

14 For whatsoever things remain are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me shall be shaken and destroyed.

 

15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

 

16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

 

17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

 

18 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.

These verses clearly teach the sealing power, that only those things which have been ordained of God, performed with priesthood authority via the proper ordinance, which must be done in mortality, and then sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, will be valid after death.

I hope this clarifies the meaning of the scriptures in question and helps you to see the importance of pondering exactly what is and is not being said in them.  I encourage you to study what the scriptures teach both about marriage and about the sealing power.

Gramps

Gramps,

This is a deep question, and I discussed it with my grandfather. I was wondering if there is a definitive answer. Is individualism a principle of the gospel or the adversary?

Luis

Answer

Luis,

Gramps

Gramps,

The Church’s traditional culture (specifically in the US) has long been part of my family’s culture. I understand that customs aren’t doctrine and are subject to change. However, it’s still hard to listen to mission companions talk about how “it’s a good thing that we’re moving away from all that boring stuff,” and friends excitedly talking about how we can move on from the older hymns now. How can I better accept the cultural changes without feeling like we’re losing ourselves?

Erica

Answer

Dear Erica,

I have no way of knowing how you can best deal with these changes, but I have some ideas that might help, and perhaps through them, you will find what works best for you.

First, I must restate the obvious: Jesus Christ is the answer to every problem. The more intently you focus on Him and His doctrine, the less important other things and other people’s preferences will be. Through prayer, you can ask God to teach you and to soften your heart, so that you can view these changes through His eyes, or learn from Him how to rejoice in seeing the variety of ways that others enjoy the gospel. You can also express your love for our traditional culture and sorrow at the possibility of its loss. You can ask the Lord how to help others see beauty in the things you love, and to help you avoid letting these changes become a stumbling block for you or others.

Remember that losing ourselves is exactly what Christ has asked us to do.

Second, just because someone else doesn’t enjoy “If You Could Hie to Kolob” doesn’t mean you can’t continue to enjoy it to no end.  Yes, as things change, your shared experience will change, but your personal and family experiences can focus wherever you choose to focus them.

Third, share your passion. Some have speculated that the new hymns, for example, are to help converts feel more “at home” through hymns they recognize. Perhaps you can befriend a convert and share with each other which hymns you enjoy, and why, so that both are edified.  I have a friend who believes that changes in the presentation of the endowment are to help young members and converts, who grew up without symbolism as a common language, learn faster and better how and why to live their covenants – to discover sooner the deeper meanings to be found in the temple. If you have an understanding of those symbols, through your family culture, perhaps you can go to the temple with a friend and help them to see the beauty in the symbols there.

Can you speak passionately about how thrilling “all that boring stuff” actually is? If so, share your passion with your friends, and celebrate their passion for the new, even if you can’t feel excited about it yourself.  At the end of the day, you have a choice: mourn alone, or celebrate together. Choose to celebrate together! Everything that brings anyone to Christ is a good thing.  You don’t have to love the new hymns, but if a new hymn or a policy change or some other new thing is what it takes to bring even one soul to Jesus Christ, should we not welcome it and rejoice?

Fourth, have you ever wondered how Latter-day Saints in Peru, or Russia, or Vietnam, or Samoa, or Zambia perceive our hymns and traditions? What you are experiencing may help you to have compassion for others in similar situations. Spending time “in their shoes” – together with a prayer to ask the Lord to help you – might give you the sort of perspective that will help you to welcome additions to our culture.

Fifth, perhaps additions are exactly what they are. The addition of new doesn’t always require the removal of old, even if the frequency changes.  Once again, going to the Lord may help you to see how the Lord would have you change.

Finally, changes to something you love “as-is” are hard. Yet the gospel of Jesus Christ is all about change. As the Lord’s coming draws closer, we will all have to change faster than ever before, and sadly, wickedness will increase at an accelerating pace as well. Perhaps changes in music and policy are to help us learn to better adapt to change. Didn’t the Come, Follow Me program and “2-hour Sunday meetings” changes help us adapt to the impact of COVID-19? Trust that the Lord knows what He’s doing. Trust that these changes are for good reason. Go to Him in prayer, testify of your trust, and ask Him what He would have you do to help you make the most of these changes. Then get up and do whatever He instructs – whether it’s to shore up your firm foundation, or to let your light shine, or whatever else.

I trust that the Lord is in charge. I testify that He and His gospel are what matters, and that learning to be guided by the Holy Ghost is essential. Focus your efforts here, Erica!  Stay true, and the Lord will see you through whatever changes may come.

Gramps