Keepapitchinin, the Mormon History blog » They Had “Peculiar” Questions, 1912

They Had “Peculiar” Questions, 1912

By: Ardis E. Parshall - March 27, 2014

In 1912, a letter filled with questions was received in Salt Lake City, sent from someone in Australia. Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency elected to answer the questions “so that it may not be truthfully claimed that we avoid them,” but he also chose to answer them briefly and without elaboration. Calling them “peculiar,” he thought they seemed designed to “promote controversy rather than to obtain information … Some of them are not subjects of discussion among the Latter-day Saints, but are brought forward usually by persons who desire to cavil and contend, and rarely from a real desire for information.”

It’s largely1 a different set of questions than we generally see today, and maybe we’d try to be more tactful than to say “you’re just trying to pick a fight,” but we’ve all see lists of questions with similar intent – questions about Kolob and underwear and what somebody somewhere might have said sometime about something that is completely tangential to the gospel as we know and teach and discuss it, but which the question attempts to paint as “what Mormons really believe.”

Here is 1912’s version of those questions, with Pres. Penrose’s answers:

Question: What is the “New and Everlasting Covenant”?

Answer: The “New and Everlasting Covenant,” referred to in the revelation written July 12, 1843, Doctrine and Covenants, section 132, is the covenant of celestial or eternal marriage “new” to this dispensation, being a matrimonial union for time and all eternity, whereas marriage as previously understood and solemnized in the world was simply until the pair were parted by death.

Question: Do you believe that Jesus was married?

Answer: We do not know anything about Jesus Christ being married. The Church has no authoritative declaration on the subject.

Question: Do you believe that Adam had more wives than one, either in this world or in the spiritual world?

Answer: We do not know of any wife of Adam excepting Mother Eve.

Question: Is plural or celestial marriage essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come?

Answer: Celestial marriage is essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come, as explained in the revelation concerning it; but it is not stated that plural marriage is thus essential.

Question: Do you believe that a man who has been polygamously married or married under the law of celestial marriage in your temples, can commit any sin whatever, excepting the shedding of innocent blood, and yet have part and come forth in the first resurrection?

Answer: We believe just what is stated in that revelation concerning persons who have been sealed up unto eternal life but who commit sin that is not declared unpardonable, and in their redemption after they have paid “the uttermost farthing” of the penalty imposed by eternal justice, and have been “delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption.” (See par. 26, also Matt. 12:31; Mark 3:29; I Cor. 5:5.)

Question: Can a Latter-day Saint be a true member of the Church and in good standing, who flatly denies the divinity and authenticity of the revelation on plural marriage?

Answer: No one can be counted a true Latter-day Saint who flatly denies the divinity of a revelation accepted as divine by the Church.

Question: Supposing that a true Saint has been married the second time – his first wife being dead – he is sealed to both for time and eternity, does this mean that polygamy will exist in the celestial glory?

Answer: If a man has had more than one wife sealed to him for time and eternity, of course it means that if faithful they will be his in celestial glory, as in the case of Abraham and others whose wives were “given to them of the Lord.”

Question: Will not a righteous husband and wife, who have fulfilled every other ordinance, be together throughout eternity, although they have not been sealed in a temple?

Answer: Every righteous husband and wife whom “God hath joined together” by his holy ordinance and authority will be one in eternity if they never saw “a temple.” But the ceremonies of men that god has not appointed have an end when men are dead. (See. 132:13-18). However, there are means provided for sealing ordinances in behalf of the worthy dead so that none will lose that which they merit.

Question: Do you believe in “blood-atonement,” or in other words, do you accept and believe in the principles taught in Brigham Young’s sermon of 8th of February, 1857, Journal of Discourses, volume 4, pages 219, 220?

Answer: We believe in “blood atonement” by the sacrifice of the Savior, also that which is declared in Genesis 9:6. A capital sin committed by a man who has entered into the everlasting covenant merits capital punishment, which is the only atonement he can offer. But the penalty must be executed by an officer legally appointed under the law of the land.

Question: Do you believe that Jesus Christ was begotten by the Holy Ghost, as described in Matthew 1:18-20, Luke 1:35?

Answer: We believe that Jesus of Nazareth “was the only begotten of the Father.” It is not stated in either text cited that he was “begotten of the Holy ghost,” and the contrary is described in Luke 1:35. It was the “power of the Highest” that overshadowed Mary, and Jesus was “the Son of the Highest.” The Holy ghost came upon her, she “conceived” under the influence of that divine Spirit, but Jesus is nowhere declared as the Son of the Holy Ghost, but as “the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14; Heb. 1:5.) Even the sectarian creeds do not fall into the error that beclouds the minds of some apostates, but say of Jesus that He is the Son of God, “conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary,” etc.

Question: Do you acknowledge that the other factions of the Church held or do hold the authority of the priesthood, inasmuch as they honestly fulfil the law of the Church, so far as they understand it?

Answer: there are no “factions of the Church” which was organized April 6th, 1830, and has continued as an unbroken entity and organism from that day until the present. Those persons who go out from the Church no matter how they may establish themselves or what name they may take are not and cannot be parts of the one Church which Christ set up, nor do they hold authority that he recognizes, for that would be contrary to his own repeated declarations, as well as order and common sense.

Question: Baptism for the dead – How do we know which of our deceased relatives are to be baptized for, and how do we know when we are to be baptized for them?

Answer: If instead of “we” the questioner had used the word “you”, we would answer: Often by personal revelation, always by the law of kindred and genealogy, and the direction of those divinely appointed to administer the ordinances commanded. It is not likely that he or those who prompted his queries would know anything about these matters.

Question: Should there be more than one temple in use at the same time and why? Please give Biblical evidence.

Answer: Yes. There should be as many temples as may be needed for the immense labors in behalf of the dead, for the hearts of the children who have received of the spirit of Elijah are turned to their deceased ancestors, and the hearts of the fathers are turned to their children who can act as saviors for them upon Mount Zion, without whom they cannot “be made perfect,” and there are millions and millions who are awaiting their redemption. It would not matter if there was not a Biblical reference or allusion to this magnificent subject, any more than there is to the colonization of Australia, or the Constitution of the United States. Some folks ought to hunt through the Bible for their own names to be sure they are alive. But let our inquirer read Malachi 4:5, 6; Heb. 11:39, 40; I Peter 3:18-22; I Cor. 15:29; Rom. 11:26; Philip 2:10, 11; Rev. 20:14, etc.

Question: Do you believe that the President of the Church, when speaking to the Church in his official capacity is infallible?

Answer: We do not believe in the infallibility of man. When God reveals anything it is truth, and truth is infallible. No President of the Church has claimed infallibility.

Question: Do you believe that Christ will come to the temple at Salt Lake City, and is Salt Lake City Zion?

Answer: We have no revelation on that matter, nor is it preached or discussed. Any city is Zion that is under control of “the pure in heart.”

Question: Why do the elders of your Church use Masonic signs and emblems, and has ‘Mormonism’ anything to do with Free Masonry?

Answer: We might answer: “Because they don’t.” Seriously, Elders or other ministers of the Church, as such, do not use any signs of secret orders. Some of our brethren may be or have been members of the Masonic society, but the Church has no connection with what is called “Free Masonry.”

Question: Was Joseph Smith, Jr., a Mason?

Answer: Joseph Smith the Prophet was a Mason.

Question: Was Joseph Smith, Jr., a polygamist?

Answer: Joseph Smith introduced and practiced plural marriage. The proofs of this are abundant and complete.

  1. Not entirely – I’ve seen versions of three of these questions thrown up as “gotcha” points within the last two weeks []


  1. “Some folks ought to hunt through the Bible for their own names to be sure they are alive.”
    Whew! So relieved to find own name in Acts 7!

    Comment by Stephen Taylor — March 27, 2014 @ 7:07 am

  2. Darn. I’m not in there. So what does that say about me??

    I don’t know much about Elder Penrose, but I like his style.

    Comment by Amy T — March 27, 2014 @ 7:31 am

  3. He had a nice sense of snark!

    Comment by Coffinberry — March 27, 2014 @ 8:16 am

  4. There’s definitely a “baiting” aspect to the questions. As a veteran of the Deseret News/Salt Lake Tribune editorial wars of the late 19th century, Penrose knew how to be blunt and pithy. More important, perhaps, his answers bridge the transition from 19th century understandings of certain LDS doctrines/teachings to more contemporary understandings. In fact, most of his answers read, at least to my eyes, as if they could have been stated last week.

    Comment by Gary Bergera — March 27, 2014 @ 8:31 am

  5. Not only do I find my name prominently displayed on every page of the second gospel (in the margin, of course) but my surname appears in the story of Joseph in prison, and I’m always happy to note that it was the butler who was restored to his place in Pharaoh’s court. Sorry all you bakers.

    Comment by Mark B. — March 27, 2014 @ 8:37 am

  6. Pres. Penrose would have been right at home as a perma somewhere in the bloggernacle. You can tell he is just right at the edge of his patience, as in:

    We might answer: “Because they don.t.”

    Mark, Lucky! My name only exists in my hard copy Bible at home because my parents put it there on the flyleaf when they gave it to me in 1979..

    Comment by kevinf — March 27, 2014 @ 9:49 am

  7. Gary — You pretty much took the words out of my fingers. My thought reading this was that it could be posted to as is and still be relevant.

    And, yes, I love to touch of “not suffering bating fools gladly” in a few of his answers. ..bruce..

    Comment by bfwebster — March 27, 2014 @ 9:58 am

  8. I imagine leaders get tired of these and similar questions being asked, the majority of which could be answered by some reading of the Gospel Principles manual or the church’s website.

    Comment by IDIAT — March 27, 2014 @ 12:09 pm

  9. I think my name might be in the Koran. Does that count?

    Comment by Alison — March 27, 2014 @ 12:37 pm

  10. President Penrose was my kind of guy!

    Comment by David R — March 27, 2014 @ 1:13 pm

  11. Umm. I don’t have a middle name, and the women in the Bible don’t have middle names. So, I’m in the Bible all over the place, right?

    His writing kind of reminds me of the way Ardis writes.

    Comment by Carol — March 27, 2014 @ 2:02 pm

  12. Excellent.
    This kind of thing

    Please give Biblical evidence

    always reveals a Protestant, in mind if not in fact.

    Comment by Ben S — March 27, 2014 @ 6:27 pm

  13. I find both the questions and the answers to be surprisingly modern.

    The distinction between plural marriage and New and Everlasting Covenant is surprisingly 20th Century.

    As to the modern relevance of the questions, Jesus’ marital status was popular enough during the DaVinci code craze that the Church released an official statement, which incidentally matches Elder Penrose’s response.

    Similarly, doing temple work for your own ancestors and the distiction between Mormon and freemason ceremonies are also topics that have been addressed by Church authorities in the last few years.

    Comment by The Other Clark — March 27, 2014 @ 9:41 pm

  14. This looks like the good beginnings of a Charles W. Penrose Fan Club. Anyone want to volunteer to serve as President? : )

    Comment by Amy T — March 28, 2014 @ 7:16 am

  15. Do we have to sing “Up, Awake Ye Defenders of Zion” at every club meeting?

    Comment by Mark B. — March 28, 2014 @ 8:36 am

  16. Yep. Either that or another of his “little poems.”

    Comment by Amy T — March 28, 2014 @ 8:37 am

Leave a comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI