More questions asked, generally, by scattered Saints outside the stakes in the Intermountain West, and answered by someone (perhaps B.F. Cummings, its editor) on the staff of Liahona, the Elders’ Journal.

Question: Is the gospel as binding upon a person when it is taught to him by a lay member as when he hears it from a man who holds the priesthood? – J.E. McK., Gilmer, Tex.

Answer: The gospel as taught by the Latter-day Saints is the only plan or means by which salvation in the kingdom of God can be obtained, no matter whether it be taught by a lay person or an elder. In this sense it is fully binding upon all men who hear it, no matter through what medium. But the testimony of a servant of God who holds the priesthood places upon those who hear it a heavier responsibility than would the testimony of a lay person. One reason why this is so is because those who hear such a testimony from an elder are confronted with an opportunity to obtain remission of their sins by baptism, whereas a lay person cannot extend such a privilege. Condemnation will be in proportion to the opportunities which are neglected.

Question: Is it right for an elder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to partake of the sacrament in a sectarian church? I know a local elder who claims that it is not wrong to do so. My advice to him was not to do it.

Answer: without attempting to pass judgment in any particular case both sides of which have not been heard, and with the distinct understanding that we are dealing with principles and not with individuals, we will endeavor to present the teachings of the gospel as understood by the Latter-day Saints.

Most emphatically it is not right for any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to partake of the sacrament when the same is administered by a sectarian preacher, or by any other unauthorized person. As a man who holds the Melchizedek priesthood is under a higher covenant and a heavier responsibility than is a lay member, this prohibition applies with greater force, if possible, to an elder than it does to an unordained person. All Latter-day Saints ought to understand that no man who does not hold authority from God, has any right to consecrate and offer to worshipers the emblems of the atonement of Christ; and that, to partake of them when administered by a man who has taken unto himself the honor of divine authority to act in the name of the Lord is to commit a serious offense against the law of heaven.

The Latter-day Saints are teaching the world that, at an early period of the Christian era, the last man on earth who held authority from the Almighty to preach the gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof, disappeared from among men; that even since that time all gospel ordinances administered among the inhabitants of the earth, including baptism and the Lord’s supper, have been invalid under the law of heaven, though they may have brought comfort and blessing to men in their ignorance; that the priesthood, which means authority to speak and act in the name of the Lord, was, by heavenly messengers, conferred upon Joseph Smith, the great prophet and seer of the nineteenth century; that through him it was conferred upon the elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and that ours is the only church in the world which possesses it.

When any man enters this church by baptism and confirmation he enters into a covenant with the Lord to maintain among his fellow men, by his worship, his conduct and his testimony, that these things are true. In what position then does he place himself when he consents to receive any ordinance of the gospel at the hands of one whom he himself declares is not authorized to administer it? Is he not recognizing as an ambassador of Christ one whom he himself holds is not authorized to represent Christ? And is not this disloyalty to Christ? It certainly is. Is there not a penalty for such disloyalty? There certainly is.

Question: Did Joseph Smith fire off a revolver while the mob was ascending the stairs in Carthage jail? If so why did he do it? – W.M.B., Muncie, Ind.

Answer: While imprisoned Joseph Smith had in his possession a revolver, and as the mob was coming up the stairs, and after they had fired a number of shots into the room where he and his companions were, he aimed the revolver down the stairway and discharged two or three of its chambers. This was a few moments before he was fatally wounded. He fired these shots in obedience to the first law of nature, self-preservation. It was reported that one of his murderers was wounded in the arm by one of the bullets from his revolver, and that the wound never healed, but continued a large running sore as long as the man lived.

Question: In the days of old the commandment was given to abstain from eating swine; is that binding on us today? My husband says the commandment, “Thou shalt not eat of the swine, nor touch their carcass,” has never been revoked and is as binding on us as any other, but says he is willing to stand corrected if wrong. Please explain for the benefit of your readers. – Mrs. W.E.R., Stanton, Texas

Answer: In former years there was some difference of opinion among the leading elders in our church as to whether it was right to eat the flesh of swine, but the prevailing opinion among them is that there is no divine law now in force which forbids it. The prohibition to which our querist refers was part of the law of Moses which is held to have been superseded by the gospel. The fact that the Lord has given to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by modern revelation, a dietary code – the Word of Wisdom – which is silent upon the subject of eating the flesh of swine, coupled with the further fact that no commandment has been given to the Church by revelation relative to the subject, is taken to signify that the Lord has not intended that the Mosaic prohibition should apply to the Latter-day Saints. The practice throughout the church is to leave the matter optional with its members. Many faithful and intelligent Latter-day Saints avoid the use of pork; others equally faithful and intelligent eat it.

Question: A widow who is a subscriber to Liahona, the Elders’ Journal but not a member of our Church, has asked this question: “If I obey the gospel by baptism, and conform my life to the rules and requirements of the Church, can I go to the Temple and be sealed to my husband, who died without a knowledge of the gospel; and can I have our children adopted to us, although they are not members of the Church and do not now wish to join it, yet are willing to go with me to the Temple for that purpose?” I told the lady that it could not be, yet some of our elders have assured her that it is permissible. She seems very anxious to have this work done, and I would be pleased to have you answer this in the Liahona. – J.R.Y., Fruitland, N.M.

Answer: This widow is considering matters that vitally concern her welfare and happiness in the world to come; and because there are many persons among our readers who desire light relative to those matters, we will try to briefly answer the above inquiry.

This widow may become a member of our Church by declaring her faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and his gospel, repenting of her sins, being baptized by immersion in water for the remission of her sins, and receiving the laying on of hands for the bestowal of the Holy Ghost. Thereafter she should become a member of a ward in a stake of Zion, and for a sufficient length of time should so conduct herself as to win the confidence of her presiding officers. She will then be given permission to go to the Temple. There she may arrange with some brother to represent her husband who is in the spirit world, in the necessary ordinances, including baptism and marriage for eternity, commonly called sealing. If her children are under eight years of age she may take them with her and have them united to her and their dead father for eternity by the ordinance of adoption, for little children are citizens of the kingdom of God and are entitled to enter his holy house without baptism.

But if her children are over eight years of age they are accountable for their own acts, and must be baptized before they can be entitled to any of the blessings or privileges of that sacred place; and to be united to one’s parents for eternity is one of the greatest privileges that can be obtained in mortal life. One of the reasons why the Saints make the sacrifices involved in baptism is to become worthy to receive their blessings in the house of the Lord. And shall persons who refuse to make those sacrifices be permitted to receive those blessings? Assuredly not. The blessings of the Temple are an important part of salvation, and if they can be obtained without baptism, why not abolish baptism entirely?

But this widow loves her children, and longs to have them united to her and their father by a bond that even death cannot break. She longs to see her family circle established on an eternal foundation. It grieves her to think that her children cannot go with her to the house of the Lord. What shall she do? She must do as the angels do, as our Father in heaven is doing; she must wait. She yearns to gather her children even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings; so also does our Father in heaven yearn to gather his children in like manner.

But he waits for the slothful, the unbelieving, the wayward and even the wicked among his offspring to learn that the paths of sin or of skepticism are not the paths of happiness – to learn repentance by what they suffer. So must earthly parents. But as the Lord teaches, reproves, and encourages his children to repent, so should earthly parents do likewise; and they should understand that they greatly increase their influence over their children by faithfully keeping the commandments of the Lord themselves.