Especially after publication of his books Jesus the Christ and The Articles of Faith, Elder James E. Talmage was one of the “go-to” authorities to whom Church members wrote with their gospel-related questions. Here are some of the questions he was asked, along with his answers, in the years 1917-1920:

Q: Referring to a question in a Church lesson outline, “What advantage birth ‘under the covenant’ on our salvation.” To a husband and wife who had been married by civil law, was born a son. They then went to the temple and were sealed. Another son was born to them; they failed to have their first son sealed to them until after the birth of the second son. Which of the two would be the rightful or legal heir in the church and kingdom of God?

A: According to the order of Church procedure, in such a case as that mentioned by you the firstborn son after the ordinance of adoption or sealing would become the heir, standing next to his father, in all temple work. Inasmuch as his parents, who were first married under the civil law, had received the sealing ordinances making them man and wife for eternity, the son born to them before they were sealed in the Temple would take his rightful place as the firstborn, and, therefore, if worthy, as the heir, irrespective of the fact that his younger brother had been born after the parents were sealed.

Of course there is a decided advantage in being born under the covenant, in that one so born is in no need of any ordinance of sealing or adoption, but is entitled to place in the kingdom of God as a child of the covenant. His place is sure, provided of course he is worthy to occupy it. … However, the Lord has mercifully provided that children not born under the covenant may become by adoption children of the covenant, and so receive the blessings promised unto those wo are actually born under the covenant.

My comments: An “heir” in the context of temple work was, so far as I have been able to determine, the person – usually a man – who could be either living or dead, who was designated to take the lead n having a family’s temple work done. When temple records called for spelling out the relationship of a deceased person to those doing the temple work, that relationship was calculated to the heir – a “second great-grand-uncle” held that relationship to the heir. It was clumsy, certainly, especially because a deceased person very often was the ancestor of multiple intertwined Mormon families. It was an early attempt to identify deceased people with specificity, so that duplicate temple work was not done, and to limit temple work to those who had the right to perform it for a deceased person. To the best of my knowledge, that was the only use of the “heir” designation. The questioner here, though, seems to think there is some eternal advantage or prestige, some greater reward, for the man who “stands as heir” over the reward available to his non-heir brother. I am unaware of any teaching supporting that.

Q: If a latter-day Saint that was married but not in the temple, had then separated by divorce, which of the parents would have the preference if they lived in obedience to the laws of the gospel so they could receive a recommend to go and have the children sealed to them. Which of the two, the mother or the father. Or could both have them sealed for everlasting life in the world to come without remarrying again.

A: Final decision as to the sealing of children to parents in the Temple would have to be made by the duly constituted Authorities of the Temple when application is made.

In general, however, the rule of the Church is this: In the case of divorce of parents, the right of either of the divorced parties to enter the Temple for any ordinances will depend upon the causes that led up to the divorce and the degree of innocence or blameworthiness on the part of either. If, however, the mother was justified in obtaining a legal divorce from her husband, to whom she had been married by the law of the land but not sealed in the Temple, and, if she should afterward be duly recommended to the Temple to be sealed to another man, her children, if still of tender age, would go with her and be duly sealed to her and the husband to whom she was sealed in the Temple. If, however, the children had already reached years of discretion, their own choice in the matter would be taken into account. Of course, the children could not be sealed to either of their parents unless that parent had already received the sealing ordinance in marriage in the Temple.

Q: Is there any definite information as to the weight of the plates and paraphernalia? The argument is advanced against us about that they were too heavy for a man to have carried and defended as did the Prophet. We can’t estimate their weight, although the weight of gold per cubic inch is known, because they were not a solid mass but thin layers deeply engraved, no doubt, all of which would tend to lighten them. Could you enlighten us as to the probable weight, or is there any record?

A: I do not think we have sufficient data to warrant an estimation of the weight of the plates, etc., delivered by Moroni to Joseph Smith, though as you say it is an easy matter to calculate the weight of a solid block of metal of the dimensions given as descriptive of the plates. I have never felt that I could accept as even approximately true the result of calculations based on the assumption of solidity; and we have no means of knowing how much to allow for the spaces between the thin plates, etc. In this connection it may be well to remember that anyone who bases his acceptance of the Book of Mormon as the word of God on the probabilities or improbabilities suggested by the calculation of such uncertain premises as obtain in this case is very likely to go astray. Undoubtedly the engraved plates, together with the breastplate constituted a heavy load; but Joseph was phenomenally strong and vigorous; and that he did carry these things to a place of safe deposit is definitely stated in his history.

Q: Is there scripture or teaching with authority to the effect that once the Priesthood be conferred on a man, it could never be taken from him except by reason of his own transgression? Could there be a case where a man might possibly be deprived of all his rights in the church and still retain his Priesthood because his transgression had not yet deprived him of that? Or with disfellowshipment or excommunication would it naturally follow that invariably his Priesthood went also?

A:As a generalized statement it is true that a man having received the Priesthood through ordination of those in authority cannot be bereft of that Priesthood except through transgression. If a man sins and is duly excommunicated from the Church by a properly constituted tribunal of the Holy Priesthood, he certainly is deprived of his Priesthood, or in other words, his Priesthood is taken from him, so far as any exercise thereof on this earth is concerned; and so far as we may judge from the revealed word, he will find himself similarly bereft beyond the grave. However, a man may be permitted to retain membership in the Church and yet be put under the rule of suspension, by which he is deprived of the privilege of exercising his Priesthood, and therefore, so far as service is concerned, he is as one who has no Priesthood. We have among us today men who have been disfellowshipped and who therefore are without authority to exercise their Priesthood, and one at least, Matthias Cowley, who, while not disfellowshipped, is so fully suspended from the exercise of the functions of the Priesthood that he is not qualified to act even as a Deacon.

In the case of an excommunicant, all the ordinances of the Gospel that had been previously administered to him are rendered void. Should he by repentance and works be able to make amends to such an extent as to warrant the tribunal that excommunicated him, or one of superior jurisdiction, in readmitting him to the Church by baptism, he is not thereby restored to any authority or power in the Priesthood. to reconfirm upon him the Priesthood he formerly held requires the special approval and direction of the President of the Church – the man who holds the keys of the Priesthood.

Q: There is a little piece of information I wish to obtain. Will you please give it to me. What I want to know is this: Who are the people of the East and West Indies descendants of? and what salvation will they get in the next world?

A: Please note that these two classes of peoples have very little in common as to aboriginal parentage. The earlier inhabitants of the East Indies, or India, of which we have any record, and who are known as Hindus, are generally regarded as members of the Aryan race, which race is understood by ethnologists to include the Japhethic peoples, or the descendants of Japheth, one of the sons of Noah. The Hindus of today, that is to say the present inhabitants of India, are of very mixed descent and can in nowise be regarded as pure descendants of the Aryan race.

The aboriginal inhabitants of the West Indies were undoubtedly of the American Indian stock, known to us as Lamanites. These were they whom Columbus discovered in November 1493 on the island of Porto Rico, which is an island belonging to the group known as the West Indies. The present inhabitants of these islands are generally of mixed blood. In Cuba, for example, which is the largest island of the West Indies, there are many of mixed Spanish descent.

Q: Am I right or wrong by saying that the First Council of Seventy with the senior president of the first 63 quorums of Seventy, make the first quorum of Seventy, and that they form the quorum of seventy which are equal in authority to the Council of Apostles?

A: The First Quorum of Seventy does not exist in the Church today, except as it is represented by its council, which as you know comprises its Seven Presidents. Should the First Quorum of Seventy be organized under the direction of the Presidency of the Church, it would not necessarily follow that the senior presidents of any existing quorums of Seventy would be included in its membership.

—

And sometimes Elder Talmage had questions of his own. To Willard W. Bean, caretaker of the Joseph Smith properties in Palmyra, he asked:

Q: I should like to have from you in concise and written form such information as you can give concerning the copper plate which we found nailed to the tree in the Sacred Grove. Kindly give me the exact or approximate date or time at which you first found the plate and any and all circumstances connected therewith. It would certainly be of great interest to us to know who put the plate in position and who prepared it.

A: The copper plate was tacked on the first large maple tree to the right of the path as you enter the grove about the year 1912. Two years before we came here. The facts as I got them from Mr. Chapman were about as follows:

A peculiarly dressed man came to the house and asked if he might go out to the grove. He was given permission but nobody accompanied him. the hired man was out in the field, Mr. Chapman had rheumatism and perhaps would [not] have accompanied him even had he been well as he was not of the accommodation type. But he says the man had a hatchet and that copper plate in his hand. He judged by his dress, manner and conversation that he was a religious fanatic. As near as he could remember the man said he was from Philadelphia. Mr. Chapman was, so the hired man stated, very angry when he learned that the man tacked the plate on the tree, but he never had it removed. And as I have felt that the plate was quite appropriate to mark the traditional spot (or neighborhood) where Joseph received divine wisdom, and as the stranger was not an enemy, but meant well, I have left the plate.

This account is quite different from another account collected by Elder Talmage: Hinc Lucem et Pocula Sacra.