Readers of Liahona, the Elders’ Journal – the mission newspaper in the United States roughly equivalent to Britain’s Millennial Star – had questions. Whereas questions in Utah-based Church magazines tended very often to concern details of running well-organized auxiliaries, or the finer points of familiar ordinances, some of these questions from Saints in the missions often have quite a different flavor. I’m not certain who answered these; it might have been Benjamin F. Cummings, missionary and long-time editor of the Liahona at its base in Independence, Missouri. There seems to be a consistent voice behind the responses which leads me to think they were written by one man, not by whatever random elders might have been helping out in the editorial offices that week.
Question: What about natural born idiots? Do they possess an intelligent spirit from the spirit world as we do? We are told that only those who kept their first estate were permitted to take bodies in this probation. Have they been cursed because of some pre-existent sin, which was committed by them or their parents? – W.D.B., Fillmore, Ill.
Answer: All human spirits born into mortality existed and possessed both intelligence and integrity enough in the spirit world to earn the privilege, or it would not have been granted to them. Some children are born idiots because of the sins of their parents, such as drunkenness or other excesses; others in consequence of disease or accident for which the responsibility cannot be placed by us; others from causes which we cannot trace. But every human being, however deficient in intellect, who has ever breathed the breath of life in a mortal body, will receive that body again in the resurrection; and each individual will be judged according to the deeds done in the body, and according to the light and knowledge that were possessed during mortal life. If the degree of these was small, the judgment will be mild; if great, it will be severe, if the individual indulged in wickedness.
Why some of our heavenly Father’s children appear in this life as idiots, we may not, in our present state of knowledge of the subject, fully explain. But two or three suggestions may throw light upon the question. First, an infinite variety is necessary to the completion of the works of the Almighty; second, it may be necessary to hold in abeyance, during mortal life, some, or possibly all, of the faculties of the mind of a given individual, in order to restrain him, or develop in him traits which he lacks; third, the agency of the individual, or of other individuals who influence him, exercised in numberless ways impossible for us to trace, may have caused him to appear in mortal life as an idiot.
As to the ultimate fate of idiots we are not left entirely without knowledge revealed from heaven. In a revelation given through the Prophet Joseph Smith, September, 1830, which refers to the pre-existent state and fall of man and other great truths, the Lord says: “And he that hath no understanding, it remaineth in me to do according as it is written” (Doc. and Cov. 29:50). This seems to refer to this passage:
And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. – Luke 12:47, 48.
Idiots are the children of the same God who is the father of the wise and intelligent; and he will deal with them in love, mercy and justice.
Question: Kindly explain the 3th Article of Faith, especially this sentence: “We believe all things.” – J.T.D., Orton, Alberta, Canada
Answer: The 13th Article of Faith is in part a paraphrase of the 8th verse of the 4th chapter of Philippians: “We believe all things” means that we believe all things that are true, as fast as they come to our knowledge, no matter from what source or through what channel they may reach us. Sectarians, at the time the Articles of Faith were written, were often so narrow and bigoted that they would not believe things that were true, and abundantly proved, if those things were not embraced in their own systems. This Article of Faith makes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints broad enough to embrace every truth in the universe, and creates a vast distinction between it and the narrow and fragmentary systems that go to make up modern Christendom.
Question: Can an illegitimate child be saved in the kingdom of God? – S.E.B., W. Va.
Answer: Most assuredly. An illegitimate babe comes into the world as innocent as does the one whose parents were married before its birth, and has the same rights and privileges so far as salvation is concerned. The Lord will in no wise hold it responsible for the sin of its parents, although it may perhaps suffer in various ways because of that sin. If an illegitimate child who has reached the years of accountability, will believe the gospel, repent and be baptized, it will receive the Holy Ghost in equal measure, all other things being equal, with the child of lawful wedlock. We will not here discuss what constitutes lawful wedlock, according to the plan of salvation revealed from heaven; but the truth upon that subject would greatly surprise a great many people who imagine their own family relationships to be beyond question.
Question: Why do not the Latter-day Saints baptize for the dead in their churches, such as they have in Chicago? Many Saints cannot go to Utah to be baptized for their dead. – A Lady, Chicago.
Answer: In the revelations which God gave through the Prophet Joseph Smith, making known the great principle of salvation for the dead, the Saints are commanded to build temples wherein to administer the ordinances necessary in this great work, and are distinctly informed that their labors in behalf of their dead will not be acceptable if performed elsewhere than in those sacred structures. No other buildings will serve the purpose, because the Lord has so declared. As the Latter-day Saints have no temples outside of Utah, it follows that only those who go there can do work for their dead. However, it is the expectation of the Saints that many temples will be built in different states of the Union, in the not distant future.
Question: At the great rebellion in heaven, when one-third of God’s children followed Lucifer and were cast out of heaven with him, were any that fell females? – A.P., Payson, Utah
Answer: No scripture now in our possession answers this question specifically, but reasoning from all known analogies we should say that the hosts that fell with Lucifer included both sexes. Of the two-thirds that did not fall, that portion which have received bodies have been born into mortality in about equal numbers as to sex. This fact would tend to prove a great preponderance of males before the rebellion, or else that approximately the same number of females as males fell with Lucifer. Females have the same agency as males, and both sexes must obey the same laws in order to progress, truths which further tend to support the theory that both sexes were included among the fallen angels. It is widely believed among our elders that the negro race were neutral spirits during the war in heaven, and that race includes about equal proportions of both sexes. Why might not this be true of the spirits that went too far in a wrong direction to be entitled to receive bodies? [I left these last sentences in, after considering removing them, because they indicate how pervasive these false racial teachings were.]
Question: Last Sunday the elders in their conversation intimated that a single woman or “old maid” could not attain to the celestial glory without a husband. They quoted from Isaiah: “In that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread and wear our own apparel, only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach” (4:1). Does that signify that she must have a husband, to get into the celestial kingdom? – C.M.C., Memphis, Tenn.
Answer: Such a thing as compulsory marriage is repugnant to the laws of the kingdom of God. No citizen of that kingdom, after it is fully established and bears sway over the inhabitants of the earth, will be compelled to marry against his or her will. Marriage, like baptism, will be an entirely voluntary act. Any person, male or female, will be permitted to remain unmarried just as long as he or she chooses.
But as Paul says: “Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:11). This passage means that neither a man nor a woman can be saved with a perfect salvation without the companionship of each other in marriage. Human nature is so constituted that the marriage relation and the sacred, holy and exquisite associations of the family circle and the home, are necessary to the full measure of its happiness. Such is the case here in mortal life. It will be so in the life to come, in a greatly increased degree. It follows that marriage will be a blessing and a privilege that will be eagerly sought and most thankfully accepted by all men and women who, in the hereafter, aspire to a celestial glory.
The joy and blessings that grow out of the marriage relation, especially posterity, are inseparable from a celestial glory, and form a part of it; and in this sense unmarried persons cannot attain to a fullness of that glory. For this reason the plan of salvation as established by the Lord Jesus Christ embraces a provision by which marriages “bound on earth shall be bound in heaven,” when the marriage ceremony is performed in a proper manner and by proper authority.
The Savior had special reference to marriage when he gave Peter this power. “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19). Marriage ceremonies performed by the apostle Peter will be binding when the husband and wife are resurrected, but unless marriage ceremonies are performed by the same authority he held, they will not be valid after the parties to them are dead. As soon as men and women come to a knowledge of the laws upon which their happiness in a future state is based, they will desire to enter the marriage relation under this authority, on the same principle that they will desire to be baptized and obtain a remission of their sins.
The law of God is a perfect law of liberty: it knows no compulsion. He is more than willing to give to his children all they are willing to receive, but will never coerce them into accepting any principle of the gospel.
I’m glad you found another source of questions! I really enjoy this series.
These are really interesting, and I’m glad you kept the full answer about the preexistence. At the same time, I wish we could feel comfortable about not needing to have the answers to all questions. Sometimes, it seems, the answers are more problematic than the questions.
Me, too, HokieKate! There will be more!
Amen, Gary. I mean, it’s fascinating, sometimes, to see what was on the minds of the Saints at different points in the past, and I find the questions usually more interesting than the answers for that reason. But I sometimes squirm at the answers.
The words used in those days would cause such a ruckus today. But I’ve heard the name ‘natural born idiot’ before but I didn’t use it in that context. The Saints sure wondered about deep Gospel details in those days. It’s been a while since I’ve heard a deep conversation (meaty) in Church on any of those subjects or most anything else.
I didn’t expect a question to be so literally close to “Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?”
Have you run across any hint elsewhere of what lawful wedlock is and why we would be surprised? It is almost as if the author was begging someone to ask him that question.
Love these, as always. We can learn so much about lived religion from these columns.
That caught my eye, too, Blueagleranch. From 2018, I have to wonder if he was speaking of plural marriage, or the legitimacy of children born in such unions under the laws of God. The Liahona did publish editorials or articles in that era about plural marriage as a former practice, but it still seems a little dicey to me that he would want to write about it any more than necessary. I can’t think of anything else he might have been referring to — can you?
Ardis, I was stumped by the reference to lawful wedlock. With the advantage of hindsight, you can usually make an educated guess at a veiled reference, but this one is illusive. I doubt that what he might say about plural marriage would be a surprise to his readers. I’ll be interested to see if you run across another reference that might shed light on his intent.
Maybe he means common law marriages. Or by a justice of the peace instead of in a Church. Or a marriage across cultures, or even in another culture like American Indian.
For 1909, I assumed that by “lawful wedlock, according to the plan of salvation revealed from heaven,” the author meant sealing. He seemed, to me, to be saying “A great many people are already surprised to be told that their baptism doesn’t count in God’s eyes, and we don’t go around telling them that their marriage doesn’t count, but …”
You know, I think Mike R. is probably right. The Liahona was an unusual Church publication, in that while it did cater to members in the US outside of organized stakes, it was still primarily a missionary publication, very often used as a tract and delivered to non-members, with many of its articles concerning very basic gospel principles (far more so than, say, the Millennial Star). Reading it in that context, especially, a lot of its readers, and those with whom they were in daily contact, would have been surprised to be told they were not married by the laws of heaven. And as Blueagleranch sensed, that would also explain the “please, please ask me about this, somebody!” quality to those lines.
I all the questions and answer type articles, but this one is especially interesting for the breadth of subjects it covers. I have no idea what the editor meant by “lawful wedlock”, but if I heard someone say it today I’d take it as questioning any marriage other than a temple marriage.