Gramps,

In Daniel 10, it says that a “Prince of Persia” delayed the message that Daniel should have received by 21 days, and that Michael had to come to help. I know the main message of these verses is that our prayers are heard and will be answered, but who is the Prince of Persia, and how could they stop a message from heaven? Was it Satan? Other faiths interpret this part of Daniel as a glimpse into an ever-raging spiritual battle; does our doctrine support this too? Help please!

Caitie

Answer

Caitie,

One of the fascinating things about the Old Testament is that every now and then we get a glimpse of what is happening behind the scenes in the spiritual world. Daniel 10 is one of those passages. It raises some interesting questions: Who was the Prince of Persia? Was he Satan or one of his followers? Could an evil spirit actually prevent a heavenly messenger from delivering a message? And does Latter-day Saint doctrine support the idea of an ongoing spiritual battle between the forces of good and evil?

The answer is yes! In fact, when we look at Daniel 10 through the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we find some interesting connections to other scriptures and to our understanding of the premortal conflict between Christ and Satan.

In Daniel 10, Daniel had been praying, fasting, and seeking understanding from the Lord for three weeks. He was concerned about what he had seen in a vision and wanted to understand its meaning. When a heavenly messenger finally appeared, he explained something Daniel probably wasn’t expecting. In Daniel 10:12–13, the messenger told him,

“Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words.”

He then explained that “the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days,” but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help him.

Think about what the messenger was telling Daniel. His prayers had been heard from the very first day! God had not ignored him or forgotten him. A messenger had been sent, but that messenger encountered opposition that delayed his arrival. The source of that opposition was identified as the Prince of Persia.

This is where the passage becomes especially interesting. The messenger wasn’t simply describing a disagreement with an ordinary Persian king. The language suggests that something was happening in the spiritual realm. So, who was this Prince of Persia? Was it Satan?

According to the Church’s Old Testament Student Manual, the Prince of Persia was not a mortal ruler but rather the leader of evil spiritual forces that support the unrighteous dominion of the world’s kingdoms.

The manual goes even further, suggesting that if this interpretation is correct, “then Satan or one of his host is the prince spoken of.” This is an important distinction. The scripture itself never gives us the individual’s exact identity, so we shouldn’t claim that it specifically names Satan. However, the Church’s instructional material does recognize that the Prince of Persia could have been Satan or one of the fallen spirits who followed him. In other words, Daniel was being shown that earthly events could involve spiritual opposition that isn’t always visible to us.

Another interesting aspect of this account is Michael’s involvement. Latter-day Saint doctrine identifies Michael as the premortal name of Adam, who is also known as the archangel. The Church’s Guide to the Scriptures identifies Michael as Adam and cites Daniel 10:13, in which Michael comes to help the heavenly messenger. This is significant because Michael appears in other scriptures connected with the conflict between good and evil. Revelation 12:7–9 describes a war in heaven in which Michael and his angels fight against Satan and his followers. Jude 1:9 also describes Michael contending with the devil.

We find another reference to this conflict in Doctrine and Covenants 88:112–115, which describes a future time when Michael will gather his armies and fight against Satan and his followers. When we put these passages together, we begin to see that Michael has an important role in God’s work and in opposing the forces of evil. His appearance in Daniel 10 isn’t an isolated detail; it fits into a much larger scriptural picture of the spiritual conflict that has existed since before the creation of this earth.

This brings us to another question: Does Latter-day Saint doctrine teach that there is an ongoing spiritual war? Absolutely! The conflict between good and evil is central to our understanding of the plan of salvation. We believe that it began in the premortal existence when Satan rebelled against Heavenly Father’s plan and sought to take away the agency of God’s children. He was cast out of heaven, along with those who followed him (Moses 4:1–4; Revelation 12:7–9). However, being cast out did not mean that Satan and his followers stopped trying to oppose God’s work. They continue to tempt, deceive, discourage, and influence individuals toward wickedness.

Paul describes this spiritual struggle in Ephesians 6:12, writing,

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

This scripture fits remarkably well with what we read in Daniel 10. Paul is reminding us that not every struggle is simply physical or earthly. There are spiritual forces working against righteousness. The Book of Mormon teaches the same principle. In 2 Nephi 2:27, Lehi explains that we are free to choose liberty and eternal life through Christ or captivity and death through the power of the devil. Satan wants to lead God’s children away from Him, while Heavenly Father continually works to bring us back into His presence.

Of course, we should remember that Satan is not equal to God in power. Latter-day Saints believe that he is a spirit who rebelled against God, not a being who can challenge God’s ultimate authority. He can tempt and influence, but he cannot force us to surrender our agency or prevent God from accomplishing His purposes.

So, can Satan or his followers actually interfere with heavenly messages? Daniel 10 certainly gives us reason to believe that evil spiritual beings can oppose the work of God’s messengers. However, the chapter doesn’t explain exactly how the Prince of Persia opposed the messenger. We aren’t told whether this involved a direct spiritual confrontation, an attempt to influence earthly rulers, or something else. We simply know that there was opposition in the spiritual realm and that Michael came to assist. It is also important not to assume that every unanswered prayer, delayed blessing, or difficult circumstance is caused by Satan. We don’t always understand why answers come when they do, and Daniel’s experience doesn’t give us a reason to attribute every delay to spiritual interference.

Perhaps the most comforting lesson in the entire chapter is actually found in Daniel 10:12. Before explaining the opposition he encountered, the messenger made sure Daniel understood that his prayers had been heard from the very first day. Daniel had been praying for 21 days, and from his perspective, he hadn’t received the answer he was seeking. He could easily have wondered whether God was listening. But heaven had heard him immediately, and a messenger had already been sent.

That is a wonderful reminder for all of us. Sometimes we mistake the absence of an immediate answer for the absence of God’s attention, but those are two very different things. We may not see everything happening in the spiritual world, understand what the Lord is arranging, or know why certain answers take time. Nevertheless, we can trust that Heavenly Father hears our sincere prayers. Doctrine and Covenants 6:36 gives us a simple but powerful reminder: “Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not.”

I think Daniel 10 offers one of the most interesting glimpses into the unseen spiritual world in the Old Testament. According to the Church’s Old Testament Student Manual, the Prince of Persia was likely Satan or one of his followers, and Michael (Adam) came to assist the heavenly messenger who was being opposed. While we cannot know every detail of what happened, the account certainly supports the broader Latter-day Saint understanding that spiritual opposition is real and that the battle between good and evil continues.

But perhaps the greatest lesson isn’t identifying every spiritual being involved in Daniel’s experience. It is recognizing that Daniel’s prayers were heard even when he couldn’t see what was happening. Sometimes we are waiting for an answer and have no idea what the Lord is doing behind the scenes. Daniel’s experience reminds us that a delay does not necessarily mean that God hasn’t heard us. Sometimes heaven is working on our behalf long before we recognize an answer is coming.

Gramps

Gramps,

Was there a Priesthood lineage during Joseph of Egypt and the calling of Moses?

Robert

Answer

Robert,

According to the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, priesthood authority existed long before Moses led the children of Israel out of Egypt. The Doctrine and Covenants teaches that priesthood authority can be traced back to Adam and continued through generations of righteous servants of God.

Latter-day Saints believe that priesthood authority is the power and authority God gives His servants to act in His name. It did not begin with Moses or with the organization of ancient Israel. According to latter-day revelation, priesthood authority existed from the beginning.

Doctrine and Covenants 84:6-17 provides an important explanation of the priesthood’s ancient history. It teaches that the priesthood was given to Adam and continued through generations of God’s servants. The Lord explains that Abel received the priesthood through his father, Adam. The revelation also identifies Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and other individuals in the history of priesthood authority.

Doctrine and Covenants 107:40-57 also discusses the patriarchal order and the transmission of priesthood authority through the generations, including the relationship between Adam and his righteous descendants.

These passages establish an important principle in Latter-day Saint teaching: God did not wait until Moses’s time to establish priesthood authority. It was already part of His work among His children.

Joseph of Egypt was the son of Jacob, also known as Israel, and the great-grandson of Abraham. His story is found primarily in Genesis 37–50. Joseph was clearly a man whom God called to accomplish an important purpose. Through revelation, he interpreted dreams, warned Egypt of an approaching famine, and helped preserve many lives, including those of his own family.

But does the Bible specifically tell us that Joseph of Egypt received the priesthood through a formal ordination? The Bible does not provide a detailed account of Joseph’s priesthood ordination or identify the person who might have ordained him. Therefore, we should be careful not to claim that the Bible explicitly describes an ordination that it does not record.

Latter-day Saint scripture does, however, teach that priesthood authority continued through ancient generations. Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek, and Isaac and Jacob were part of the patriarchal line through which God’s covenant promises continued.

Joseph was one of Jacob’s sons and received important promises connected with the covenant God made with Abraham and his descendants. In the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis 48, additional details are given concerning Joseph’s blessings and posterity.

It is important to distinguish between receiving a patriarchal blessing or covenant promise and receiving a documented priesthood ordination. They are related to God’s dealings with His people, but they are not automatically the same thing.

The safest conclusion is that Joseph lived during a period when God was working through the covenant family of Abraham, but the scriptures do not give us a complete, individual ordination record for Joseph of Egypt.

Moses’s priesthood lineage is discussed in greater detail in Doctrine and Covenants 84:6-16. One particularly interesting detail is that Moses received the priesthood under the hand of his father-in-law, Jethro.

This may surprise some readers. We often think of Moses primarily as the great prophet who led Israel out of Egypt, received the Ten Commandments, and spoke with the Lord. Yet latter-day revelation provides additional information about how he received priesthood authority.

Doctrine and Covenants 84:6–7 states that Moses received the priesthood from Jethro. The revelation then traces Jethro’s priesthood lineage back to earlier figures, eventually connecting it to Abraham and, ultimately, to Adam. This is significant because Jethro was not an Israelite in the same sense as Moses and his Hebrew family. Jethro was a priest of Midian, and the Bible portrays him as a man who worshipped and honored the Lord.

In Exodus 18, Jethro meets Moses in the wilderness, offers sacrifices to God, and gives Moses wise counsel on governing the people.

The Doctrine and Covenants adds an important piece of information that is not stated in the biblical account: Jethro held priesthood authority and conferred it upon Moses. This shows that, according to Latter-day Saint scripture, priesthood authority was not limited to one immediate family or nation. God could work through faithful servants outside the direct line of Jacob’s descendants.

Sometimes priesthood authority was passed from father to son. Doctrine and Covenants 107:40-41 teaches that a particular patriarchal order of priesthood was handed down from father to son, beginning in the days of Adam.

However, we should not assume that every priesthood ordination in every period followed an exclusively father-to-son pattern. Moses’s experience illustrates this point. According to Doctrine and Covenants 84, he received the priesthood from his father-in-law, Jethro, rather than through a recorded ordination from his own father, Amram.

The scriptures therefore describe both the continuation of priesthood authority through generations and the conferral of authority through other authorized servants of God. The central principle is that priesthood authority comes from God. It is not simply inherited because someone belongs to a particular family, nor is it something a person can claim merely because he feels called to serve.

Latter-day Saint doctrine also teaches that the children of Israel eventually lost the privilege of enjoying the fulness of the higher priesthood because they hardened their hearts and rejected the Lord’s greater law.

Doctrine and Covenants 84:19–27 explains that the Lord took Moses and the higher priesthood from among Israel, while the lesser priesthood continued. This lesser priesthood is associated with the Aaronic Priesthood and the preparatory law given to ancient Israel.

The Aaronic Priesthood was conferred upon Aaron and his descendants, as explained in Doctrine and Covenants 107:13–14. This hereditary arrangement differs from the broader historical lineage of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

According to Latter-day Saint doctrine, priesthood authority existed long before Joseph of Egypt and Moses. It began with Adam and continued through generations of God’s servants.

Joseph of Egypt lived within the covenant family of Abraham, but the scriptures do not give us a detailed account of his personal priesthood ordination. Moses’s priesthood lineage, on the other hand, is described more explicitly in Doctrine and Covenants 84, which teaches that he received the priesthood from his father-in-law, Jethro.

The story reminds us that God’s work has continued throughout history, often in ways that are not fully explained in the Bible alone. Through latter-day revelation, Latter-day Saints believe they have additional insight into how priesthood authority was preserved, conferred, and exercised in ancient times.

Gramps

Gramps,

Do we know if David will be resurrected to the Telestial Kingdom at the end of the Millennium?

Michael

Answer

Michael,

When we read the story of King David in the Bible, we find a man who loved the Lord, received great blessings, and was chosen to lead Israel. David defeated Goliath, became king of Israel, and wrote many of the Psalms. Yet his life also included serious sins, particularly his adultery with Bathsheba and his role in the death of her husband, Uriah.

This raises an interesting question for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Will David be resurrected at the end of the Millennium to inherit the telestial kingdom?

To understand the answer, we need to look at what the scriptures teach about David’s sins, his loss of exaltation, and the order of the Resurrection.

David’s serious transgressions are recorded in 2 Samuel 11–12. After David committed adultery with Bathsheba and arranged for her husband to be killed in battle, the prophet Nathan confronted him.

In 2 Samuel 12:9, the Lord asks David through Nathan:

“Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight?”

David’s actions had serious consequences. Although he acknowledged his sin, his position as king and his previous righteousness did not exempt him from accountability before God.

The Doctrine and Covenants gives us an important statement about David’s eternal standing. In Doctrine and Covenants 132:39, the Lord explains that David’s wives and concubines had been given to him through authorized servants of God, but identifies his actions involving Uriah and his wife as an exception. The verse concludes that David “hath fallen from his exaltation.”

This is a significant statement in Latter-day Saint doctrine. Exaltation refers to receiving the fullness of God’s blessings in the celestial kingdom. David’s actions cost him that promised exaltation.

But does losing exaltation mean that David will never be resurrected or that he will receive no glory in the eternities? No. Latter-day Saint doctrine teaches that the Resurrection will come to all mankind, with different eternal outcomes according to God’s plan.

Interestingly, the Church’s own Bible Dictionary directly addresses David’s resurrection. Under the entry for David, it states:

“He will be resurrected at the end of the Millennium.”

The entry also connects this timing with David’s transgressions and his loss of exaltation, citing Doctrine and Covenants 132:39. This is an important official Church reference because it specifically identifies when David will be resurrected.

To understand why the timing matters, we can turn to Doctrine and Covenants 76:81–85, which describes those who inherit telestial glory.

Verse 81 explains that the telestial kingdom has a glory that is lesser than the terrestrial kingdom, while verses 82–84 describe those who inherit it. Verse 85 says they “shall not be redeemed from the devil until the last resurrection.”

The Church’s Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual explains that the Resurrection of the unjust, which includes those who inherit telestial glory, will occur at the end of the Millennium.

We can also read Doctrine and Covenants 88:100–102, which describes the order in which different groups will come forth in the Resurrection.

Taken together, these teachings explain why David’s resurrection at the end of the Millennium is associated with the resurrection of those who inherit telestial glory. However, it is worth being precise. The Bible Dictionary explicitly states that David will be resurrected at the end of the Millennium and that he has fallen from his exaltation. It does not directly state in that entry that David will inherit the telestial kingdom. That conclusion comes from connecting the timing of his resurrection with the broader teachings about the telestial kingdom.

The scriptures also remind us that the telestial kingdom is not without glory. In Doctrine and Covenants 76:89, the Lord describes the glory of the telestial kingdom as something that “surpasses all understanding.”

This helps us remember that God’s plan is more generous and complex than many people realize. The degrees of glory are not simply a choice between the highest heaven and eternal punishment. Through Jesus Christ, all but the sons of perdition will ultimately receive a degree of glory.

David’s story is a sobering reminder that even people who have received great blessings from God remain accountable for their choices. His faith and accomplishments were significant, but his actions involving Bathsheba and Uriah had serious consequences.

At the same time, we should be careful not to claim more than the Lord has revealed. We can accept the scriptures’ clear statement that David fell from his exaltation and the Church’s Bible Dictionary statement that he will be resurrected at the end of the Millennium. We can also understand that this timing corresponds with the resurrection associated with telestial glory.

The most accurate answer, therefore, is that David lost his exaltation and will be resurrected at the end of the Millennium. His resurrection timing is consistent with the order associated with the telestial kingdom, although the cited Bible Dictionary entry does not explicitly name his final kingdom.

Ultimately, David’s story reminds us to take God’s commandments seriously, trust in the justice of the Lord, and remember that Jesus Christ is the Redeemer of all mankind. We can rely on what God has revealed while remaining humble about the details He has not made known.

Gramps

Gramps,

Will King Solomon go to the Celestial Kingdom?

Theo

Answer

Theo,

The question of whether King Solomon will go to the Celestial Kingdom is an interesting one because the Bible describes him as a king who received great blessings from God but later turned away from the Lord. The Book of Mormon also speaks strongly against some of Solomon’s actions. When we look at this question through the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, however, we need to distinguish between what the scriptures actually teach and what we might assume about Solomon’s eternal destiny.

The short answer is that Latter-day Saint scripture gives us serious reasons to question whether Solomon will receive exaltation, but we should be careful not to claim more certainty about his final judgment than the scriptures provide. His story is a powerful reminder that receiving God’s blessings does not remove our responsibility to remain faithful to Him.

King Solomon’s story begins with remarkable spiritual promise. He was the son of King David and became king of Israel after his father. When the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream, He invited him to ask for whatever he wanted. Solomon asked for an understanding heart so he could judge the people wisely. The Lord was pleased with his request and blessed him with wisdom, riches, and honor (see 1 Kings 3:5-14).

Solomon also built the temple in Jerusalem, which became a central place of worship for ancient Israel. At its dedication, he offered a beautiful prayer asking the Lord to hear the prayers of His people (see 1 Kings 8:22-53).

But Solomon’s life took a troubling turn.

According to 1 Kings 11:1-10, Solomon married many foreign women who worshipped other gods. The Scriptures say that as he grew older, his wives turned his heart away from the Lord. Solomon began following other gods and built places of worship for them. The Bible describes this as a serious departure from the faithfulness God expected of him.

The Lord had warned Israel’s kings against multiplying wives and turning their hearts away from Him (see Deuteronomy 17:17). Solomon’s choices were therefore more than a personal weakness; they represented a rejection of the spiritual responsibilities he had been given.

The Book of Mormon also addresses Solomon’s behavior. In Jacob 2:24, the Lord declares:

“Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.”

This passage is important because it shows that Solomon’s conduct was not presented as an example for the Lord’s people to follow. The Lord’s condemnation of his behavior is clear.

At the same time, Latter-day Saint scripture teaches that plural marriage is not automatically sinful in every circumstance throughout history. Doctrine and Covenants 132:38–39 discusses David and Solomon in connection with their wives and concubines. Verse 38 states that they, along with other servants of God, received wives and concubines, but sinned in things they received not from the Lord. The passage then specifically states that David fell from his exaltation because of his actions involving Uriah and Bathsheba.

This distinction matters. According to Latter-day Saint teaching, the issue is not simply how many wives a person had. The issue includes whether a practice was authorized by God and whether the person remained faithful to Him. Solomon’s particular sin involved marrying women who turned his heart away from the Lord.

So, what does all this mean for Solomon’s eternal destiny?

In Latter-day Saint theology, the celestial kingdom is the highest of the three kingdoms of glory described in Doctrine and Covenants 76. However, receiving exaltation in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom involves more than having once been faithful, receiving spiritual gifts, or accomplishing great things for God. It requires faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, obedience to God’s commandments, and faithfulness to sacred covenants.

Doctrine and Covenants 131:1-4 explains that there are three degrees within the celestial kingdom and that celestial marriage is necessary to obtain the highest degree. Doctrine and Covenants 132:19–20 further explains the promises associated with that covenant and the need to abide in it.

Solomon’s story raises serious concerns about whether he met the requirements for exaltation. He received extraordinary blessings but later turned away from the Lord. His wisdom and accomplishments did not excuse his disobedience.

However, there is an important distinction between saying that Solomon’s actions were sinful and claiming that we know every detail of his final judgment. The scriptures describe his spiritual decline, but they do not provide a complete account of everything that occurred between Solomon and God at the end of his life. We should therefore be cautious about claiming to know more about his eternal fate than the revealed record tells us.

Latter-day Saints believe that God is perfectly just and knows the heart, understanding, opportunities, and choices of every individual. His judgment takes all of those things into account. That does not make Solomon’s disobedience unimportant, but it does remind us that the Lord is the final judge.

Ultimately, we cannot confidently declare that King Solomon will inherit the celestial kingdom, and his scriptural record gives us substantial reason to question whether he will receive exaltation. His story is a warning that even someone who begins with great faith, spiritual gifts, and blessings can turn away from God.

Solomon’s life also reminds us that wisdom alone is not enough. Knowing what is right and actually living according to that knowledge are two different things. The Lord wants more than our talents, accomplishments, or moments of spiritual greatness. He wants our hearts.

And perhaps that is one of the most important lessons we can take from Solomon’s story: it is not enough to begin our spiritual journey well. We must continue to follow the Lord, repent when we fall short, and remain faithful to Jesus Christ throughout our lives.

Gramps

Gramps,

Moses murdered an Egyptian who was oppressing a Hebrew. The Book of Mormon explains that sometimes it is better for one man to perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief, but Moses’ act seems spontaneous. How are we to understand Moses’ act in light of his later becoming a prophet of God?

Jeff

Answer

Jeff,

To understand this story from a Latter-day Saint perspective, we need to look at what the scriptures actually say, what they do not say, and what Moses’ life teaches us about the Lord’s ability to work through imperfect people.

In Exodus 2:11–15, we read that Moses went out to observe the burdens of his Hebrew brethren. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, and after looking around and seeing no one, he killed the Egyptian and hid his body in the sand. The following day, Moses discovered that people knew what he had done. When Pharaoh learned about it, he sought to kill Moses, so Moses fled to the land of Midian.

Notice something important about this account. The Scriptures do not tell us that the Lord commanded Moses to kill the Egyptian. They do not say that Moses received a revelation telling him to take this man’s life. Instead, the account describes Moses seeing an act of oppression and responding by killing the Egyptian.

That distinction matters.

One interesting passage that helps us understand Moses’ motivation is found in the New Testament. In Acts 7:23–29, Stephen recounts the story of Moses before the Jewish council. He explains that when Moses was about forty years old, he went to visit his fellow Israelites.

Stephen says Moses saw one of them being mistreated and defended him by striking down the Egyptian. Then Stephen adds something particularly interesting in Acts 7:25: Moses thought his brethren would understand that God would deliver them by his hand, but they did not.

This suggests that Moses already had some awareness of his future role in delivering Israel. According to Stephen’s account, Moses believed that God would use him to help his people. However, the Israelites did not recognize this at the time.

Does that mean the Lord directed Moses to kill the Egyptian? Not necessarily. The passage tells us what Moses believed about his future role, but it does not establish that God commanded him to take the Egyptian’s life.

It is possible that Moses felt a strong desire to defend his people and may have believed he was acting in their interest. But feeling that we are doing something for a good reason is not the same as receiving a commandment from God.

That is an important lesson for us today. A good intention does not automatically make every action right.

The comparison with the Book of Mormon is interesting. In 1 Nephi 4:13, Nephi explains why the Lord commanded him to kill Laban. He says it is better for one man to perish than for an entire nation to dwindle and perish in unbelief.

At first glance, someone might connect this principle with Moses’ actions. After all, both situations involve the death of one person and the welfare of God’s people.

However, there is a major difference between the two accounts.

In Nephi’s case, the Book of Mormon explicitly describes a divine command. Nephi initially hesitated, but he received direction through the Spirit and was told that the Lord had delivered Laban into his hands. Nephi understood that the Lord was commanding him to do something he would not ordinarily have done.

In Moses’ case, we have no comparable account of a divine command to kill the Egyptian.

Therefore, we should be careful not to use 1 Nephi 4:13 to automatically justify Moses’ actions. The principle Nephi describes is not a general permission for people to take matters into their own hands whenever they believe that doing so might benefit others.

From an LDS perspective, there is a difference between an individual deciding that a person’s death would serve a greater purpose and the Lord specifically commanding something for His own purposes. We cannot simply assume that the two are the same.

The scriptures do not give us enough information to say with certainty everything Moses was thinking or whether he felt any spiritual prompting at the time.

Does Moses’ action mean he was unworthy to become a prophet? Not at all. One of the wonderful things about scripture is that the Lord’s servants are not presented as people who never make mistakes.

Consider the lives of other individuals in the scriptures. Peter denied knowing Jesus Christ three times. Paul persecuted followers of Christ before becoming one of the great missionaries of the early Church. Alma the Younger opposed the Church before experiencing a powerful change of heart.

Their earlier actions did not prevent the Lord from working through them later.

That does not mean their mistakes were unimportant or that God approved of everything they had done. Rather, their stories demonstrate that people can change, grow, repent, and become instruments in the Lord’s hands.

Moses’ life also involved a long period of preparation. After fleeing Egypt, he lived in Midian, married Zipporah, and spent years away from the royal household in which he had been raised. Later, the Lord appeared to him in the burning bush and called him to return to Egypt to deliver Israel (Exodus 3:1–10).

By then, Moses had experienced a very different life. He was no longer living in Pharaoh’s household. He had spent years in the wilderness and would eventually lead an entire people through their own journey through it.

His life reminds us that the Lord’s preparation of a servant can take many years. We should not assume that everything a person does before receiving a calling has been approved by God simply because that person eventually becomes a prophet.

Perhaps the most important lesson is that we should avoid claiming more certainty than the Scriptures provide.

We know that Moses killed an Egyptian who was beating a Hebrew. We know that he fled when Pharaoh sought his life. We also know that the Lord later called Moses to lead Israel out of bondage and that Moses became one of the most significant prophets in biblical history.

What we do not know is whether Moses received any divine prompting before killing the Egyptian. The biblical account does not tell us that he did.

It is possible to recognize the injustice Moses witnessed without concluding that killing the Egyptian was a divinely commanded act. We can also recognize Moses’ later prophetic calling without assuming that the Lord approved of every decision he made earlier in life.

For Latter-day Saints, this fits with the broader understanding that God works with people who are still learning and developing. Being called by God does not mean a person has always acted perfectly. Nor does a person’s future service to God automatically make every earlier action righteous.

We should also remember that the Lord is the ultimate judge of each person’s heart, intentions, understanding, and circumstances. We have only a limited account of Moses’ experience, so it would be unwise to pronounce a final judgment on his spiritual condition based on these few verses.

Ultimately, the story of Moses teaches us to distinguish between what God has explicitly commanded and what a person chooses to do. Nephi’s experience with Laban involved a specific command from the Lord. Moses’ experience with the Egyptian is not described that way.

We can leave room for questions about Moses’ motives without claiming to know exactly what happened in his heart. And we can appreciate the remarkable prophet he became while acknowledging that the Scriptures do not provide a clear divine justification for his earlier act.

The larger message is that God can prepare, teach, and work through people over time. Moses’ story is not a declaration that every action of a future prophet is approved by God. It is a reminder that the Lord can call people to accomplish His work, even when their lives and experiences are more complicated than we might expect.

Gramps

Gramps,

Can you explain Genesis 3:7 when the eyes of Adam and Eve were opened and “they knew that they were naked” (is naked different than nude? Were they really without clothing before the Fall?). And Mormon 9:5, where it says, “when ye shall be brought to see your nakedness before God.” I believe this has to do with garments of righteousness, or that it’s symbolic of covenants, or it’s about glory (and without glory one is “naked”), but would you please explain it better for me?  Thank you!

Debbie

Answer

Debbie,

When we read the account of Adam and Eve in Genesis, one verse that can seem a little puzzling is Genesis 3:7. After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, we are told, “the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.”

This naturally raises a couple of questions. Were Adam and Eve actually without clothing before the Fall? And if they were, why did their nakedness suddenly become such an important issue? There is also an interesting connection to Mormon 9:5, where Moroni speaks about being “brought to see your nakedness before God.” Is Moroni talking about physical nakedness, or is there a deeper spiritual meaning?

According to the scriptures, it does appear that Adam and Eve were physically unclothed before the Fall. Genesis 2:25 says, “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

The Book of Moses gives the same description. Moses 3:25 says Adam and Eve “were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” Then, after they partook of the fruit, Moses 4:13 says, “the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they had been naked.”

So it seems that their physical condition had not necessarily changed. What changed was their understanding of themselves and their relationship with God.

This is an important distinction. Being physically naked was apparently not sinful in itself. Before the Fall, Adam and Eve were naked, but they were not ashamed. After they transgressed God’s commandment, however, they suddenly became conscious of their nakedness. Genesis 3:7 says that they immediately made themselves coverings from fig leaves.

Then Adam told the Lord, “I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself” (Genesis 3:10).

Notice what happened. Adam became afraid and hid from God because he was naked. The issue was no longer simply that he was without clothing. His nakedness had become associated with guilt, shame, vulnerability, and being exposed before God. This is where the symbolism becomes particularly important.

Throughout scripture, clothing can be used as a symbol of righteousness, purity, and being spiritually prepared to stand in God’s presence. Nakedness can represent the opposite condition—being exposed in our sins and having nothing with which to cover ourselves.

The Church’s own scripture-study resources specifically connect nakedness with guilt, shame, and uncleanness.

That helps us understand why Adam and Eve first tried to make their own covering. Genesis 3:7 says that they “sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” They recognized that something was wrong and immediately tried to cover themselves.

But their own covering wasn’t enough. Genesis 3:21 says that the Lord made “coats of skins, and clothed them.”

There is a beautiful gospel symbolism here. Adam and Eve attempted to cover themselves, but God provided the covering they actually needed. This can point us toward Jesus Christ and His Atonement. We can try to hide our sins, justify ourselves, or make ourselves spiritually acceptable, but ultimately it is Christ who provides the covering that makes us clean.

Sister J. Anette Dennis taught about this connection in the April 2024 General Conference. Referring to the coats of skins given to Adam and Eve, she explained:

“When Adam and Eve partook of the fruit and had to leave the Garden of Eden, they were given coats of skins as a covering for them.”

She connected this imagery to the Savior’s sacrifice and explained that the Atonement of Jesus Christ provides a spiritual covering for us.

This gives us an important connection to the idea of garments of righteousness. The physical temple garment should not simply be equated with the “robe of righteousness” mentioned in scripture, but there is definitely related symbolism. The Church teaches that the garment of the holy priesthood is a reminder of sacred covenants and our commitment to follow Jesus Christ.

The deeper symbolism points to Jesus Christ. The garment can remind a covenant-keeping member of Christ, His Atonement, and the covenants made with Him, but it is the Savior—not the clothing itself—who makes us spiritually clean.

Now we can come to Mormon 9:5, which is probably the most important part of the question. Moroni says:

“For behold, when ye shall be brought to see your nakedness before God, and also the glory of God, and the holiness of Jesus Christ, it will kindle a flame of unquenchable fire upon you.”

At first, someone might read that literally and wonder if Moroni is talking about appearing physically naked before God. However, the surrounding verses make it clear that he is talking about something much deeper. In verse 3, Moroni speaks about having “a consciousness of your guilt.” Verse 4 talks about our “filthiness” before God. Then verse 5 describes seeing our “nakedness” in contrast with “the glory of God” and “the holiness of Jesus Christ.”

And then comes the answer in verse 6:

“O then ye unbelieving, turn ye unto the Lord; cry mightily unto the Father in the name of Jesus, that perhaps ye may be found spotless, pure, fair, and white, having been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb.”

That makes the meaning much clearer. Moroni is describing what happens when we stand before God and see ourselves exactly as we really are. We can no longer hide our sins, weaknesses, or imperfections. We see our spiritual “nakedness” in contrast to God’s glory and Christ’s holiness.

The Book of Mormon gives us an even stronger connection in 2 Nephi 9:14. Jacob says:

“Wherefore, we shall have a perfect knowledge of all our guilt, and our uncleanness, and our nakedness; and the righteous shall have a perfect knowledge of their enjoyment, and their righteousness, being clothed with purity, yea, even with the robe of righteousness.”

That is a remarkable contrast. One person stands before God conscious of his or her guilt, uncleanness, and nakedness. Another is described as being clothed in purity and a “robe of righteousness.” This is why the idea of “garments of righteousness” is worth considering. Scripture repeatedly uses clothing as a symbol of what Christ does for us spiritually. Isaiah 61:10 says:

“He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness.”

The important point, however, is that we shouldn’t assume that the physical temple garment itself is literally the “robe of righteousness” described in these passages. The deeper symbolism points to Jesus Christ. The temple garment can remind a covenant-keeping member of Christ, His Atonement, and the covenants made with Him, but it is the Savior—not the clothing itself—who makes us spiritually clean.

Sister Dennis expressed this connection in her April 2024 General Conference message, explaining how the garment can remind us of the Savior and the blessings of His Atonement.

So what about the idea of glory? That is another important part of Mormon 9:5. Moroni doesn’t simply say that people will see their nakedness. He says they will see their nakedness and the glory of God and the holiness of Jesus Christ. That contrast is what makes the symbolism so powerful. God’s glory reveals things about ourselves that we might not fully see while living in mortality. We will have a perfect understanding of our spiritual condition.

This is similar to the imagery of light throughout scripture. When we are in darkness, imperfections and details can remain hidden. When we enter brilliant light, everything becomes visible. That is essentially what Moroni is describing. Standing before God means there is nowhere left to hide. Our “nakedness” represents the complete exposure of our spiritual condition.

And this is where the message becomes hopeful rather than frightening. The scriptures don’t teach us to spend our lives trying to hide from God. They teach us to turn toward Him.

Adam and Eve first tried to cover themselves with fig leaves, and then they hid from the Lord. But God provided a covering for them. In the gospel, that becomes a powerful symbol of Jesus Christ and His Atonement.

We cannot ultimately cover our own sins. Our own “fig leaves” are not enough. Christ is the one who provides the covering we need.

So, were Adam and Eve physically naked before the Fall? The scriptures strongly suggest that they were. Genesis and Moses both specifically say that they were naked and were not ashamed. The important change came after the Fall. Their nakedness became connected with guilt, shame, and their awareness of being exposed before God.

And when Mormon 9:5 talks about being “brought to see your nakedness before God,” it is best understood in that larger scriptural context. Moroni is not primarily warning about physical nudity. He is talking about being spiritually exposed before God—seeing our sins, weaknesses, guilt, and uncleanness with complete clarity.

The opposite condition is beautifully described in 2 Nephi 9:14. The righteous are “clothed with purity” and with “the robe of righteousness.” That gives Genesis 3 and Mormon 9 a remarkably consistent message: we cannot adequately cover ourselves, but through Jesus Christ, God provides the covering we need.

And perhaps that is one of the most beautiful symbols in the story of the Fall. Adam and Eve tried to cover themselves, but God provided a covering for them. In the same way, we come to Christ, repent, make and keep covenants, and rely upon His Atonement. He is the one who ultimately covers us with His righteousness.

In that sense, “nakedness” in Mormon 9:5 isn’t really about what we are wearing. It is about what happens when everything we have tried to hide is finally visible. And the answer to that reality isn’t to hide from God. It is to turn toward Jesus Christ, whose Atonement makes it possible for us to be “spotless, pure, fair, and white.”

The physical nakedness of Adam and Eve became a powerful scriptural symbol of spiritual nakedness. And the clothing God provided became a powerful symbol of the covering that ultimately comes through Jesus Christ.

Gramps

Gramps,

Were the wives of Joseph of Egypt black?

Carolee

Answer

Carolee,

According to Latter-day Saint scripture and teachings, we simply are not told. There is no revealed doctrine from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints identifying Asenath’s skin color.

The Bible tells us that after Joseph interpreted Pharaoh’s dreams, Pharaoh made him ruler over Egypt. Pharaoh then gave Joseph Asenath as a wife. Genesis describes her as “the daughter of Poti-pherah, priest of On.” Joseph and Asenath eventually had two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim.

The account in Genesis is actually quite straightforward. It doesn’t describe Asenath’s physical appearance, complexion, or ethnicity as we might today. Genesis simply identifies her as the daughter of an Egyptian priest.

The same information appears when Jacob’s family eventually goes down to Egypt. Genesis 46:20 says that “Asenath the daughter of Poti-pherah priest of On” bore Manasseh and Ephraim to Joseph.

So, could Asenath have been a dark-skinned Egyptian woman? Certainly, that is possible. Ancient Egyptians lived in northeastern Africa, and ancient Egypt’s population was ethnically and culturally diverse throughout its long history. But saying that Asenath was black goes beyond what the scriptures actually tell us.

This is an important distinction when discussing biblical people. Modern racial categories don’t always fit neatly onto people who lived thousands of years ago. Someone living in ancient Egypt would not necessarily have understood their identity in the same racial categories commonly used today.

From an LDS perspective, there is another reason to be careful about trying to determine Asenath’s race. The Church’s current teachings emphasize that a person’s relationship with God is not determined by skin color. The Church’s Gospel Topics essay on race specifically rejects the use of scripture to justify racial prejudice or discrimination and teaches that all people are precious in God’s sight.

The scriptures also don’t portray Joseph’s marriage to Asenath as a problem because she was Egyptian. In fact, their marriage became an important part of the story of the house of Israel. Their two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, became significant figures in Israel’s history.

When Jacob later blessed Joseph’s sons, he adopted Ephraim and Manasseh as his own sons. Their descendants were eventually counted among the tribes of Israel. The Church’s Bible Dictionary entry for Manasseh explains that Manasseh and Ephraim were Joseph’s sons through Asenath and that they became associated with the tribes of Israel.

That is actually pretty remarkable. Joseph was an Israelite who had been separated from his family and had spent most of his adult life in Egypt. He married an Egyptian woman, and their sons became part of the covenant family of Israel.

There is also something interesting about Asenath’s father. Poti-pherah was a priest of On, an important Egyptian religious center. The scriptures, therefore, make it clear that Asenath came from an Egyptian family. The Church’s own Old Testament materials likewise identify her as the daughter of an Egyptian priest.

But Egyptian ancestry does not automatically answer the question of what Asenath looked like.

It is tempting to look at paintings and movies of ancient Egypt and decide that we know exactly what people like Asenath looked like. But those artistic depictions are interpretations. The scriptures themselves don’t give us enough information to reconstruct her appearance.

There is another interesting point here. The Bible does not actually say that Joseph had multiple wives. Asenath is the only wife of Joseph specifically identified in Genesis. So the plural “wives of Joseph” isn’t really supported by the biblical account. Joseph and Asenath had two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, who became important ancestors in Israel.

Could Asenath have had dark skin? Yes. Could she have had a complexion that a modern person would describe as Black? It is possible. Could we establish that from LDS scripture or official Church doctrine? No. And that’s probably the most responsible answer to the question.

The Church has not received a revelation identifying Asenath’s race, and the scriptures don’t provide a physical description of her. What we do know is that she was an Egyptian woman, the daughter of Poti-pherah, and the wife of Joseph. She became the mother of Ephraim and Manasseh, whose descendants became part of the house of Israel.

In other words, we shouldn’t try to fill in a detail that God hasn’t revealed.

The more important part of Asenath’s story isn’t the color of her skin. It’s what happened through her family. Her sons became part of Israel’s covenant story, and Joseph’s family became one of the great branches of the house of Israel.

Gramps

Gramps,

How did the Giants get reintroduced into the earth after the flood mentioned in Numbers 13:32-33?

John

Answer

John,

The first thing to understand is that Latter-day Saint scripture does not say that the pre-Flood giants survived Noah’s Flood. Genesis 6:4 tells us that “there were giants in the earth in those days,” shortly before the Flood. The Book of Moses likewise describes the widespread wickedness of the people before the Flood and the destruction that followed.

According to the LDS understanding of the Flood, Noah, his family, and those with him in the ark were preserved, while the wicked inhabitants of the earth were destroyed. There is no scriptural account of a separate group of giants escaping the Flood.

So, how do we understand the giants mentioned in Numbers?

One possibility is that the word “giants” is being used to describe people who were exceptionally tall, strong, or imposing. The Israelite spies certainly viewed the inhabitants of Canaan as intimidating. They said, “We were in our own sight as grasshoppers,” which shows how small and powerless they felt in comparison.

The Bible mentions several groups associated with unusually large or powerful people. The Anakim are mentioned in Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua, while the Rephaim appear in several Old Testament passages. Goliath is probably the most familiar example. He lived long after the Flood and was described as an exceptionally large man, yet the Bible doesn’t say that he was descended from the pre-Flood giants.

It is also possible that characteristics associated with great physical size were passed down through Noah’s family and reappeared in later generations. From a biological standpoint, inherited physical traits can certainly reappear among descendants. However, the scriptures don’t specifically say that this happened with Noah’s family, so we shouldn’t treat that explanation as LDS doctrine.

Another possibility is that the people called “giants” in Numbers simply belonged to later populations known for their unusual height. There is no requirement in scripture that every person described as a giant had to belong to the same lineage as the giants mentioned in Genesis.

The purpose of Numbers 13 is also important. The chapter isn’t primarily trying to explain where these large people came from. Moses had sent twelve spies into Canaan to examine the land, and ten of them returned frightened by what they had seen. They focused on the strength of the inhabitants and the fortifications of their cities, while Joshua and Caleb trusted that the Lord could help Israel overcome those obstacles.

This is why the “grasshoppers” comparison is so significant. The spies weren’t simply reporting measurements. They were describing how overwhelmed they felt. The people of Canaan looked enormous compared with the Israelites, and fear led them to believe the Israelites had no chance of succeeding.

The Book of Mormon also gives us examples of people who were described as exceptionally large or powerful. In the final Jaredite battles, for example, Coriantumr and Shiz are portrayed as extraordinarily strong warriors. So Latter-day Saint scripture certainly allows for the existence of unusually large human beings without requiring that they be survivors of the pre-Flood world.

The safest conclusion, then, is that the giants in Numbers 13 were people of extraordinary size or strength who lived after the Flood, but scripture doesn’t tell us exactly how their physical characteristics arose or whether they had any connection to the pre-Flood giants.

We should also remember that the word “giants” in our English Bibles reflects ancient terminology that may not carry exactly the same meaning we give it today. It doesn’t necessarily mean that these people were a separate supernatural race. They may simply have been unusually large human beings who appeared particularly formidable to the Israelites.

So I wouldn’t say that LDS doctrine teaches that giants survived Noah’s Flood. Rather, the scriptures tell us that there were giants before the Flood and that later Israelites encountered people they described as giants. The Bible doesn’t fill in the genealogical connection between those two accounts.

And perhaps the most important part of the story isn’t actually the size of the people in Canaan. It’s the way Israel responded to them.

The ten spies looked at the giants and concluded that they couldn’t possibly succeed. Joshua and Caleb looked at the same giants but remembered the Lord’s promises. Their difference wasn’t in what they saw—it was in how they viewed it.

Sometimes the obstacles in front of us can look like giants, too. Numbers 13 reminds us that even when something appears much bigger and stronger than we are, it isn’t bigger than God.

Gramps

Gramps,

Why wasn’t the Lord interested in saving the Egyptians? I know some of their leaders did terrible things, such as killing babies and enslaving others, but there were probably many innocent Egyptians. It appears the Lord never invited the Egyptians to repent.

Shasta

Answer

Shasta,

When we read the story of the Exodus, there is something that can be difficult to understand. The Lord sent Moses to deliver the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, and He eventually brought devastating plagues upon the Egyptians. The final plague resulted in the death of the firstborn throughout Egypt. That naturally raises a difficult question: What about the Egyptians who weren’t responsible for enslaving Israel? Pharaoh certainly behaved terribly. He enslaved the Israelites and ordered that their baby boys be killed. But Egypt was a large nation, and there must have been ordinary people who had nothing to do with Pharaoh’s decisions. Some may even have disagreed with what Pharaoh was doing. So why does the Exodus story seem to focus almost entirely on saving Israel rather than saving the Egyptians? And why doesn’t it appear that the Lord gave the Egyptians the same invitation to repent that He gave Israel?

The first thing we need to remember is that the Exodus account is primarily the story of God’s covenant relationship with Israel. It isn’t intended to give us a complete account of every Egyptian’s relationship with God. The Lord had made specific covenants with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob concerning their descendants, and the Exodus was an important part of fulfilling those promises. The Israelites had been enslaved for generations, and the Lord remembered the covenant He had made with their fathers. He called Moses to lead them out of bondage and eventually establish them as a covenant people. But that doesn’t mean God loved Israel while simply ignoring everyone else.

One of the clearest teachings in the restored gospel is that God loves all of His children. The Book of Mormon says that God “inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him.” It then makes the point especially clear: “all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). Israel was chosen for a particular covenant responsibility, but being chosen didn’t mean that everyone outside Israel was rejected by God. In fact, the Lord told Abraham that through his descendants “all the families of the earth” would be blessed (Abraham 2:9–11). Israel’s role was ultimately to help bring God’s blessings to other nations, not to keep those blessings exclusively for themselves.

There is also something we sometimes overlook in the Exodus story. The Lord actually did give Pharaoh opportunities to respond to Him. Moses and Aaron repeatedly went before Pharaoh and told him to let the Israelites go, and Pharaoh repeatedly refused. The plagues were not simply one sudden punishment. They occurred over a period of time, and the Lord repeatedly demonstrated His power while Pharaoh continued to resist. In Exodus 10:3, Moses asked Pharaoh, “How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself before me?” Pharaoh wasn’t simply unaware of what was happening. He had been confronted again and again with evidence that the God of Israel was acting.

The scriptures even tell us that one purpose of the plagues was so that the Egyptians would know that the Lord was God. In Exodus 7:5, the Lord said, “And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord.” This is an important detail because it shows that the purpose of the plagues wasn’t simply to punish Egypt. The Lord was making Himself known. The Egyptians were witnessing events that were intended to demonstrate His power and distinguish Him from the gods of Egypt. At the same time, however, we shouldn’t stretch the account further than the scriptures allow. The Bible doesn’t tell us that every individual Egyptian was personally given a formal invitation to repent. Most of the story focuses on Pharaoh, the Egyptian government, the oppression of Israel, and the Lord’s deliverance of His covenant people.

That brings us to the part of the question that can be especially troubling. What about the ordinary Egyptians who may not have been responsible for Pharaoh’s actions? There certainly must have been people in Egypt who weren’t personally responsible for enslaving Israel. Some Egyptians may have participated in the oppression, while others may simply have been ordinary people living under Pharaoh’s government. We don’t know the circumstances of each individual. The Bible doesn’t give us enough information to determine exactly how God dealt with every Egyptian individually, and this is where LDS doctrine about the plan of salvation becomes especially important.

In the restored gospel, physical death isn’t the end of a person’s opportunity to accept the gospel. Doctrine and Covenants 138 teaches that the gospel is preached to people in the spirit world and that those who didn’t have an opportunity to receive it during mortality can still hear it there. This means that LDS doctrine doesn’t require us to believe that someone was spiritually condemned simply because he or she happened to live in the wrong place, at the wrong time, or under the rule of a wicked government. God judges people according to their individual circumstances, knowledge, choices, and opportunities.

Imagine an Egyptian who lived during the time of Moses but had never been taught about the God of Israel and had never personally participated in Pharaoh’s oppression. Suppose that person died during the plagues. We don’t know what happened to that individual in the spirit world, and the scriptures don’t give us enough information to say. But LDS doctrine gives us good reason not to assume that the person was simply lost because he or she was Egyptian. The Lord knows every person individually. He knows what people understand, what opportunities they have, what choices they make, and what they would have done if they had been given opportunities they never received. His judgment is therefore far more complete and just than anything we could determine from simply reading the historical account.

There is another interesting detail in the Exodus account that is easy to overlook. Exodus 12:38 says that a “mixed multitude” went up with the children of Israel when they left Egypt. The scripture doesn’t tell us exactly who made up this group, so we shouldn’t speculate too much about their identity, but it does remind us that the people leaving Egypt weren’t necessarily a completely uniform group of Israelites. The story is more complicated than simply dividing everyone into two groups, with Israelites on one side and Egyptians on the other.

The scriptures also give us an important reason not to think that Egypt was permanently rejected by God. In Isaiah 19, the prophet describes a future time when the Lord will bless Egypt. The chapter contains descriptions of judgment, but it eventually looks forward to a time when Egypt will turn to the Lord and receive His blessings. In one particularly remarkable passage, Isaiah describes Egypt, Assyria, and Israel together in God’s blessing: “Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance” (Isaiah 19:25). That’s a remarkable statement. The same God who judged Egypt in the days of Moses could later describe Egypt as “my people.” This helps us see that God’s judgment on a nation at one point in history doesn’t mean that He has permanently rejected the people of that nation.

This is also why it can be misleading to think of the Exodus as simply a story of “good Israelites versus bad Egyptians.” The Israelites themselves weren’t perfect. After leaving Egypt, they repeatedly struggled with faith and obedience, and eventually some participated in worshipping the golden calf. Being part of Israel didn’t automatically make someone righteous, just as being Egyptian didn’t automatically make someone wicked. The Lord was dealing with people individually while also working through a covenant nation to accomplish His larger purposes.

So why did the Lord focus so much attention on saving Israel? The simplest LDS answer is that the Exodus was part of the fulfillment of God’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Israel had been enslaved, Pharaoh had attempted to destroy their children, and the Lord intervened to deliver them. He was establishing Israel as a covenant people through whom the gospel and knowledge of God would eventually be taken to the nations of the earth. The fact that Israel had a special role in God’s plan does not mean that Egyptians had no value to Him.

In fact, the larger story of scripture points in the opposite direction. God repeatedly reaches beyond Israel to bless people from other nations. The Book of Mormon teaches that He invites everyone to come unto Him, and the Abrahamic covenant itself was intended to bless “all the families of the earth.” The gospel was never ultimately intended to belong to one nationality.

We also need to be careful about equating physical death with spiritual condemnation. An Egyptian who died during the plagues was not necessarily an Egyptian who had knowingly rejected God. LDS doctrine makes a clear distinction between physical death and a person’s eternal standing before God. A person can die without ever having received the gospel and still receive an opportunity to accept it in the spirit world. Ultimately, God’s judgment will take into account circumstances that we cannot see from the biblical account.

So, was the Lord interested in saving the Egyptians? According to LDS doctrine, there is no good reason to conclude that He wasn’t. The Exodus story simply isn’t primarily about the salvation history of Egypt. It is about God’s covenant with Israel, the deliverance of an enslaved people, and the beginning of Israel’s journey as a covenant nation. Because the story is focused on Israel, we don’t get a detailed account of what happened spiritually to every Egyptian.

That leaves us with an important distinction. We can say with confidence that the Lord judged Pharaoh and Egypt for their actions and that He delivered Israel from bondage. We can also say that Pharaoh was repeatedly confronted with the Lord’s power and given opportunities to respond. But we should be much more cautious about making judgments concerning individual Egyptians whose circumstances aren’t described in scripture.

The Lord knew every one of them individually. He knew who was responsible for the oppression, who wasn’t, who understood what was happening, and who didn’t. And LDS doctrine teaches that God is perfectly just and merciful and that every person will ultimately have a fair opportunity to accept or reject His plan. The Exodus tells us how God delivered Israel. It doesn’t tell us that He stopped caring about the Egyptians.

Gramps

Gramps,

Please would you explain whether the creatures described in Ezekiel chapter one and elsewhere in the Bible (seen in visions as lacking imagery like that of God or humans) are symbolic or literal? Did the prophet Joseph Smith ever clarify these types of questions?

Chris

Answer

Chris,

The restored gospel actually gives us a surprisingly helpful answer.

According to Latter-day Saint doctrine, there are literal heavenly beings associated with these visions, but many of the details seen by the prophets are symbolic and intended to teach spiritual truths rather than provide a biological description of what these beings literally look like.

One of the greatest blessings of the Restoration is that Joseph Smith addressed questions that had puzzled Bible readers for centuries. One of those questions involved the mysterious “beasts” described in the book of Revelation, and his explanation helps us better understand similar visions in Ezekiel.

In Doctrine and Covenants section 77, Joseph Smith received inspired answers to questions about the book of Revelation. One question asked:

“What are we to understand by the four beasts, spoken of in the same verse?”

The Lord answered:

“They are figurative expressions, used by the Revelator, John, in describing heaven, the paradise of God… showing forth the glory of the classes of beings in the order or sphere of their creation.” (Doctrine and Covenants 77:2)

That answer is extremely important. Notice that the revelation does not say the beings themselves are imaginary. Instead, it says John used “figurative expressions” to describe heavenly realities.

In other words, the creatures are connected to real beings, but the prophetic description is symbolic. The symbols communicate truths about God’s creations, His glory, and His divine order.

This principle fits very well with Ezekiel’s vision. Ezekiel wasn’t trying to write a zoology textbook about heaven. He was describing a glorious spiritual vision using earthly language that could never fully capture what he saw.

Think about how difficult it would be to describe colors that no one on earth has ever seen or dimensions beyond our experience. Prophets often rely on symbols because heavenly realities simply don’t fit neatly into human vocabulary.

Ezekiel’s creatures each have four faces: a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle (Ezekiel 1:10). Throughout scripture, these animals often symbolize different divine qualities. While interpretations vary, many Latter-day Saint scholars have suggested they represent characteristics such as intelligence, majesty, strength, service, swiftness, and divine power.

Likewise, the many eyes seen on the wheels and the creatures are commonly understood as symbols of complete awareness, knowledge, and watchfulness. The wheels themselves may represent God’s work moving throughout creation or His ability to accomplish His purposes everywhere.

Although we cannot always identify every symbol with certainty, the overall message is clear: God’s kingdom is perfectly organized, alive with intelligence, and filled with glory.

Isaiah also saw heavenly beings called seraphim.

“They had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.” (Isaiah 6:2)

Then, in Revelation chapter 4, John saw four living creatures full of eyes in front and behind. Their descriptions resemble Ezekiel’s vision in several ways.

Rather than viewing these as conflicting accounts, Joseph Smith’s inspired explanation in Doctrine and Covenants 77 provides a key to understanding them all. The prophets witnessed real heavenly scenes, but they described them in symbolic language inspired by God.

Joseph Smith also taught an important principle about visions generally. Prophets often see things “after the manner of” symbolic representation, as spiritual truths are communicated through images that the human mind can grasp. Not every detail should be interpreted as a literal physical characteristic.

That doesn’t make the visions less real. In fact, it may make them more meaningful.

We see this pattern throughout scripture. Jesus described Himself as the Lamb of God, the Door, the Vine, and the Bread of Life. No Christian believes those titles deny His literal existence. Instead, the symbols reveal different aspects of His divine mission.

Similarly, when John describes Christ with a sharp, two-edged sword proceeding from His mouth (Revelation 1:16), Latter-day Saints understand that this symbolizes the power of God’s word rather than suggesting Jesus literally carries a sword in His mouth.

The same approach helps us understand Ezekiel’s remarkable vision.

Joseph Smith also emphasized that every living thing has a spirit. Doctrine and Covenants 77 teaches that the beasts John saw represented actual living creations of God that glorify Him. The revelation states they were “enjoying their eternal felicity.” This reminds us that God’s creations extend far beyond what we currently understand.

Exactly what those heavenly beings are like in their eternal state has not been fully revealed. The Church does not have an official interpretation of every detail in Ezekiel’s vision, and faithful Latter-day Saints may differ on some of the symbolism. What Joseph Smith’s revelation does provide is an inspired framework: there are real heavenly beings, but the prophetic descriptions employ figurative language.

Ultimately, Ezekiel chapter 1 is not meant to satisfy our curiosity about the appearance of heavenly creatures nearly as much as it is intended to fill us with awe at God’s majesty.

The climax of Ezekiel’s vision isn’t really the creatures or the wheels. It is the glorious throne of God and the radiant appearance of the Lord’s glory above everything else (Ezekiel 1:26-28). The unusual imagery directs our attention upward to God’s power, holiness, and sovereignty.

That is probably the most important lesson to remember. The symbols are fascinating, and it’s natural to wonder about them. But their purpose is to teach us about the greatness of God, the order of heaven, and the reality of His divine kingdom.

Thanks to Joseph Smith and the Restoration, we don’t have to choose between saying these visions are purely imaginary or insisting every detail is literally anatomical. The revealed answer is both simpler and richer. The heavenly beings are real, but the prophets often described them through inspired symbols that communicate eternal truths beyond the limits of ordinary language.

That perspective allows us to appreciate the beauty of Ezekiel’s vision without being distracted by trying to picture four-faced creatures as though they were standing before us. Instead, we can focus on the message the Lord intended—that heaven is real, God reigns in glory, and His creations, however marvelous they may be, all testify of His majesty.

Gramps

Gramps,

Why do we study the Old Testament?

Karen

Answer

Karen,

Gramps,

What happened to the fish and sea creatures during the flood?  Noah doesn’t mention them.  Do we just assume they survived because they were in the water?

Peggy

Answer

Peggy,

Latter-day Saint doctrine doesn’t provide an official answer about what happened to aquatic life during the Flood. However, the scriptures and teachings of Church leaders offer a few principles to help us consider the question.

The first thing to notice is that God’s instructions to Noah focused on air-breathing land animals. The Lord said:

“And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark” (Genesis 6:19).

As you continue reading the account, the emphasis is consistently on creatures that lived on land and breathed air. Birds, cattle, creeping things, and beasts were gathered into the ark because they could not survive a worldwide flood outside of it.

The account never instructs Noah to collect fish or other aquatic creatures. That’s an important observation because if preserving sea life had required Noah’s intervention, we would likely expect the Lord to mention it.

Some readers, therefore, conclude that fish and other sea creatures simply survived in the water. That is certainly one possibility. Since they already lived in aquatic environments, many assume they would not have needed the protection of the ark.

However, the scriptures stop short of actually saying that.

In fact, some passages describing the Flood use language that focuses specifically on creatures that lived on land. For example, Genesis 7:22 says:

“All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.”

That wording seems intentional. It highlights the destruction of terrestrial life rather than providing a detailed account of every creature living in the oceans.

Latter-day Saints also accept the account in the Book of Moses, which similarly emphasizes that the wicked people and the creatures living upon the earth perished while Noah and those with him in the ark were preserved. (Noah Gospel Topics)

Could some aquatic life have died during the Flood? Certainly. Even if fish were not required to enter the ark, the Flood would have dramatically changed the earth. Freshwater and saltwater environments could have been affected, sediment stirred up, and many aquatic habitats altered. The scriptures simply don’t tell us how those environmental changes affected marine life.

Because of that silence, it is wise not to claim more certainty than the scriptures provide.

There is another principle from restored doctrine that offers some comfort, however. Latter-day Saints believe that God’s concern extends to all of His creations, not just human beings.

Doctrine and Covenants 29:24 teaches:

“All things shall become new, even the heaven and the earth, and all the fullness thereof, both men and beasts, the fowls of the air, and the fishes of the sea.”

This remarkable passage specifically mentions the fishes of the sea as part of God’s future renewal of the earth.

President Joseph Fielding Smith taught:

“The animals, the fishes of the sea, the fowls of the air, as well as man, are to be re-created, or renewed, through the resurrection, for they too are living souls.” (Conference Report, October 1928, p. 100.)

He also wrote:

“Every creature on the earth, whether it be man, animal, fish, fowl, or other creature, that the Lord has created, is redeemed from death on the same terms that man is redeemed.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol. 2, pp. 48–51.)

Those statements are significant because they remind us that fish are not an afterthought in God’s plan. They are part of His creations and, according to President Smith, are included in the redemption of the earth.

The Prophet Joseph Smith also taught that animals have spirits and are part of God’s eternal creations. Speaking about John’s vision in Revelation, he said:

“John heard the words of the beasts giving glory to God, and understood them.”

He continued by explaining that God glorifies Himself in saving the creations He has made, including beasts, birds, fish, and mankind. (History of the Church, 5:343–344)

These teachings don’t answer exactly what happened during the Flood, but they do show that Heavenly Father cares about aquatic creatures.

Some Latter-day Saints have also connected the Flood with the symbolic cleansing or “baptism” of the earth. Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote:

“In the days of Noah the Lord sent a universal flood which completely immersed the whole earth and destroyed all flesh except that preserved on the ark. … This flood was the baptism of the earth.” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., “Flood of Noah.”)

Whether one accepts every aspect of that interpretation or not, it still doesn’t answer the question of individual fish species. The purpose of those teachings is to emphasize the cleansing of the earth rather than explain marine biology.

So where does that leave us?

The honest answer is that we simply don’t know exactly what happened to every fish and sea creature during Noah’s Flood.

Sometimes the most faithful answer is also the simplest one: the Lord chose not to reveal every detail. The scriptures tell us what we need to know to understand Noah’s faith, God’s justice, His mercy in preserving life, and His covenant with humanity afterward. Questions about the fish are interesting, but they aren’t central to the message of the Flood.

So yes, it’s reasonable to assume many aquatic creatures survived because they lived in the water. Just remember that this is an inference—not an official doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Where revelation is silent, it’s usually best for us to be silent too.

Gramps

]]> https://askgramps.org/what-happened-to-the-fish-and-sea-creatures-during-noahs-flood/feed/ 0