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,

Is there a difference between saying “receive one’s endowment” and “take out one’s endowment”?

Samuel

Answer

Samuel,

Have you ever heard someone say they are going to the temple to “take out their endowment”? Perhaps you have also heard someone say they are going to “receive their endowment.” Both expressions are commonly used among Latter-day Saints, but is there actually a difference between the two? Does one expression better reflect what happens in the temple according to the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

The short answer is that there is no doctrinal difference between the two expressions when referring to a person’s first temple endowment. Both are generally understood to mean the same thing. However, when we look more closely at the wording, there is an interesting distinction worth considering. The expression “receive your endowment” more accurately reflects the spiritual meaning of the ordinance because it emphasizes that the endowment is a gift from God rather than simply something we obtain or complete.

The word endowment itself means a gift or bestowal. The Church’s official website, in its explanation of the temple endowment, describes the word endow as having two related meanings: “to bestow a gift” and “to clothe upon.” It goes on to explain that the temple endowment is a sacred gift through which we are clothed with blessings from God, both now and forever. This helps explain why the Church generally uses the expression receive your endowment. We are not simply attending a religious ceremony or participating in another Church activity. We are receiving a sacred ordinance in which we are taught about God’s plan, make covenants with Him, and are promised blessings as we remain faithful.

Doctrine and Covenants 95:8 provides an important scriptural connection. The Lord instructed the Saints to build a house in which He intended to “endow those whom I have chosen with power from on high.” Notice that the Lord uses the word endow in describing what He intends to give His people. The emphasis is on God as the giver of something sacred. The endowment is not something we create for ourselves or something we earn simply by attending the temple. It is a gift that comes from Him through His authorized ordinances.

So where did the expression “take out your endowment” come from? It has been used conversationally among Latter-day Saints for many years, particularly when referring to someone receiving their endowment for the first time. For example, someone might say, “I’m taking out my endowment next month before I leave on my mission,” while another person might say, “I’m going to the temple to receive my endowment before I get married.” Both individuals are talking about the same experience. The expression “take out” is simply a familiar way of referring to obtaining or completing something, much like we use it when talking about taking out an insurance policy or a loan.

There is nothing in LDS doctrine that makes the expression “take out your endowment” incorrect. It is simply a traditional expression that has become part of everyday Church vocabulary. Nevertheless, when we consider the sacred nature of the ordinance, “receive your endowment” seems to be a more meaningful and precise way of describing what actually takes place. After all, we aren’t taking something out of the temple as though we were collecting a possession. We are receiving something the Lord has prepared for us.

This distinction also becomes clearer when we consider other ordinances in the Church. We commonly say that someone receives baptism, receives confirmation, or receives a patriarchal blessing. We generally don’t describe these experiences as taking something out. The same principle applies to the temple endowment. We receive instruction, make sacred covenants, and are promised blessings from Heavenly Father. According to section 27.2 of the General Handbook, the endowment is a gift from God that brings blessings such as greater knowledge of the Lord’s purposes, power to do what Heavenly Father wants us to do, divine direction, and increased hope, comfort, and peace. These blessings are intended to help us throughout our lives as we strive to follow Jesus Christ.

There is also an important distinction between receiving our own endowment and participating in the endowment ordinance for someone who has passed away. Latter-day Saints receive their own endowment once during their lifetime, but they can return to the temple and participate in the ordinance as a proxy for deceased individuals. Through this service, they help provide their ancestors and others who have died with the opportunity to accept the ordinances of the gospel. In both situations, the ordinance points back to the same principle: God’s desire to bless His children and provide them with the opportunity to make sacred covenants with Him.

So, is one expression better than the other? I would say that “receive your endowment” is preferable because it more accurately communicates the spiritual meaning of the ordinance. It reminds us that the endowment is a gift from Heavenly Father and that we are the recipients of His blessings. However, I wouldn’t suggest that someone who uses the expression “take out their endowment” is teaching incorrect doctrine or showing disrespect toward the temple. Most Latter-day Saints understand exactly what the person means.

Ultimately, the important thing isn’t whether we use one expression or the other. It is whether we understand what the endowment represents. It is a sacred gift from Heavenly Father, an opportunity to make additional covenants with Him, and a means of receiving greater spiritual knowledge and blessings through Jesus Christ. Rather than thinking of the endowment as simply another religious milestone to complete, perhaps we should think of it as an opportunity to receive something the Lord lovingly offers His children. That understanding gives the expression “receive your endowment” a particularly meaningful significance.

Gramps

Gramps,

My wife and I married at a later point in life in which having children naturally is not likely to happen (later 40s, early 50s). What is the Church’s stance on using surrogate egg donors and to have a child? Can the child still be sealed to us? The Church handbook is a little unclear on if it would be approved or not.

Brad

Answer

Brad,

One of the great blessings many married couples hope for is the opportunity to have children and raise a family. But sometimes life doesn’t work out quite the way we expected. Some couples marry later in life, while others experience infertility or medical circumstances that make having children naturally difficult or impossible. For a husband and wife who marry in their late 40s or early 50s, these questions can become especially important. You may love each other deeply, desire to raise a child together, and wonder whether modern fertility treatments could make that possible. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has provided guidance about fertility treatments, including in vitro fertilization (IVF), donor eggs, and surrogate motherhood. However, the wording of the General Handbook can sometimes leave couples wondering what is actually permitted and whether a child could be sealed to them.

The Church recognizes that fertility treatments can help married couples who desire children. In General Handbook section 38.6.9, the Church explains that reproductive technology can assist a married woman and man in their righteous desire to have children. However, the Church also teaches that the pattern of a husband and wife providing bodies for God’s spirit children is divinely appointed. Because of this, the Church discourages using sperm from anyone other than the husband or eggs from anyone other than the wife. This is where the wording of the handbook becomes important. The Church discourages the use of donor eggs, but it does not establish an absolute prohibition against them. Instead, the decision is ultimately left to the judgment and prayerful consideration of a lawfully married husband and wife.

That distinction is important for couples who marry later in life. A woman in her late 40s or early 50s may have difficulty becoming pregnant naturally, and the chances of producing viable eggs may be significantly reduced. Using a donated egg through IVF may therefore become one of the options a couple considers. Under the Church’s current policy, this decision falls within the category of fertility treatments that are discouraged but ultimately left to the couple’s judgment and prayerful consideration. The Church’s stated preference is for the husband and wife to use their own reproductive materials when possible, but the handbook does not say that a couple is automatically prohibited from considering donor eggs. Couples should carefully consider their circumstances, their feelings about the procedure, and their desire to raise a child together. It would also be wise to discuss the matter with their bishop or stake president, particularly if they have questions about how the Church’s policies apply to their particular situation.

One of the most important questions for a couple considering donor eggs is whether the child can still be sealed to them in the temple. The Church’s General Handbook provides guidance about children conceived through artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization. Section 38.4.2.6 explains that children conceived through these methods are born in the covenant if their parents are already sealed. If the children are born before their parents are sealed, they may be sealed to their parents after the parents are sealed to each other. This means that the Church recognizes a pathway for children conceived through IVF to be born in the covenant or sealed to their parents. However, the handbook does not specifically address every possible donor-egg arrangement, so it is important to understand how the circumstances of the pregnancy and birth fit within the Church’s guidance.

The important distinction is whether the wife carries and gives birth to the child or whether another woman carries the pregnancy as a surrogate. If a married couple uses a donated egg through IVF, the wife carries the pregnancy and gives birth, the general IVF provision in section 38.4.2.6 appears to be the relevant guidance. The handbook does not specifically say that using a donor egg automatically disqualifies a child from being born in the covenant or being sealed to the parents. It also does not explicitly state that every donor-egg IVF arrangement requires First Presidency approval for sealing. Because the handbook does not specifically address all donor-egg circumstances, couples should confirm how the policy applies to their particular situation rather than assume that approval is either automatically required or automatically unnecessary.

Surrogate motherhood is addressed separately in General Handbook section 38.6.22. The Church discourages surrogate motherhood, but it leaves the decision to the judgment and prayerful consideration of the husband and wife. The handbook also specifically addresses the sealing of children born through surrogacy. It explains that children born to a surrogate mother are not born in the covenant and may be sealed to their parents only with approval from the First Presidency. Section 38.4.2.7 also provides guidance for Church leaders handling these sealing requests. Parents seeking approval should write a letter to the First Presidency and give it to their stake president. If the stake president supports the request, he submits the letter along with his own letter.

This is why it is important not to confuse donor-egg IVF with surrogacy. In one situation, a donated egg is fertilized through IVF and the wife carries and gives birth to the child. In the other, another woman carries and gives birth to the child for the married couple. The handbook specifically identifies the First Presidency approval requirement for children born to surrogate mothers. That requirement should not automatically be applied to every donor-egg IVF arrangement in which the wife carries and gives birth. The exact circumstances matter, and couples considering these options should explain the proposed medical arrangement to their bishop and stake president so they can receive appropriate guidance.

Another possibility worth considering is adoption. The Church recognizes adoption as a way for couples to provide a loving home for children, and it encourages members who are considering adoption to understand the legal and practical requirements involved. Adoption may be an option worth exploring alongside fertility treatments, especially for couples who are unable to conceive naturally or who decide that donor eggs or surrogacy are not the right choice for them.

Ultimately, the Church’s teachings about families emphasize love, commitment, and the responsibilities of parents toward their children. For a couple who marries later in life, the desire to welcome a child into their home can be a deeply meaningful one. The Church does not provide a blanket prohibition against using donor eggs. Its policy discourages the practice but leaves the decision to the married couple’s judgment and prayerful consideration. The handbook also provides general guidance for children conceived through IVF to be born in the covenant or sealed to their parents, while surrogacy is treated differently because the handbook specifically requires First Presidency approval for the sealing of children born to surrogate mothers.

For that reason, the best next step would be to speak with your bishop and stake president, explain the exact fertility treatment you are considering, and ask them to help clarify how the handbook applies to your particular circumstances. You may also want to ask whether they can seek clarification from the appropriate Church office if there are questions about how donor-egg IVF would be handled in your specific situation. Having children is a deeply personal decision, and the Church’s guidance recognizes that couples may face circumstances that require careful prayer, thoughtful consideration, and individual judgment.

The important point is that the Church discourages donor eggs but does not explicitly forbid them. The sealing question should be considered separately from the decision to use donor eggs, particularly because the handbook’s specific First Presidency approval requirement concerns children born to surrogate mothers. A couple considering donor-egg IVF should not assume that their child cannot be sealed to them, but they should seek clarification from Church leaders about how the policy applies to their exact circumstances.

Gramps

Gramps,

What can be said of the overall moral integrity of the Founding Fathers of America? Would it be fair to judge by their actions that they strove for moral integrity in spite of their blatant flaws? I think it’s important to ask, given that Doctrine & Covenants 101 identifies the Constitution as an inspired document. Thanks!

Jude

Answer

Jude,

I think the answer requires us to look at both sides of their lives.

In Doctrine and Covenants 101:77–80, the Lord explains that He established the Constitution of the United States through wise men whom He raised up for that purpose. Verse 80 specifically states:

“I have established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose.”

That is a remarkable statement. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, it means the Constitution was not simply the result of ordinary political circumstances. The Lord had a purpose in bringing about a government that would protect individual liberty, including the freedom to worship.

However, notice something important. The Lord does not say that every man involved in creating the Constitution was perfect, or that every decision they made was inspired. He identifies the Constitution as part of His purpose, not every personal action of the men who helped establish it.

That distinction matters.

The Founding Fathers were human beings living in a particular time and culture. Some were deeply religious, while others had more complicated relationships with organized religion. Some were sincerely committed to liberty and individual rights, yet their personal lives sometimes reflected attitudes and practices that contradicted those very principles.

One of the most obvious examples is slavery.

Several prominent Founding Fathers, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, enslaved other human beings. Jefferson wrote about liberty and equality, yet he participated in a system that denied those freedoms to many people. Washington eventually provided for the emancipation of the enslaved people he owned in his will, but that does not erase the reality of his earlier actions.

These contradictions cannot simply be ignored.

If we are going to talk about moral integrity, we have to acknowledge that the Founding Fathers sometimes failed to live up to the principles they proclaimed. Their treatment of enslaved people is one of the most serious examples. At the same time, it would also be unfair to assume that their failures tell us everything about their character.

Many of these men genuinely believed that liberty was an important moral principle. They risked their lives, their property, and their reputations in resisting what they believed was unjust government authority. They helped establish a system in which people could challenge government power and exercise religious freedom. That does not make them morally perfect. But it does provide evidence that many of them sincerely valued principles beyond their own immediate interests.

From an LDS perspective, this is where the doctrine of inspiration becomes particularly interesting. The Lord has never required that the people He works through be perfect. Throughout the scriptures, we find individuals who were called to accomplish important purposes despite their weaknesses.

Moses had limitations. David committed serious sins. Peter denied knowing Jesus. Yet the Lord continued to work through imperfect people. The same principle can help us understand the Founding Fathers.

The fact that God raised up wise men to establish the Constitution does not mean He approved of everything they did. It means He could work through their abilities, experiences, and circumstances to accomplish something important. We see a similar principle in Doctrine and Covenants 1:24, where the Lord explains that He gives commandments to His servants according to their language and understanding.

God works with people where they are. That does not excuse wrongdoing. Rather, it reminds us that divine purposes can be accomplished through imperfect individuals who are still learning and growing.

I also think it is important to recognize that the Constitution itself contains principles that eventually helped expose the contradictions in the nation’s treatment of people. The Declaration of Independence declared that all men are created equal, even though the nation did not initially apply that principle equally. Over time, Americans used the language of liberty and constitutional rights to challenge slavery, discrimination, and other injustices.

The Constitution did not immediately solve those problems. In fact, its original compromises helped preserve slavery. But the principles of liberty and equal rights became important tools in the struggle to expand freedom. The Church’s own teachings about the Constitution emphasize its purpose in protecting the rights of all people.

The Doctrine and Covenants 101:77–79 speaks of the Constitution as a means of protecting individual rights and allowing people to exercise their conscience. The emphasis is not simply on protecting the rights of one group, but on establishing principles that can benefit everyone.

That is consistent with the statement in Doctrine and Covenants 134:2 that governments should protect the free exercise of conscience, the right to control property, and the protection of life.

In other words, the Constitution’s inspired purpose should encourage us to value liberty for all people, not just those who lived during the founding generation.

So, would it be fair to say that the Founding Fathers generally strove for moral integrity despite their blatant flaws? I think that is a reasonable conclusion, provided we understand what we mean. Many of them demonstrated courage, sacrifice, and a sincere commitment to principles they believed were morally important. Their efforts helped establish a government that protected religious freedom and limited government power.

But their personal actions also reveal serious failures. Some supported slavery, some held prejudices common to their time, and some did not consistently practice the principles they advocated. We should neither turn them into flawless heroes nor dismiss everything they accomplished because of their weaknesses.

The LDS understanding of the Constitution gives us a reason to appreciate their contribution while still recognizing their humanity. Ultimately, the inspiration of the Constitution does not depend on the moral perfection of the men who helped create it. It depends on the purposes God intended it to serve. And perhaps that is one of the most important lessons we can take from their story: God can accomplish important things through imperfect people, but that does not mean their imperfections should be overlooked.

We can be grateful for the Founding Fathers’ contributions to religious liberty and constitutional government while honestly acknowledging where they fell short. Their legacy is worth studying not because they were perfect, but because they helped establish principles that continue to challenge us to become better people and build a more just society.

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,

When God becomes jealous and angry at His disobedient children, is He under the influence of Satan? Thanks.

Erl

Answer

Erl,

According to Latter-day Saint doctrine, the answer is no. God is not under Satan’s influence when He expresses righteous anger or divine jealousy. However, understanding why God experiences these emotions requires us to look at what the scriptures mean when they describe God this way.

One of the best-known scriptures about divine jealousy is found in the Old Testament. In Exodus 20:5, the Lord declares that He is a jealous God when giving Israel the Ten Commandments.

At first glance, that might sound like God is insecure or afraid of losing His position. After all, human jealousy often comes from insecurity, envy, or a desire to control another person.

But the jealousy described in scripture is not necessarily the same thing as the jealousy we experience as human beings.

In the context of the Ten Commandments, God was warning Israel against worshipping other gods. He had delivered the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, established a covenant with them, and called them to worship Him alone.

His jealousy was connected to that covenant relationship. Israel had promised to follow Him, and turning to idols represented a rejection of that commitment.

We can compare this, in a limited way, to the faithfulness expected in a marriage. A husband or wife who expects fidelity is not necessarily acting out of insecurity or selfishness. A commitment has been made, and breaking that commitment damages the relationship.

Of course, God’s relationship with His children is not identical to a marriage, but the comparison helps us understand the idea of covenant faithfulness.

In Latter-day Saint belief, God is perfect in knowledge, power, and love. His jealousy is not evidence that He is threatened by Satan or that He fears losing control. Rather, it reflects His insistence that His children remain faithful to the covenants and commandments that lead them toward eternal life.

To answer whether God’s anger means He has given in to Satan, we need to distinguish between righteous anger and unrighteous anger.

In everyday life, anger can lead us to say things we regret, hurt people we love, or act selfishly. Sometimes Satan can use our anger to encourage hatred, division, revenge, and destructive behavior.

Elder Lynn G. Robbins of the Seventy addressed this subject in his April 1998 general conference talk, “Agency and Anger.” He taught,

“Anger is a yielding to Satan’s influence by surrendering our self-control.”

Elder Robbins was explaining the danger of allowing our anger to control our actions. When we surrender our self-control and allow anger to lead us toward contention, cruelty, or abuse, we open ourselves to Satan’s influence.

However, this does not mean that every expression of anger is automatically sinful or that every reference to God’s anger means He has yielded to Satan. We must distinguish between God’s divine judgment and the anger that arises from our own pride, resentment, or selfishness.

Brigham Young taught this distinction in the Church’s published collection of his teachings:

“There is a wicked anger, and there is a righteous anger.”

This is a helpful distinction when reading about God in the scriptures. His anger against wickedness is not evidence that He has lost control or become subject to Satan. Rather, the scriptures describe Him as opposing evil and administering justice.

At the same time, we should be cautious about calling our own anger righteous simply because we believe someone has done something wrong. President Dieter F. Uchtdorf addressed this tendency in his April 2012 general conference talk, “The Merciful Obtain Mercy.” He warned,

“We too often justify our anger as righteous and our judgment as reliable and only appropriate.”

President Uchtdorf’s counsel reminds us that we do not always see situations clearly. We can misunderstand other people’s motives, and our pride can convince us that our anger is justified when it is not. Unlike God, we do not possess perfect knowledge or judgment.

One of the most remarkable passages in Latter-day Saint scripture appears in Moses 7 of the Pearl of Great Price.

Enoch sees the wickedness of the people living on the earth. The Lord explains that the people have rejected His commandments and turned against one another. The Lord’s anger is described in strong language. Yet something unexpected happens. Enoch sees God weeping.

In Moses 7:28–40, Enoch asks why the heavens are weeping. The Lord explains that He has given His children commandments to love one another, but they have become hateful and violent. Although the Lord expresses indignation, He also grieves over what His children have become.

Think about what that teaches us. God is not described as delighting in the suffering of His disobedient children. He is sorrowful over their choices and the misery those choices bring. This is an important distinction. God can oppose wickedness without ceasing to love the people who commit it.

A parent may be deeply disappointed and even angry when a child makes a dangerous decision. That does not necessarily mean the parent has stopped loving the child. Sometimes the parent is upset precisely because they understand the harm the child’s choices can cause.

The comparison is imperfect because God possesses knowledge and perfection that mortal parents do not. Nevertheless, it helps us understand how love, sorrow, justice, and anger can exist together.

Someone might point to Moses 7:37, where the Lord says of the wicked,

“Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom.”

Does this mean Satan has influenced God to become angry with them?

No. In this passage, the Lord describes the consequences of choosing wickedness and following Satan rather than God. It is not saying that Satan has gained influence over God Himself.

Latter-day Saint doctrine teaches that Satan seeks to lead God’s children away from truth and righteousness. God, on the other hand, seeks to bring His children to repentance and eternal life through Jesus Christ. The two are working in opposite directions. Satan encourages sin and misery, while God offers redemption and the opportunity to change.

Even when God warns of judgment, His warnings should be understood alongside the scriptures that teach of His mercy and willingness to forgive those who repent. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, redemption is possible, and God’s judgments do not mean that He has abandoned His desire to save His children.

Doctrine and Covenants 121:41–43 provides another important principle. The Lord teaches that influence should be exercised through persuasion, patience, gentleness, meekness, love, kindness, and appropriate correction. Even when someone needs to be reproved, the Lord teaches that it should be followed by an increase of love.

This passage reminds us that we should never use the fact that God expresses anger in Scripture to justify our own uncontrolled anger, cruelty, or desire for revenge. God’s example is not an excuse to mistreat others. Instead, the scriptures call us to become more like Jesus Christ, who taught us to love our enemies, forgive others, and seek reconciliation.

So, is God under Satan’s influence when He becomes angry?

According to Latter-day Saint doctrine, no. God does not become jealous or angry because Satan has influenced Him. His divine jealousy reflects His covenant relationship with His children, and His anger against wickedness reflects His opposition to sin and injustice.

The account of Enoch in Moses 7 is especially helpful because it shows us that God’s anger does not cancel out His love. He is grieved by the wickedness of His children, and He sees the misery that their choices bring upon themselves and others.

We should also avoid assuming that every feeling of anger we experience is righteous simply because God expresses anger in Scripture. We are not God, and we do not possess His perfect knowledge or judgment.

Perhaps the most comforting lesson is this: God’s anger is not evidence that Satan has gained power over Him, nor does it mean that God has stopped loving His children.

The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches that God wants His children to repent, change, and return to Him. His commandments are intended to lead us toward eternal life, and through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, forgiveness and spiritual renewal are possible.

God can oppose our sins while still loving us. He can hold us accountable while still offering mercy. And He can express displeasure with our choices without becoming anything like Satan.

That is an important distinction to remember whenever we read about God’s jealousy, anger, or judgments in the scriptures.

Gramps

Gramps,

Can you address the following? Why don’t Mormons believe Christians have the “proper authority” to be involved? All Christian denominations are false, and our professors are corrupt, according to Joseph Smith. Do you think Mormons can ever get past that? Are we corrupt? Are we false Christians?  Are all our creeds an abomination? Correcting all those ugly statements would be a great start toward unity. Agreed?

Mark

Answer

Mark,

One reason for the confusion is Joseph Smith’s account of the First Vision. According to Joseph Smith—History 1:19, when Joseph asked which church he should join, he was told to join none of them. The account also uses some very strong language, stating that the existing churches were wrong, their creeds were an abomination, and their religious leaders were corrupt.

We shouldn’t pretend those words aren’t there. They are part of an important Latter-day Saint scripture, and they have understandably caused concern among Christians of other traditions. However, understanding what Latter-day Saints believe about those statements requires looking at the Church’s broader teachings rather than assuming that every Latter-day Saint believes every other Christian is dishonest, wicked, or insincere.

So, what is the distinction?

According to LDS doctrine, the First Vision marked the beginning of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Latter-day Saints believe that the original Church established by Jesus Christ possessed priesthood authority and that this authority was lost after the deaths of the original apostles. They believe that God restored that authority through Joseph Smith.

This is why Latter-day Saints make claims about priesthood authority that other Christian denominations generally do not accept. The Church’s General Handbook, section 3.1, states that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only organization on earth with priesthood authority as understood in LDS doctrine.

That is a significant theological disagreement. But notice what the claim is actually about: divine authority and the Restoration. It does not mean that Latter-day Saints must believe every minister in another church is a bad person or that every teaching in another church is false.

In fact, the Church recognizes that people outside its membership can receive inspiration, live righteous lives, and understand important truths about God and Jesus Christ.

Joseph Smith himself taught, “One of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism’ is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” That statement is recorded in History of the Church, volume 5, page 499. It expresses an important principle: truth does not become false simply because it comes from someone outside our own religious tradition.

You can find this quotation and other statements about religious freedom and respect for other faiths on the Church’s official website: 12 Expressions of Religious Freedom by Past Church Leaders

Now, what about the accusation that all Christian denominations are false and their ministers are corrupt?

Here we need to be honest about the language in Joseph Smith—History 1:19. The account really does contain a sweeping criticism of the existing churches and their creeds. It would be inaccurate to claim that the First Vision makes no negative judgment about other religious traditions.

From the LDS perspective, however, the message is that existing churches did not possess the fulness of Christ’s restored gospel and that certain doctrines and religious practices needed correction. The Church does not teach that every individual Christian is personally corrupt or that people in other denominations cannot sincerely love God.

There is an important difference between believing that another church lacks something essential to your understanding of the gospel and declaring that every person in that church is spiritually dishonest.

A Catholic who spends years caring for the poor, a Baptist who faithfully teaches the Bible, or a Methodist who dedicates their life to serving others should not automatically be viewed as a corrupt person simply because they do not accept LDS teachings about priesthood authority. Latter-day Saints can disagree with their theology while recognizing their sincerity, goodness, and devotion to Jesus Christ. But what about the statement that all other churches’ creeds are an abomination?

This is probably one of the most difficult parts of the discussion. The wording in Joseph Smith’s account is strong, and Christians who belong to traditions with historic creeds may understandably feel that their beliefs are being insulted.

Latter-day Saints generally understand this passage as a criticism of religious doctrines and creeds that they believe departed from revealed truth. It should not automatically be interpreted as a declaration that everything in the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, or every other Christian confession is evil or that everyone who accepts those creeds is an abomination.

Still, we should acknowledge that the language itself is broad and that people can reasonably interpret it as a serious criticism of historic Christianity. We cannot build unity by telling other Christians that they have no reason to be offended. We can, however, explain our beliefs carefully, listen to their concerns, and avoid turning doctrinal disagreements into personal attacks.

The LDS Church also teaches that religious freedom belongs to everyone. The 11th Article of Faith states,

“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

Joseph Smith also spoke in defense of the religious rights of Presbyterians, Baptists, Roman Catholics, and people of other denominations. These teachings demonstrate that defending the Restoration does not require denying others the right to worship God or treating them with contempt.

Can Latter-day Saints and other Christians ever get past these disagreements? I believe they can, provided that unity does not require either side to abandon its convictions.

Unity does not mean pretending that the LDS Church and other Christian denominations teach exactly the same things. They don’t. There are real differences concerning the nature of God, priesthood authority, baptism, scripture, and the organization of Christ’s Church.

But we can disagree without being disrespectful. We can explain what we believe without misrepresenting what someone else believes. And we can recognize that another person may have a sincere relationship with Jesus Christ even when we disagree about important doctrines.

For Latter-day Saints, this means remembering that believing in the Restoration does not give us permission to look down on other Christians. For Christians of other traditions, it means recognizing that Latter-day Saints sincerely believe their claims about restored authority, even if those claims are rejected by other churches.

Perhaps a good starting point is to ask ourselves whether our conversations about religion are helping people understand one another or simply creating more division. Are we listening? Are we being fair? Are we treating one another as children of God?

Jesus Christ taught His disciples to love one another. That commandment does not disappear when we encounter someone whose religious beliefs differ from our own.

We do not have to agree on every doctrine to show kindness, cooperate in serving our communities, defend one another’s religious freedom, or recognize the good that others do.

So, are members of other Christian denominations false Christians simply because Latter-day Saints believe in a Restoration? No. The LDS Church’s distinctive claims about priesthood authority and the fulness of the gospel should not be confused with a declaration that every other Christian is insincere or morally corrupt.

Can we correct misunderstandings and move toward greater unity? Absolutely. That begins with honesty about our differences, respect for one another’s faith, and a willingness to stop treating disagreement as a reason for hostility.

We may not reach the same conclusions about every religious question, but we can still treat one another with the love, dignity, and compassion that Jesus Christ taught.

And perhaps that would be a very good place to start.

Gramps

]]> https://askgramps.org/lds-beliefs-about-other-churches/feed/ 0 https://askgramps.org/lds-temple-burial-clothing/ https://askgramps.org/lds-temple-burial-clothing/#respond Wed, 28 Oct 2026 08:00:42 +0000 https://askgramps.org/?p=79450 Question

Gramps,

Why do we believe in being buried in our ceremonial temple clothes? Is it more than just the symbolism?

Shae

Answer

Shae,

Saying goodbye to someone we love is never easy. Even when our faith gives us hope in the Resurrection, the loss of a loved one can leave us with a deep sense of sadness and longing. For Latter-day Saints, the funeral and burial of someone who has received their temple endowment can also carry special spiritual meaning. One practice that families may observe is dressing their loved one in sacred temple clothing.

But why do we do this? Is it simply a tradition, or does it represent something deeper? And is there more to it than symbolism?

To understand this practice, we need to look at the sacred covenants made in the temple, the Church’s burial guidelines, and the hope we have through Jesus Christ. These teachings can help us understand why temple clothing is meaningful to many Latter-day Saints, while we remember that our greatest hope rests in the Savior and His promise of eternal life.

The Church’s General Handbook, section 38.5.10, explains that deceased endowed members should be buried or cremated in temple clothing if possible. If cultural traditions or burial practices make this difficult or inappropriate, the clothing may be folded and placed next to the body.

Why is this practice important to us?

When members receive their temple endowment, they participate in sacred ordinances and make covenants with Heavenly Father. The ceremonial clothing worn during these ordinances is associated with those commitments. Being buried in that clothing is a way of honoring the sacred experiences and covenants that have been part of the person’s life.

For many Latter-day Saints, the temple is one of the most sacred places on earth. It is where they make solemn promises to God and learn about His plan for His children. Being laid to rest in temple clothing can be a deeply personal expression of devotion to the Lord and a reminder of the commitments that shaped their lives.

But is it more than just symbolism?

To understand this question, we need to recognize that symbols have an important place in LDS worship. The scriptures use physical objects and outward actions to teach spiritual truths. Baptism, for example, represents the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, but it is also a sacred ordinance performed under God’s authority. The sacrament uses bread and water to help us remember the Savior and renew our commitment to Him.

Temple clothing is connected to sacred ordinances and covenants in a similar way. However, we should be careful not to assume that the clothing itself possesses some special power that determines what happens to us after death.

The Church teaches that temple garments are sacred and serve as a reminder of our covenants with God. Keeping those covenants helps us remain focused on Jesus Christ and His teachings.

However, the Church does not teach that being buried in temple clothing guarantees salvation, resurrection, or exaltation. Those blessings come through Jesus Christ and His Atonement, according to God’s plan. Our eternal destiny is not determined by the clothing in which our bodies are laid to rest.

What does this have to do with the Resurrection?

Latter-day Saints believe that death is not the end of our existence. Because Jesus Christ overcame death, every person who has lived on earth will be resurrected.

In Alma 40:23, the Book of Mormon teaches that the spirit and body will be reunited, with all things restored to their proper and perfect frame.

The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame.

This promise gives us hope when we bury someone we love. Although death brings real grief and separation, we believe that the grave is not the end of the story.

For an endowed member who treasured the temple, being buried in temple clothing can be a meaningful way to connect the end of mortal life with the covenants and spiritual commitments that were important throughout that life. It can also serve as a reminder to family members of their loved one’s faith and hope in God’s promises.

Still, the Resurrection does not depend on whether someone is buried in temple clothing. A person who is cremated, buried in ordinary clothing, or unable to be dressed in temple clothing is not excluded from the Resurrection. The power to raise the dead belongs to Jesus Christ, not to the clothing placed on the body.

The Church recognizes that circumstances differ, which is why its handbook provides alternatives when temple clothing cannot be used appropriately. Families should not feel that they have somehow diminished their loved one’s eternal prospects if circumstances prevent them from following the usual practice.

So, does temple clothing have special power?

It is important to distinguish between the sacred nature of temple clothing and the idea that the material itself has independent spiritual power. Latter-day Saints treat temple clothing with reverence because of its connection to sacred ordinances and covenants. But we do not believe the clothing functions as a magical protection or guarantees a particular eternal reward.

Our faith rests in the Savior, His Atonement, and His promise that death will be overcome. Temple covenants matter because of the relationship with God that they represent and the commitments we make to follow Him.

Ultimately, being buried in temple clothing is a meaningful expression of faith and devotion for many endowed members of the Church. It honors the sacred covenants they made during mortality and reflects their belief in the eternal nature of God’s plan.

But the most important part of that belief is not what a person wears at death. It is the Savior who makes the Resurrection possible and offers the hope of eternal life.

When we see an endowed member laid to rest in temple clothing, we can remember the faith that guided that person’s life and the promises of God that extend beyond the grave. We mourn because we love, but we also look forward with hope because of Jesus Christ.

That is the heart of the practice: honoring sacred covenants while placing our trust in the Savior, who conquered death and made eternal life possible.

Gramps

Gramps,

What do we, as members of the Church, think of the term Yahweh?

Alvis

Answer

Alvis,

Have you ever heard someone refer to God as Yahweh and wondered what members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints think about that name? Is Yahweh another name for Heavenly Father? Is it a name for Jesus Christ? And why do Latter-day Saints generally use the name Jehovah instead?

These are good questions, and the answers help us better understand one of the important teachings of our faith: Jesus Christ was Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, long before He was born in Bethlehem.

The term Yahweh is closely related to the name Jehovah. Both refer to the divine name represented by the Hebrew letters YHWH in the Old Testament. The Church’s Guide to the Scriptures explains that Jehovah is the covenant or proper name of the God of Israel and that it refers to Jesus Christ in His premortal existence.

So, when someone uses the name Yahweh, Latter-day Saints generally understand that person to be referring to the same God whom we commonly call Jehovah.

One important point, though, is that Yahweh is not a name we typically use in everyday Church worship. Latter-day Saints more commonly use Jesus Christ, the Lord, and Jehovah, depending on the context. That does not mean we believe Yahweh refers to a different God or that the term itself is inappropriate. The difference is largely a matter of language and tradition.

The original Hebrew Scriptures used four Hebrew consonants, YHWH, to represent the divine name. Scholars commonly refer to these four letters as the Tetragrammaton. Because the original pronunciation is uncertain, Yahweh and Jehovah are different English spellings of that name. The Church’s scripture helps explain that the original pronunciation may have been lost because Jewish readers traditionally avoided speaking the name aloud and substituted other titles for God.

For Latter-day Saints, the most important point isn’t which English form of the name someone uses. It is understanding who Jehovah is. In our doctrine, Jehovah is Jesus Christ in His premortal existence. He is the God who spoke to the ancient prophets, led the children of Israel, established covenants with His people, and promised that He would come to earth as the Messiah. This understanding is sometimes surprising to people who assume that the God of the Old Testament was Heavenly Father and that Jesus Christ only became known in the New Testament. Latter-day Saints understand the relationship differently.

We believe Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are two distinct beings who are perfectly united in purpose. Heavenly Father is the Father of Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is His Only Begotten Son in the flesh. Before His mortal birth, Jesus Christ acted under the authority and direction of the Father as Jehovah, the God of Israel.

The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles states:

“He was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament.”

This statement is central to understanding how Latter-day Saints view the name Jehovah and, by extension, the term Yahweh.

Consider what happened when Jesus Christ spoke to the people in Jerusalem. In John 8:58, He declared, “Before Abraham was, I am.” The people understood His words as a claim to divine identity, and the following verse describes their reaction.

The connection becomes clearer when we read Exodus 3:13-15, where God revealed His name to Moses. In Latter-day Saint teaching, the name associated with the expression “I Am” points us to Jesus Christ’s eternal nature and His identity as Jehovah.

The Book of Mormon also teaches this truth. In 3 Nephi 15:5, the resurrected Savior explained His relationship to the law given through Moses. And in Doctrine and Covenants 110:3-4, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery described a vision of the Lord in which He identified Himself as Jesus Christ.

These passages help establish that Jesus Christ was not simply a teacher who appeared in the New Testament. He was actively involved in God’s dealings with His children long before His mortal ministry. So, what should we think when we hear someone use the term Yahweh?

I believe the best answer is to recognize that it refers to the same divine identity that Latter-day Saints usually call Jehovah. We do not need to be uncomfortable simply because someone uses a different form of the name. We can appreciate the Hebrew background of the Bible while remaining grounded in the restored gospel’s teachings about Jesus Christ.

At the same time, we should be careful not to assume that everyone who uses the term Yahweh understands God’s identity in exactly the same way we do. Other religious traditions have their own teachings about God, and the term may be used within those different understandings.

For Latter-day Saints, however, the doctrine is clear: Jehovah is Jesus Christ, the premortal Son of God, who came to earth as our Savior and Redeemer.

Whether someone says Yahweh, Jehovah, the Lord, or Jesus Christ, the name should lead us toward a deeper understanding of the Savior and greater appreciation for His eternal role in Heavenly Father’s plan.

Ultimately, this is not merely a question about pronunciation. It is a reminder that Jesus Christ has always been central to God’s plan for His children. He was the God of Israel; He is our living Savior today, and He will remain our Redeemer throughout eternity.

That is the truth Latter-day Saints should keep at the heart of our understanding of Yahweh and Jehovah.

Gramps

Gramps,

I just recently rediscovered your website! My question: Church farms require full labor on the Sabbath, or their employment is terminated, whereas most farmers (where I am located) who are members of the Church are able to halt most operations on Sunday. Often, people dealing with these local farmers are surprised to learn they aren’t doing business with them on Sunday, when the Church itself is still fully operating. Is there something I’m not aware of about Church farm work that could reconcile this? Thanks!

Jeremy

Answer

Jeremy,

Thank you for rediscovering the website and for asking such an interesting question! I can understand why this situation might seem confusing. If Latter-day Saints are taught to keep the Sabbath day holy and avoid unnecessary work on Sunday, why would Church-owned farms require employees to work that day? And why would local members who operate their own farms often shut down their operations instead?

The answer involves an important distinction between the Church’s teachings about the Sabbath, the practical needs of agricultural operations, and the circumstances of individual employees. However, we need to be careful not to assume that every Church farm requires Sunday labor or that employees will automatically be terminated for refusing to work. I could not verify a general Church-wide policy establishing either practice.

The Church’s doctrine about keeping the Sabbath is quite clear. In Doctrine and Covenants 59:9-10, the Lord commands His people to go to the house of prayer, offer their sacraments, and rest from their labors. Sunday is intended to be a day of worship, spiritual renewal, and devotion to God.

So why might agricultural work still take place on Sunday?

One possibility is that certain farm operations cannot simply be stopped without consequences. Livestock must be fed and watered, animals may need medical attention, and milking operations often have to follow regular schedules. Crops and other agricultural activities can also be affected by weather, seasonal conditions, and time-sensitive needs.

Of course, these considerations apply to both privately owned and Church-owned farms. Many Latter-day Saint farmers make arrangements to complete their regular work on other days and limit Sunday activities to essential care for animals or other unavoidable responsibilities. Others may face circumstances that require more work on the Sabbath.

This brings us to an important distinction: the difference between essential work and routine work.

Essential work involves responsibilities that cannot reasonably be postponed without causing harm, neglect, or significant problems. For example, a farmer may need to feed livestock, provide water, milk dairy cows, or respond to an emergency involving a sick animal. These responsibilities may have to be performed on Sunday because animals depend on daily care. Some agricultural tasks may also be time-sensitive because of weather conditions or other circumstances beyond the farmer’s control.

Routine work, on the other hand, involves activities that can generally be rescheduled without causing significant harm or disruption. Depending on the circumstances, examples might include ordinary office duties, nonurgent equipment maintenance, routine paperwork, or agricultural tasks that could reasonably wait until Monday.

Of course, the distinction is not always clear-cut. A task that can normally wait until Monday might become urgent due to an unexpected storm, equipment breakdown, or another emergency. The circumstances matter.

The Church has not established a universal rule declaring that every task that can be postponed must be postponed or that every task performed on Sunday is wrong. Nevertheless, this distinction gives us a helpful way to think about the purpose of the Sabbath. Caring for livestock may be necessary, but that does not automatically mean every agricultural operation must continue at its normal pace on Sunday.

The Savior Himself taught that doing good on the Sabbath is appropriate. In Matthew 12:11–12, Jesus explained that helping an animal in need was acceptable on the Sabbath and taught that it is lawful to do good on that day.

The lesson is not that the Sabbath no longer matters when work is inconvenient. Rather, the Lord expects us to understand the purpose of the Sabbath and exercise good judgment when genuine needs arise.

The Church’s teaching materials also recognize that some people must work on the Sabbath. Preach My Gospel discusses circumstances in which people may be required to work by their employers or need to provide for themselves, their families, or their communities. Members in these situations are encouraged to maintain the spirit of the Sabbath as much as possible and may counsel with their Church leaders.

That guidance is helpful because it recognizes that not every situation is the same. A nurse caring for patients, a firefighter responding to an emergency, and a farmer caring for livestock may all face responsibilities that cannot conveniently wait until Monday.

But that still leaves your main question: Why would the Church itself operate differently from local members who own farms?

It is worth remembering that the Church is a religious organization, but it also operates agricultural properties and other enterprises. Its operations can involve employees, production schedules, livestock, food supplies, and other practical responsibilities. The fact that a property belongs to the Church does not automatically mean every activity performed there is a religious ordinance or that every operational decision is an expression of doctrine.

At the same time, Church ownership should not be taken as proof that working every Sunday is necessary or that such work is automatically consistent with the ideal of Sabbath observance. The details matter. Some work may be essential, while other work might be scheduled differently. Without knowing which farm is involved, what duties employees perform, and what employment rules apply, it would be unfair to assume we know the reason for the schedule.

There is also a difference between an employee who must work on Sunday to keep a job and a self-employed farmer who can choose when to conduct business. An independent farmer may have greater flexibility to arrange the week’s work around Sunday worship. An employee may have less control over the schedule. That difference does not necessarily mean one person is more faithful than the other.

Naturally, if an employer requires Sunday work, a Latter-day Saint employee may need to weigh employment responsibilities, family needs, and personal religious convictions. The Church encourages members to honor the Sabbath, but its teaching materials also recognize that some employment circumstances cannot easily be avoided.

This is why we should be cautious about judging an individual employee’s faithfulness solely because they are working on Sunday. We may not know the circumstances involved.

Ultimately, your question raises a fair point. The Church teaches members to make the Sabbath a holy day, and it is reasonable to ask whether the Church’s own agricultural operations reflect that principle. Practical necessities can explain some Sunday labor, but they do not establish that all Sunday work is necessary.

The most accurate answer is that the doctrine of Sabbath observance is clear, while the particular employment practices of an individual Church farm need to be verified separately. I could not confirm an official, Church-wide rule requiring full Sunday labor at Church farms or mandating termination for employees who decline to work that day.

Thank you again for raising the question. It is a good reminder that applying gospel principles in the real world sometimes requires us to look carefully at the circumstances rather than assume that every situation has the same answer.

Gramps

Gramps,

Why would the prophet and the first counselors urge us to get the Covid 19 vaccine and say it’s proven to be safe and effective if so many people were having health problems after taking it?
Aubrey

Answer

Aubrey,

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, people everywhere were frightened, confused, and worried about what the future would hold. Many people became seriously ill, hospitals were overwhelmed, and families lost loved ones. When vaccines became available, the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints encouraged members to get vaccinated.

But looking back, some people have an honest question: Why did President Russell M. Nelson and his counselors, Dallin H. Oaks and Henry B. Eyring, encourage vaccination and say the vaccines were safe and effective, even as some people experienced serious health problems after receiving them?

That is a fair question. Let’s look at what the Church actually said, what medical evidence can tell us, and what LDS doctrine teaches about prophetic leadership.

On August 12, 2021, the First Presidency issued a message encouraging Church members to get vaccinated against COVID-19. They wrote:

“Available vaccines have proven to be both safe and effective.”

They also encouraged members to follow the recommendations of medical experts and government leaders. \

It is important to understand the circumstances in which this message was given. In 2021, COVID-19 was still causing serious illness and death, and the Delta variant was spreading. Church leaders were trying to help protect members, particularly those who were older or more vulnerable to severe illness.

President Nelson was also a physician and heart surgeon before becoming a Church leader. He and his counselors relied on the medical information available to them and encouraged members to follow public-health recommendations. Their message appears to have been motivated by a sincere desire to protect people’s lives. However, understanding their intentions does not mean we must assume that every medical claim made at the time was perfectly complete or that every individual would have the same experience.

Yes, some people experienced serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, and it would be wrong to dismiss their experiences or pretend that every person who received a vaccine had no problems. Many people experienced temporary side effects such as fatigue, headaches, muscle aches, and fever. In rare cases, more serious problems were identified. For example, medical authorities recognized a risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, which are inflammation of the heart muscle and the tissue surrounding the heart, particularly in certain groups following some mRNA vaccines. Other rare complications were also investigated.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides information about these risks and vaccine safety. Its COVID-19 vaccine safety page explains what health authorities have identified and how adverse events are monitored:

At the same time, we need to distinguish between a health problem that happened after vaccination and one that was actually caused by the vaccine. Timing alone does not establish causation. Researchers investigate patterns, compare outcomes, and look for evidence of a connection. In some cases, a connection is established; in others, it is not.

This distinction matters, but it should never be used to brush aside someone who is suffering. A person who develops a serious health problem deserves to be heard, evaluated, and treated with compassion, whether the cause has been established or not. The fact that a vaccine has benefits for many people does not mean it is completely risk-free. Likewise, the fact that some people experience adverse effects does not automatically mean the vaccine provides no benefit. Both realities can be true.

This is where LDS doctrine becomes especially important.

Latter-day Saints believe that prophets are called by God and receive revelation to guide His Church. However, the Church’s own teachings make an important point: Church leaders are not infallible. They are mortal men who work with the knowledge, understanding, and revelation available to them.

The Church discusses this in its official resource on prophets.

We believe that God guides His Church through prophets, but that does not mean every statement a prophet makes about medicine, science, history, or other subjects is a direct revelation from God. There is a difference between a prophet teaching the gospel under divine inspiration and a prophet offering counsel about a practical matter.

Regarding COVID-19 vaccination, the First Presidency encouraged members to follow medical experts and government leaders. Their message presented vaccination as a public health measure intended to reduce the dangers posed by the pandemic. It was not presented as a new revelation or a doctrine of the Church.

That distinction matters.

We should not automatically assume that every detail of a prophet’s advice on a medical question has been revealed directly by Heavenly Father. Nor should we assume that a prophet has been deceived simply because medical understanding develops or because some people experience outcomes that were not fully anticipated.

Why would God allow this to happen? This is a difficult question, especially for someone who trusted Church leaders and later experienced a serious health problem after vaccination.

LDS doctrine teaches that we live in a mortal world where illness, suffering, and death are part of the human experience. We also believe that God has given us agency and expects us to use our minds, seek knowledge, and make responsible decisions.

The Doctrine and Covenants teaches:

“Seek learning, even by study and also by faith.” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:118)

Notice that the verse includes both study and faith. We do not have to choose between believing in God and carefully examining medical evidence. Sometimes we make decisions based on the best information available, only to discover later that the situation was more complicated than we understood. That is true in medicine and in many other areas of life.

We should also be careful not to assume that someone who experienced a bad outcome lacked faith, made a sinful choice, or failed to follow God. Health problems are not reliable measures of a person’s righteousness. And if someone believes the vaccine caused their illness, it is reasonable to want answers. That person deserves compassion and a serious medical evaluation, not criticism for asking questions.

Were the Church leaders wrong? The most honest answer is that we cannot determine from the Church’s statement alone whether every aspect of its advice was correct for every individual. The leaders were responding to a dangerous pandemic and relying on medical guidance available at the time. COVID-19 vaccines provided protection against severe disease, but they also carried risks, some of which were rare and became better understood through continued monitoring.

In medicine, “safe” generally does not mean “without any risk.” It means the benefits and risks have been evaluated, and the intervention is considered appropriate for a particular population or situation. Individual circumstances can differ, and medical recommendations can change as new evidence becomes available.

Whether the Church’s leaders should have communicated the uncertainties more clearly is a reasonable question to discuss. We do not need to pretend that every decision made during the pandemic was perfect in order to maintain faith in Jesus Christ.

I believe there are three important lessons we can take from this experience.

First, we can respect our prophets without assuming they possess unlimited knowledge about every subject. Their divine calling is real within LDS belief, but they remain mortal and do not know everything.

Second, we should use both spiritual guidance and reliable evidence when making personal medical decisions. Prayer, scripture study, consultation with qualified medical professionals, and an honest examination of the evidence can work together.

Third, we should treat people who have suffered after vaccination with compassion. We should not automatically assume that every reported problem was caused by a vaccine, but neither should we dismiss genuine adverse reactions simply because they are uncommon.

Above all, we should remember that our faith is centered on Jesus Christ, not on the assumption that every human decision will be perfect.

The Church encourages members to seek answers to difficult questions through careful study, reliable sources, and faith. Its resource on answering gospel questions offers guidance on thoughtfully investigating challenging subjects:

We can acknowledge the good intentions of Church leaders, recognize the limitations of human knowledge, and take into account the experiences of people who suffered deeply.

And we can do all of that while continuing to seek truth, exercise our agency, and trust in Jesus Christ. Faith does not require us to ignore difficult questions. Sometimes, asking those questions honestly is part of how we grow in understanding.

Gramps

Gramps,

What does it mean in 2 Nephi 2:21 when it says because of the transgression of their parents?

Haze

Answer

Haze,

The key is understanding the Fall of Adam and Eve and the difference between inheriting the effects of the Fall and being held responsible for our own sins.

Lehi taught his son Jacob:

“For he gave commandment unto all men that they must repent; for he showed unto all men, that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents.” (2 Nephi 2:21)

When Lehi speaks of “their parents,” he is referring to Adam and Eve, our first parents in mortality. Their decision to partake of the forbidden fruit brought about what Latter-day Saints call the Fall.

But what does it mean that we were lost because of their transgression?

According to Latter-day Saint doctrine, Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden in a state of innocence. When they partook of the forbidden fruit, they were cast out of the garden and became mortal. The Fall brought two major consequences: physical death and spiritual death.

Physical death means that our bodies are subject to death. We experience aging, sickness, and eventually the separation of our spirits from our bodies. Spiritual death means separation from the presence of God. Because of the Fall, Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden and could no longer enjoy the same direct presence of God they had experienced there.

As their descendants, we are born into this fallen condition. We live in a mortal world where suffering, temptation, sin, and death are part of the human experience.

The Church explains this in its Gospel Topics article on the Fall of Adam and Eve.

So when Lehi says we are “lost” because of our parents’ transgression, he is explaining that Adam and Eve’s choice changed the conditions under which we would all live. It does not mean that each of us personally committed Adam and Eve’s transgression, nor does it mean that God considers us condemned or unworthy of His love.

This brings us to an important question. Are we punished for Adam and Eve’s sin? The second Article of Faith gives us a very clear answer:

“We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.”

In other words, we are not held personally guilty for Adam and Eve’s choice. We do, however, inherit the mortal condition that resulted from the Fall.

Think about it this way. A child may be born into a world where illness, hardship, and death exist. The child did nothing to create those conditions, but they still affect the child’s life. Likewise, none of us chose to enter a fallen world, but we all experience the consequences of living in one.

Elder Neal A. Maxwell taught that we are not burdened with an inherited sense of original sin for which we can do nothing. His discussion of this principle is referenced in the Church’s Pearl of Great Price Student Manual, in the material accompanying Moses 6:53–54. (See page 40)

This helps us understand that being “lost” does not mean that we are personally guilty of Adam and Eve’s choice. Rather, we are born into circumstances in which we need a Savior. We are accountable for our own choices and need repentance because of our own sins, not because we were born into mortality.

If the Fall brought so many difficulties into the world, why would God allow it to happen?

Lehi answers this question a few verses later. In 2 Nephi 2:22–23, he explains that if Adam had not transgressed, Adam and Eve would have remained in the Garden of Eden, would not have had children, and would have remained in their original state of innocence.

Then Lehi gives us one of the best-known statements in the Book of Mormon:

“Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy” (2 Nephi 2:25).

According to LDS doctrine, the Fall was part of God’s plan for our eternal progression. Mortality gives us the opportunity to receive physical bodies, have families, exercise agency, learn from our experiences, and grow spiritually.

Of course, mortality also brings heartache. People experience illness, loss, disappointment, and the consequences of other people’s choices. The gospel does not teach that these things are always easy or that we should pretend they do not hurt. But it does teach that our mortal experience is not the end of the story.

Perhaps the most important part of Lehi’s teaching is that he does not leave us without hope.

In 2 Nephi 2:26, Lehi explains that the Messiah comes to redeem the children of men from the Fall. Through Jesus Christ, all mankind will be resurrected, overcoming physical death. Through His Atonement, we can also be cleansed from our individual sins and return to God’s presence as we repent and follow Him.

This is why the Fall and the Atonement of Jesus Christ belong together in LDS theology. The Fall introduced mortality and separation from God’s presence, but Heavenly Father provided a Savior who could overcome those consequences.

Dallin H. Oaks, while President of BYU, quoted Doctrine and Covenants 18:10, reminding us: “Remember the worth of souls is great in the sight of God.”

That truth matters when we read about being “lost.” Our need for a Savior does not mean we have lost our worth in God’s eyes. We are His children, He loves us, and He provided a way for us to overcome the Fall through Jesus Christ.

When Lehi says we are lost because of our parents’ transgression, he teaches that Adam and Eve’s choice brought about the mortal conditions we all experience. We inherit the effects of the Fall, but we are not held guilty for Adam and Eve’s transgression.

We are here to learn, grow, make choices, repent when necessary, and develop faith in Jesus Christ. God does not expect us to overcome the Fall by ourselves. He knew we would need a Savior, and His plan included Jesus Christ from the beginning.

The Fall explains why mortality includes suffering, temptation, and death. The gospel of Jesus Christ explains why those things do not have to be the end of our story.

Gramps