Latter-day
Saints, based on the Doctrine and Covenants, believes that Revelation 11
teachers that there will be two literal prophets raised up in the latter days (see
this post against a merely symbolic interpretation). As we read:
Q. What is to be understood by the two
witnesses in the eleventh chapter of Revelation?
A. They are two prophets that are to be
raised up to the Jewish nation in the last days, at the time of the restoration,
and to prophesy to the Jews after they are gathered and have built the city of
Jerusalem in the land of their fathers. (D&C 77:15)
As with many
others, however, we do not believe that these two prophets will be Moses and Enoch.
Commenting on this text, Stephen E. Robinson and H. Dean Garrett in volume 2 of
their A Commentary on the Doctrine and
Covenants, wrote:
15. The two witnesses: In Greek the
words for witness and martyr are the same. This is appropriate, since being one
often leads to becoming the other. John saw in his vision two servants of the
Lord who testify of the truth and who suffer martyrdom for it. These two
witnesses have the power to shut the heavens and to smite the earth with
plagues. These witnesses will not be casual elders who just happen to be in Jerusalem
when war breaks out; they will likely be General Authorities of the
Church—prophets specifically called on this mission to the Jewish nation
(compare Zechariah 4:12–14; Revelation 11:1–4).
Arguing
against the Moses/Enoch interpretations, J. Dwight Pentecost wrote:
There are several difficulties in identifying
Moses as one of the witnesses. (1) The phrase “like unto me” in Deuteronomy
18:15 seems to preclude any possibility that Moses himself will be one of the
witnesses, for the prophet was not Moses, but one like Moses. (2) The
similarity of the miracles does not signify identification. The miracles Moses
wrought were signs to Israel. The signs of the witnesses will likewise be signs
to that nation. It would be striking thing to those to whom the signs came if
God should reduplicate those signs which had been the great signs to Israel in
the past days. (3) While the transfiguration is identified with the millennial
age (2 Pet. 1:16-19) it is nowhere identified with the tribulation period or
the ministry of the witnesses. Because they appeared at the transfiguration, signifying
they would be related to the Lord at His coming for His kingdom, it does not
mean they must be the witnesses. (4) Moses’ body at the transfiguration was not
his resurrection body, since Christ is the firstfruits of the resurrection (1
Cor. 15:20, 23), nor an immortal body, so it can not be argued on the basis of Jude
9 that Moses’ body was preserved so he might return to die . . . There seem to
be several arguments against identifying one of these witnesses as Enoch (1) It
is the stated purpose that Enoch was translated “in order that he might not see
death” (Heb. 11:5). In view of this it could hardly be stated that he will be
returned to die. (2) It would seem that the antediluvian prophet would not be
sent into a time when God is dealing with Israel. (3) The position of Enoch and
Elijah in translation does not differ from all the Old Testament saints who are
before the Lord through physical death. Their means of entrance differed, but
not their position upon entrance. Thus the act that they were raptured does not
necessitate a difference of state, nor make it necessary that they should
return to die. (4) The witnesses have mortal bodies and are subject to death.
Elijah and Moses on the mount of transfiguration evidently did not have mortal
bodies, or they “appeared in glory”. It is hardly likely that they would be
given mortal bodies again. (J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology [Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964], 306-8)