Gramps,

I am wondering if you could explain Doctrine & Covenants 132:61-66 to me. What do these verses mean?

Erica

Answer

Erica,

If you have ever read Doctrine and Covenants 132:61–66 and wondered what in the world these verses mean, you are not alone! These passages can be difficult to understand, especially because they discuss plural marriage and contain language that may seem unfamiliar or troubling to modern readers.

To understand them, it helps to look at the historical setting, what the verses actually teach, and how they fit into Latter-day Saint beliefs about marriage and God’s commandments.

Doctrine and Covenants 132 was recorded in 1843, during the early years of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It addresses the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, eternal marriage, and the practice of plural marriage as understood and practiced by some early Church members. Joseph Smith taught that God had commanded plural marriage during that period of Church history.

The verses we are looking at are part of that larger discussion. They are not simply a general explanation of how every marriage should work. They address specific circumstances within the practice of plural marriage.

In verses 61 and 62, the revelation discusses a man who takes multiple wives under the conditions described therein. It explains that these marriages were to be governed by the rules and authority set out in the revelation. The language of a wife or wives being given to a man reflects the text’s patriarchal and plural-marriage framework.

It is important to recognize that these verses reflect the historical and cultural setting in which the revelation was given. They do not describe marriage in the same way that most Latter-day Saint families experience it today.

Verse 63 is particularly important because it explains one of the purposes given for plural marriage in the revelation. It speaks of multiplying and replenishing the earth and raising up seed unto God. In other words, the passage connects plural marriage with having children and establishing families under God’s covenant.

The verse also contains language about a wife being given to a man and becoming one flesh with him. In the context of the revelation, this refers to the marital relationship, including its sexual aspect. The language can sound harsh to modern readers because it discusses women within a system in which men could have multiple wives.

The passage also makes a distinction between the revelation’s understanding of plural marriage and sexual relationships outside the marriages it describes. It treats marital relationships authorized under the revelation differently from adultery and sexual immorality. However, the fact that a practice is described in scripture does not mean that every person in every period is commanded to practice it.

Verses 64 and 65 address the circumstances in which a wife might refuse to accept the commandment as presented in the revelation. These verses use strong language and describe consequences in terms of the covenant and the commandment. They are among the most difficult verses in this section because they can sound as though a woman has little say in a decision that profoundly affects her life.

It is worth reading them carefully rather than assuming they provide a universal rule that a husband can use to demand that his wife accept plural marriage. The passage belongs to a particular revelation concerning plural marriage in early Church history. It should not be treated as permission for a husband today to pressure, threaten, or coerce his wife into accepting another marriage.

Verse 66 concludes this section by indicating that the Lord would reveal more later. This helps us understand that the verses belong to a larger revelation rather than functioning as a complete set of instructions for every marriage situation.

So what does this mean for Latter-day Saints today?

The Church discontinued the practice of plural marriage in the late nineteenth century. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which led the Church to stop authorizing new plural marriages. You can read the official declaration here:

For more background, the Church also provides an essay called “The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage,” which explains the historical developments that brought the practice to an end:

Today, the Church teaches that marriage between one man and one woman is God’s standard for marriage, as explained in its official proclamation on the family. The Church does not authorize its members to enter into plural marriages.

This distinction matters because reading a revelation about a commandment given in a particular historical setting is not the same as being commanded to practice it today. Latter-day Saint belief includes the idea that God can give commandments for particular circumstances and that living prophets receive direction for the Church in their own time.

It is also reasonable to acknowledge that these verses raise difficult questions, especially about women’s agency, fairness, and the way divine authority is described. Understanding the historical context helps explain what the text is saying, even if it does not remove every question a reader may have.

If these verses leave you confused or uncomfortable, you do not have to pretend otherwise. A careful reading can include both an effort to understand what early Latter-day Saints believed and an honest recognition that some parts of the revelation are difficult to reconcile with modern expectations about marriage and equal partnership.

The main point is that Doctrine and Covenants 132:61–66 discusses the conditions and rules associated with plural marriage in the early Church. It does not mean that Latter-day Saints today are expected to practice plural marriage, nor does it give a husband permission to force his wife into a relationship she does not want.

Understanding that distinction is a helpful starting point for making sense of these challenging verses.

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,

What is the difference between my testimony and others’?

Antonio

Answer

Antonio,

Have you ever listened to someone share their testimony at church and wondered why their testimony seems so much stronger than yours? Maybe they speak with great confidence about the gospel, the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, or the living prophet, while you find yourself still asking questions or trying to understand certain things. You might even wonder whether there is something wrong with your testimony because it doesn’t look or sound like theirs.

According to Latter-day Saint doctrine, the important thing to understand is that your testimony is personal. Even though members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints share many of the same beliefs, each person’s testimony develops differently.

A testimony is a spiritual witness of truth. For Latter-day Saints, this may include a belief in Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, the Restoration of the gospel, the Book of Mormon, and the calling of modern prophets. However, not every member has received that witness in the same way or to the same degree.

In Doctrine and Covenants 46:13–14, the Lord teaches that some people are given the gift of knowing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, while others are given the gift of believing the words of those who know. This is an important principle because it shows that people can receive different spiritual gifts.

In other words, one person might feel that they have received a powerful spiritual confirmation of the Book of Mormon, while another person may be working through questions and relying on faith. Both experiences can be part of a sincere spiritual journey. A person does not have to experience the same spiritual manifestations as someone else to have a meaningful relationship with God.

Another difference is that testimonies grow at different rates. Someone who has been a member for 40 years may have had decades of experiences that have strengthened their faith. Someone who is new to the Church may still be learning the basic doctrines. Even two people who have been members for the same amount of time may have very different experiences.

Sister Barbara Thompson quoted Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf when he said:

“For many, a testimony comes slowly—a piece at a time.”  (Personal Revelation and Testimony)

This is a reassuring reminder that you don’t have to receive a dramatic spiritual answer all at once. Your testimony may develop through prayer, scripture study, personal experiences, and small moments when you recognize God’s influence in your life.

Life experiences can also influence a person’s testimony. Someone who has experienced what they consider a direct answer to prayer may feel confident about a particular belief. Another person may have prayed about the same question and not received an answer they recognize. That doesn’t necessarily mean God loves one person more than the other. Latter-day Saint teachings emphasize that God knows each of His children personally and that spiritual understanding can come in different ways and at different times.

The Book of Mormon teaches in Alma 32 that faith can begin like a seed. When a person gives the word of God a place in their heart and nurtures it, that seed can begin to grow. This illustration reminds us that faith is not always something that appears fully developed overnight. It can take time, patience, study, prayer, and personal experience.

It is also important to understand that having questions does not automatically mean you lack a testimony. Sometimes people assume that a strong testimony means never having doubts or uncertainties. But a person can believe in Jesus Christ while still trying to understand a difficult scripture, a Church teaching, or an event in Church history.

A testimony is not the same thing as having every question answered. You can have faith in Christ while continuing to learn. You can believe that God lives while still trying to understand how He answers prayers. Faith and learning do not have to be enemies.

Elder Robert D. Hales explained that a testimony is “a personal revelation from God, revealing the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” He also taught that we cannot give someone else a testimony because it comes through the Holy Ghost. You can read his full message, The Importance of Receiving a Personal Testimony, here:

This teaching helps us understand why another person’s testimony, no matter how powerful, cannot take the place of our own. Parents, friends, bishops, and Church leaders can encourage us and share what they believe, but each of us must seek our own spiritual understanding.

At the same time, we should be careful not to judge another person’s testimony by how confidently they speak. Some people are comfortable sharing their spiritual experiences publicly, while others keep those experiences private. A quiet testimony is not necessarily a weak testimony, and a person who speaks confidently is not automatically more faithful than someone who speaks cautiously.

So, what is the difference between your testimony and someone else’s? The difference may involve your experiences, spiritual gifts, understanding, personal struggles, and the way your faith has developed. According to LDS doctrine, however, your testimony is not supposed to be a copy of another person’s testimony.

In Moroni 10:3-5, Moroni invites readers to ponder what they have read and to ask God with a sincere heart and real intent whether it is true. This invitation is personal. It encourages you to seek your own spiritual understanding rather than simply depending on what someone else believes.

The goal is not to have a testimony that sounds exactly like your neighbor’s, your bishop’s, or even your family’s. The goal is to seek truth, develop faith in Jesus Christ, and continue growing spiritually.

Remember, you do not have to measure your testimony against someone else’s. Their spiritual journey is theirs, and yours is yours. What matters is that you sincerely seek the Lord, remain willing to learn, and give your faith room to grow.

Gramps

]]> https://askgramps.org/difference-between-my-testimony-and-others/feed/ 0 https://askgramps.org/will-king-solomon-go-to-the-celestial-kingdom/ https://askgramps.org/will-king-solomon-go-to-the-celestial-kingdom/#respond Thu, 15 Oct 2026 08:00:16 +0000 https://askgramps.org/?p=79167 Question

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,

If a man and a woman are both active temple-endowed people and the woman were to conceive a child from adultery, is that child considered to be born in the covenant? Or would that child need to be sealed to them?

Richard

Answer

Richard,

According to the doctrine and policies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a child conceived through adultery may still be considered born in the covenant. This might surprise some people, but the Church’s policy focuses on the mother’s existing temple sealing rather than simply on who biologically fathered the child.

In Latter-day Saint belief, being born in the covenant means that a child is born after their mother has been sealed to a husband in a temple. These children are considered part of an eternal family and do not need a separate temple sealing to their parents.

But what happens when both the husband and wife are endowed, the couple has been sealed in the temple, and the wife becomes pregnant through an adulterous relationship?

The answer is found in the Church’s General Handbook.

The Church’s General Handbook, section 38.4.2.1, explains that children born after a woman has been sealed to a husband in the temple are born in the covenant of that sealing. It specifically addresses situations in which a woman who has been sealed to one man later has children with another man.

The policy explains that these children are born in the covenant of the woman’s most recent sealing, unless the sealing was canceled or withdrawn under the circumstances described in the handbook. In other words, the fact that another man biologically fathered the child does not automatically mean that the child is excluded from the covenant. This means that, in the situation described, if the woman remains sealed to her husband when the child is born and neither of their temple blessings has been withdrawn under the Church’s policy, the child would generally be considered born in the covenant. The child would not need a separate sealing to the couple simply because the child was conceived through adultery.

It is important to understand that being born in the covenant does not establish biological parentage or change who the child’s father is. The temple sealing ordinance concerns eternal family relationships. Biological parentage and the Church’s policy concerning a child’s covenant status are separate matters.

It is also important to remember that the child is not responsible for the circumstances of conception. In Latter-day Saint teaching, children are not to be blamed or punished for the sins of their parents. The child deserves love, care, and the opportunity to grow in faith just like any other child.

The fact that the child may be born in the covenant does not make adultery acceptable or remove its spiritual seriousness. Latter-day Saint doctrine teaches that sexual relations outside marriage violate the law of chastity. Adultery can cause tremendous pain, damage trust, and seriously affect a marriage and family.

If a husband or wife commits adultery, questions of repentance, Church membership, and possible membership restrictions are handled separately from the child’s status under the sealing policy.

The Church teaches that repentance is possible through Jesus Christ. Genuine repentance involves recognizing the seriousness of sin, taking responsibility, seeking forgiveness, and making necessary changes. Depending on the circumstances, Church membership leaders may need to become involved.

However, the consequences of an adult’s choices should not be confused with the child’s status under the Church’s sealing policies.

Under the policy described above, a child who is born in the covenant does not need a separate sealing to parents. The General Handbook, section 38.4.2.2, also explains that children who are not born in the covenant can become part of an eternal family by being sealed to their natural or adoptive parents. The Church teaches that these children can receive the same blessings as children born in the covenant.

If there are unusual circumstances involving a sealing, membership status, parentage, or questions about how the policy applies to a particular family, the appropriate course is to speak confidentially with the bishop. The bishop can consult the stake president, who can seek further guidance from Church headquarters when necessary.

The Church’s policy should be applied to the actual circumstances rather than assuming that every situation involving adultery has the same outcome.

According to current Latter-day Saint policy, a child conceived through adultery can still be born in the covenant if the mother was sealed to her husband in the temple and the applicable conditions of that sealing remain in effect. The child would not ordinarily need to be sealed to the couple separately. The biological father being another man does not, by itself, change that policy.

Most importantly, the child should never be viewed as less worthy, less loved by Heavenly Father, or responsible for the actions of the adults involved. Latter-day Saint doctrine teaches that God is both just and merciful, and that every child deserves love and the opportunity to receive the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

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,

Is it only cities that have a temple to have a distribution centre for temple clothing? What about countries with a significant Latter-day Saint presence that have no announced temple? I’m talking about actual brick-and-mortar establishments rather than the Church website’s online store.

Samuel

Answer

Samuel,

The short answer is no, a city does not have to have a temple to have a physical Church distribution center. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints operates distribution stores in locations that do not have a temple, showing that the two are not necessarily connected.

The Church’s decisions about where to establish these stores appear to involve practical considerations, including the needs of local members and the logistics of supplying Church materials.

One example comes from Africa. The Church’s official Africa Central Area website lists physical distribution centers in places such as Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo, and Kampala, Uganda. These stores offer various Church materials, including temple garments, ceremonial temple clothing, and accessories. Neither country has a dedicated operating temple listed in the Church’s current temple directory.

You can view the Church’s distribution center information here:

These examples help answer the question directly. A country does not necessarily need an operating temple, or even an announced temple, to have a physical location where members can purchase temple clothing.

Of course, the existence of a distribution store in one country does not mean that every country with a similar membership population will receive one. The Church does not appear to publish a simple rule stating how many members a country must have before it qualifies for a distribution center.

There is also an important distinction between a temple and a distribution center. A temple is a sacred building where Church members participate in ordinances such as endowments and sealings. A distribution center is a retail location where members can purchase approved Church materials and products. The two facilities serve different purposes, even though temple clothing is sold through distribution services.

This distinction matters because members in countries without temples may still have a need for temple clothing. They might travel to a temple in another country to participate in temple ordinances, or they may have previously received their endowment while living somewhere else. Having a local distribution store can make purchasing clothing more convenient for those members.

The Church also has a worldwide distribution network. In June 2023, the Church announced the dedication of a new Global Distribution Services Center in Salt Lake City. The facility was designed to distribute Church materials and temple clothing to members around the world. The announcement noted that the facility ships to 180 countries.

You can read the Church’s announcement here:

That worldwide system helps explain how members can obtain temple clothing even when they live far from a temple or a physical distribution store. However, international shipping and local retail availability are two different things. A country can receive Church materials through the distribution network without necessarily having its own brick-and-mortar store.

So, why doesn’t the Church establish a physical distribution center in every country with a substantial Latter-day Saint presence?

There could be several practical considerations, including the number of members who would use the store, transportation and shipping costs, local demand for products, staffing, import regulations, and the availability of other ways to purchase Church materials. These are reasonable possibilities, but without a published Church policy identifying the specific criteria, we should not assume that any one of them explains a particular location.

It is also worth remembering that the Church’s temple program and its distribution services are separate operations. The announcement of a new temple does not automatically guarantee that a distribution center will open nearby. Likewise, the absence of an announced temple does not automatically prevent a distribution center from being established.

For members who live in countries without a local store, the best starting point is the Church’s online store.

Members can also contact their local area office or Church leaders to ask about purchasing options available in their country.

Whether another country receives a physical store is a separate question, and the Church has not publicly established a universal membership threshold or temple-related requirement for opening one. A significant Latter-day Saint presence may create a need for better access to temple clothing, but it does not guarantee that a brick-and-mortar distribution center will be established.

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,

In the resurrection and in heaven, will gay people still be gay?

Dave

Answer

Dave,

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not revealed a specific answer to that question. The Church teaches quite a bit about resurrection, eternal identity, marriage, and same-sex attraction, but it does not teach that a person’s sexual orientation will automatically disappear at death or that it will necessarily remain exactly as it is in mortality.

That distinction is important.

The Church’s current teachings are actually quite clear that experiencing same-sex attraction is not itself a sin. The Church’s General Handbook (38.6.15) states that the Church does not take a position on the causes of same-sex attraction and that experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin. Members who experience those feelings and do not act contrary to the law of chastity can participate fully in Church life, subject to the same standards as other members.

The Church’s current resource on same-sex attraction similarly explains that experiencing same-sex attraction or identifying as gay or bisexual is not a sin. President M. Russell Ballard also taught that “the attraction itself is not a sin.” The Church distinguishes between experiencing an attraction and choosing how to respond to it.

President M. Russell Ballard’s statement can be found here:

So, when we ask what happens after death, we shouldn’t begin with the assumption that being gay is something that must be “fixed” by the resurrection. The Church does not teach that simply experiencing same-sex attraction makes a person spiritually defective.

At the same time, the Church does teach that sexual relationships are governed by God’s law and that eternal marriage is between a man and a woman. The Church’s teachings on marriage describe it as a union between a man and a woman, part of God’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World states that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to God’s plan.

This is where the question becomes more complicated.

The scriptures teach that the resurrection is a real restoration of the person. Alma taught that “the spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form” and that “everything shall be restored to its perfect frame.” (Alma 11:43–44)

Elder Dallin H. Oaks explained the LDS understanding of resurrection in his April 2000 General Conference address, “Resurrection.” He taught that “the resurrection is much more than merely reuniting a spirit to a body.” He discussed the Resurrection as a restoration and explained that the spirit and body would be reunited.

That gives us an important principle: the resurrection doesn’t turn us into completely different people.

We don’t suddenly lose our memories, personalities, or individual identity. Alma teaches that the Resurrection involves restoration, and the teachings of the Church emphasize that our individual identity continues beyond death. But does that mean sexual orientation necessarily continues unchanged? We don’t know.

This is probably the most important point to make when answering this question according to LDS doctrine. The Church has not revealed whether sexual orientation is something that continues eternally in exactly the same way it is experienced during mortality. It has also not taught that the resurrection itself changes someone’s sexual orientation. In other words, we should be careful about making a claim that goes beyond what has actually been revealed.

Some people have suggested that because the resurrection restores us, everything about us—including sexual orientation—must remain exactly the same. Others have suggested that everything considered a consequence of mortality will disappear in the next life. Neither conclusion has been established as official LDS doctrine concerning sexual orientation.

The Church does make an important distinction between gender and sexual orientation.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World teaches:

“Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”

Notice that the statement specifically speaks about gender, not sexual orientation.

That means we shouldn’t take the Church’s teaching that gender is eternal and automatically conclude that sexual orientation is also eternal. Those are two different subjects. At the same time, we shouldn’t go to the opposite extreme and say that gay people will definitely become heterosexual in heaven. There is no revealed doctrine establishing that either.

There is another important piece to consider. The Church teaches that eternal life involves receiving the blessings God has prepared for His children. But it also recognizes that not every person will experience every promised blessing during mortality.

The General Handbook explains that faithful members will receive the promised blessings in eternity, even when their circumstances prevent them from receiving certain blessings in this life.

That is an important principle because it reminds us that mortality does not tell us everything about a person’s eternal circumstances.

Ultimately, LDS doctrine teaches that Jesus Christ’s Atonement and Resurrection overcome death and make eternal life possible for God’s children. The central question isn’t simply whether someone experienced same-sex attraction during mortality. The gospel focuses on our relationship with Jesus Christ, our faith, repentance, covenants, and our efforts to follow Him.

The Church’s teachings also emphasize that every person has divine worth. The Family: A Proclamation to the World says that every person is “a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents” and possesses a “divine nature and destiny.”

So if someone asks, “Will I still be gay in the resurrection?”, the most accurate LDS answer is that we simply don’t know.

We know that the resurrection restores the body and reunites it with the spirit. We know that gender is described as an eternal characteristic. We know that experiencing same-sex attraction is not itself considered a sin by the Church. We know that God’s promises extend beyond mortality. But the Church has not revealed whether a person’s sexual orientation will remain unchanged, change, or no longer be experienced in the same way after the resurrection.

That last point is important enough to repeat: there is currently no official LDS doctrine that answers the question of what happens specifically to sexual orientation after death. For that reason, it would be inappropriate to tell a gay Latter-day Saint, with certainty, “You will still be gay in heaven,” just as it would be inappropriate to say, “God will make you straight in the resurrection.” Neither statement is something the Church has revealed.

What we can say with confidence is that God knows His children perfectly, Jesus Christ knows exactly what each of us experiences, and the Resurrection is ultimately a restoration to immortal life—not the erasure of our individual worth. There are things about the next life that God has revealed, and there are things He has not. On this particular question, sexual orientation falls into the second category. And sometimes the most faithful answer to a difficult doctrinal question is simply: We don’t know yet.

What we do know is that Jesus Christ is the Savior of all of God’s children, that the Resurrection is real, and that God has promised blessings beyond what we can fully understand in mortality.

The things God has not revealed, we can safely leave in His hands.

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,

I have always taught my children that God is mighty to save—that people who have not accepted Jesus Christ in this life still have a meaningful opportunity to accept Him in the next. Because of that, I’ve shared my belief that many—perhaps even most—of God’s children will ultimately accept the gospel, receive temple ordinances, and inherit the celestial kingdom.

Recently, my son, while serving his mission, expressed this view to some of his companions. They disagreed. Do we know how many will?

Karl

Answer

Karl,

The short answer is that we have not been given a specific percentage or number. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not revealed that, for example, 50 percent, 75 percent, or some other percentage of God’s children will ultimately enter the celestial kingdom. We do, however, know quite a bit about what God has provided for His children, and several Church leaders have expressed a very hopeful view of what will happen when the gospel is preached to those who did not have an opportunity to receive it during mortality.

The doctrine begins with the fact that this life is not the only time in which people can hear the gospel. The Church teaches that those who die without having had an opportunity to accept the gospel can be taught in the spirit world. Doctrine and Covenants 138 describes the Savior organizing righteous spirits to preach the gospel to those in spiritual prison.

Doctrine and Covenants 138:30-32 explains that the gospel was preached to “all the spirits of men,” including those who had died without an opportunity to hear it during mortality. The Church’s teachings on the spirit world likewise explain that the gospel is taught to those who did not have an opportunity during mortality to receive it and its saving ordinances.

This is important because it means God judges people fairly. A person who has never heard about Christ is not judged in exactly the same way as someone who understood the gospel clearly and deliberately rejected it.

In fact, Doctrine and Covenants 137 gives us an extraordinary example of this principle. Joseph Smith saw his brother Alvin in the celestial kingdom, even though Alvin had died before the Restoration and before baptism was restored. The Lord explained:

“All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God.”

The revelation then teaches that God will judge people according to the desires of their hearts and the opportunities they had been given.

That principle is enormously important. God knows His children perfectly. He knows what a person would have done if circumstances had been different. Someone isn’t condemned simply because of the time, place, family, culture, or circumstances into which he or she happened to be born.

But what about people who have died without accepting the gospel? Will they actually accept it when they are taught after death?

This is where some statements from Church leaders become particularly interesting.

President Wilford Woodruff expressed a very hopeful view of missionary work in the spirit world. He taught that when the gospel was preached to those who had died without receiving it, “very few, if any,” would fail to accept it.

The Church has preserved President Woodruff’s statement in its teaching materials on family history and the redemption of the dead.

That is a remarkably strong statement. It certainly gives Latter-day Saints reason to have hope for those who did not accept the gospel during mortality.

President Lorenzo Snow expressed a similar belief.

“A wonderful work is being accomplished in our temples in favor of the spirits in prison. I believe, strongly too, that when the Gospel is preached to the spirits in prison, the success attending that preaching will be far greater than that attending the preaching of our Elders in this life. I believe there will be very few indeed of those spirits who will not gladly receive the Gospel when it is carried to them. The circumstances there will be a thousand times more favorable.”

President Brigham Young likewise taught that an enormous number of people would have received and obeyed the gospel if they had been given the opportunity. He spoke of “thousands and millions” of the inhabitants of the earth who would have accepted the gospel had they been given the privilege.

These statements are fascinating because they show that the hopeful idea you have taught your children isn’t simply something someone invented recently. There is a long history of Church leaders expressing confidence that large numbers of God’s children will respond positively when they finally receive an opportunity to hear and understand the gospel.

There is, however, an important distinction we need to make. These statements from Church leaders should not be turned into a revealed percentage. President Woodruff did not say that the Lord had revealed that 99 percent of people would accept the gospel. President Snow did not establish a numerical doctrine about the celestial kingdom. They were expressing their understanding and hope concerning the response of people in the spirit world.

So we can say that Church leaders have taught very optimistically about the number of people who will accept the gospel after death, while also saying that the Lord has not revealed an exact number or percentage of His children who will ultimately inherit the celestial kingdom.

There is another important point. Being given the opportunity to accept the gospel is not the same thing as being forced to accept it.

Latter-day Saint doctrine strongly emphasizes agency. Temple ordinances performed for the dead do not force a deceased person to become a member of the Church or to accept the gospel. The ordinances make the blessings available, but the individual can still accept or reject them. That means we shouldn’t teach that everyone automatically goes to the celestial kingdom simply because temple work is eventually performed for them.

At the same time, we shouldn’t assume that someone who didn’t accept the gospel during mortality is therefore lost. The restored gospel presents a much more hopeful picture.

Jesus Christ’s Atonement reaches beyond the grave. The gospel is preached in the spirit world. Saving ordinances can be performed vicariously in temples. People retain their agency after death. And God judges His children according to the light, knowledge, opportunities, and desires of their hearts.

So, where does that leave the question your son was discussing with his missionary companions? It would not be correct to say that we know most of God’s children will enter the celestial kingdom. We haven’t been given that revelation.

But it would also be inaccurate to suggest that Latter-day Saint teachings give us no reason to believe that many people will accept the gospel after death. Quite the opposite. Presidents Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, and Brigham Young all expressed remarkably hopeful views about how people who receive the gospel respond in the spirit world.

Perhaps the safest way to express the belief is this:

We don’t know exactly how many of God’s children will ultimately accept the gospel and inherit the celestial kingdom. But we do know that God provides every person with a fair opportunity to receive the gospel, either in this life or the next. And several Church leaders have expressed the belief that very large numbers of people will accept that opportunity when they finally receive it.

That leaves the final choice where it belongs—with each individual and with God, who knows perfectly what is in every heart.

And I think that is one of the most beautiful parts of the Restoration. We don’t have to decide ahead of time who is “too far gone.” We don’t have to assume that someone’s lack of opportunity in this life means a lack of opportunity forever.

We can trust in the Savior’s Atonement, do our part in gathering Israel and performing temple ordinances for the dead, and leave the final judgment to Jesus Christ.

We don’t know exactly how many will accept Him.

But we do know that God is mighty to save, and He has provided a way for all of His children to hear the gospel and receive its saving ordinances.

Gramps

Gramps,

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

John

Answer

John,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gramps