Anciently the Sacrament was a meal. These meals took place in what are commonly called “house churches.” (You might even call it a home-centered church). The early Christian community started as a house church, “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship… They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts.” (Acts 2.42, 46). Some twenty-five years later, the apostle Paul wrote to friends in Rome, “Greet also the church that meets in their house.” (Romans 16.5) Indeed, we read of this in 1 Corinthian 11.20-21, 33-34. George Q. Cannon explained:
At the Last Supper, at which the Savior Himself was present, the bread and the wine were not passed as is the custom now among us. In our church numerous instances have occurred where the Sacrament has been administered, in certain places, in the same way—that is, bread and wine (or water) have been partaken of as a meal, and not, as is usual when the Sacrament is passed in our general meetings, in the shape of small pieces of bread and a little sip of water.
This would be the proper manner to administer this ordinance now if circumstances permitted; but situated as the Church is, it is not convenient to administer the Sacrament in this manner, and therefore our present mode is the one that is sanctioned by usage and by permission of the Lord through His inspired servants.[1]George Q. Cannon, “Editorial Thoughts,” Juvenile Instructor, January 15, 1897, 52–53. See also: Justin Bray, “The Lord’s Supper in Early Mormonism,” as found in You Shall Have … Continue reading
Section 27 The Sacrament, The Feast, and the Armor of God
Joseph Smith relates what happened prior to his receiving of the revelation known today as Section 27:
Early in the month of August Newel Knight and his wife paid us a visit at my place in Harmony, Pennsylvania; and as neither his wife nor mine had been as yet confirmed, it was proposed that we should confirm them, and partake together of the Sacrament, before he and his wife should leave us. In order to prepare for this I set out to procure some wine for the occasion, but had gone only a short distance when I was met by a heavenly messenger, and received the following revelation, the first four paragraphs (i.e. verses) of which were written at this time, and the remainder in the September following.”[2]History of The Church, 1:106.
It mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink… if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory – D&C 27.2
It took a number of years before the congregations of the Saints totally abolished the use of wine in the sacrament,[3]“While the Church did not adopt the custom of using water exclusively in the sacrament at that early time, yet it was from this time that water was used as a substitute for wine, which had been … Continue reading but by the end of President Brigham Young’s administration, the use of water for the sacrament was generally the practice. The point of the revelation was that the sacrament be partaken with an eye single to the glory of the Lord.[4]Elder David B. Haight, “Remembering the Savior’s Atonement,” Ensign, Apr. 1988.
The emblems used in administering the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper are symbolic of the body and blood of Christ. Any food or liquid may, with permission of priesthood leaders, be used as the emblems by which we remember Jesus’ Atonement.
Some Christian denominations believe that the sacramental bread and wine are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ, which the believers then eat and drink.[5]In the celebration of the Eucharist, the glorified Christ becomes present under the appearances of bread and wine in a way that is unique, a way that is uniquely suited to the Eucharist. In the … Continue reading
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not teach this. The sacramental bread and water, having been blessed, are still just bread and water, but these emblems have been consecrated and set apart for a holy purpose, that of placing God’s children under covenant.[6]Today the sacrament is an ordinance in which Church members partake of bread and water in remembrance of Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice. This ordinance is an essential part of worship and … Continue reading
The hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on earth – D&C 27.5-14
This is a beautiful prophecy of the grand feast that will one day occur when the Lord Jesus Christ will come to the earth, sit upon his throne, and reign personally upon the earth. This is the event prophesied of by all of the Israelite prophets anciently. This event was celebrated anciently among the Israelites when they had kings, prior to the destruction of their first temple in 586 BCE. This people ritually celebrated a temple service that encapsulated the destruction of the forces of chaos, the reigning power of God, and his authorization of a king and queen on the throne to represent him on the earth, establish order, and initiate a time of peace and fertility. All of these things happened at least until the reforms of Josiah in 640 BCE, after which some of these ideas were changed and some were lost. After Josiah’s reforms, many things were rearranged in things like the Psalms, and other things were edited out or explained away. But the echoes of this temple service and what is called the ritual temple drama of the Feast of Tabernacles still exist throughout scripture, especially in the Book of Mormon.
This temple drama is one of many things that is hidden in plain sight in so many of our texts,[7]We read echoes of this feast throughout canonized scripture as well in sacred texts of other cultures throughout the history of the world. See for example, in Genesis 14.17-24 where we read of the … Continue reading lost to us due to the intense distance of time and culture. It is a portion of the great Feast of Tabernacles that was instituted anciently, and even practiced in Jesus’ day, albeit in a much different form than was practiced when Israel had her kings.
As the scholar Sigmund Mowinckel put it:
“There must be included here the proper times, the “sacred times” or “time of gathering,” mo‘ed as the Israelites called it. Time was not for the Israelites, as for us, an empty concept or a line… there are special turning points in time which are especially rich in content, when important things are to happen, and when it is therefore important to do that which will ensure the outcome. Such high points in time are, for example, birth, death, the beginning of a new year, of season, and so forth. But that which makes these times more important or more fateful and holy than other times are, according to Israelite belief, that the deity has chosen them, sanctified them, and designated them in the very order of creation. A holy time is a festival time. The same word that means a gathering (mo‘ed) also means a cultic festival, synonymous with hag, or festival, which can also mean a place of worship. The holy time is the time where Yahweh “allows himself to be found,” “makes himself known,” “comes to view,” and in powerful actions shows himself as he is. Then it is important to seize the opportunity on his day when the time of benevolence or grace is at hand. With the New Year Festival, there begins a new “year of benevolence.” Then it is important to seek him. Which times are cultic times depends on certain conditions of life and nature and whether they make worship necessary. As a rule, these times flow with the process of the year of nature. That was the case in Israel. The chief feast of the year, called simply the “Feast of Yahweh,” was an autumn or New Year’s Festival, the Festival of the In-Gathering.”[8]Sigmund Mowinckel, Religion and Cult: The Old Testament and the Phenomenology of Religion, translated by John F. X. Sheehan, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2012, chapter 7 Established Orders, p. … Continue reading
This feast that Jesus informs Joseph that will occur is one where all of the faithful Saints will participate. We get a list of some of the participants in Section 27 of the Doctrine and Covenants:
Jesus (verse 5), Moroni (5), Elias (6), John (7), Elijah (9), Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph (10), Michael or Adam (11), Peter, James, and John (12), and also “all those whom the Father hath given me out of the world (14). To me, I would also emphasize the wives of these brethren as this entire feast is associated with kingship, becoming “sons and daughters” of God ritually, and entering into God’s presence, all ritually tied to the fertility of the land, the freedom of Israel, and the connection of the family of Adam and Eve. This entire ritual was an eight day celebratory event and was connected to all of these ideas.[9]The whole cosmic history portrayed in the drama of the Feast of Tabernacles was a cyclic continuum of making and keeping covenants. The first scene was in the Council when Jehovah was anointed to be … Continue reading
Not only did the Israelites partake in a ceremony of feasting in the Fall, we also see evidence that in their renewing of the authority of the kings, Egyptian priests and kings (as well as many other ancient cultures[10]See Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, p. 60. Mowinckel writes, “As far as we can see, the king’s enthronement was celebrated each year in a feast not only in Egypt, Babylonia, … Continue reading would initiate a drama that would emphasize all of these same ideas. This drama would consist of a ritual whereby the people who participated were allowed to witness the coronation of the Pharaoh as an agent of God in the battle against chaos.[11]Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature, University of Chicago Press, 1948, p. 123-124.. Frankfort explains: It is … Continue reading
Truly, as Sigmund Mowinckel has stated, all of this has to do with God’s blessings of life, fertility, prosperity, peace and good fortune for mankind, the soil, the livestock, indeed, all of life. All of these ideas were connected.[12]Mowinckel, Religion and Cult, chapter 9, The Cycle, p. 80 electronic version. This feast was called “Yahweh’s feast.” Mowinckel relates:
In the feast, especially the great harvest or New Year’s Festival, the Feast of Tabernacles, which was in ancient times considered to be simply “Yahweh’s feast.” Yahweh himself comes. He “turns destiny” and creates the world anew, just as all of the powers of death and evil were threatening to overcome his people and its world. The festival was also understood as “the enthronement of Yahweh” when he came and prevailed over his enemies. Invisible, but represented by his visible symbol, the ark—his throne or his footstool—he himself was present and entered into his palace in a great festive procession with psalms and trumpets. Then he was seated on his throne in the temple and grasped again the royal scepter and “judged” the world, that is to say set everything in its right order. Then he turns “the cycle of the year” back again to its starting point in the beginning and everything becomes as it was in the beginning. Then he was lauded as king by his cheering people in typical enthronement psalms that begin with the “cry of royal praise”: “Yahweh has become king” (e.g., Ps 96:10; 97:1). Then he revealed himself in his powerful acts and their effects. Then the rainy season began with its new blessing and fertility for land and people and livestock. Then, he gave “strength and power to his people” and “blessed his people with peace.” For now he triumphed again over the conquered flood, over the dragon, over the force of chaos, above which he has built his throne.
Enemies are here, according to the oldest way of thinking, the very powers of death and drought, the powers of chaos in existence. Such forces are unclean; they represent “the curse” that ever grinds away at blessing and each year is at the point of making the earth desolate once again, of snuffing out life and making the world into that chaos that it was before creation. It is that which Yahweh prevents by coming in his festival.
Worship is therefore naturally connected to the year of nature, the cycle in which the life and death of nature unfolds. In Palestine, this new life began with the rainy season in the fall. Then the old year came to an end and life began anew…
But here must be mentioned an important change that took place in the religion of Israel. Israel never forgot that the relationship between Yahweh and Israel had been founded through an historical event which it perceived as Yahweh’s choice of Israel and his conclusion of a covenant with them. More and more, Yahweh became the god who revealed himself not only in nature and the life of nature but above all in history, in those things that actually happened. He led the life of the nations, and the kings were instruments in his hand. Through history, he led his people to that goal that he had set. He chastised them and brought them up as his children. He was the lord of history and of time. The old Canaanite designations of a deity as “the father of years” or “the god of time” originally pertained to the life of nature; but they received a new meaning in Israel, just as the expression “the living God” had received a new meaning. The greatest content of the feast in Israel, therefore, was that history became alive again. Yahweh came again and renewed the covenant with his people and thereby created it anew. In the festival, the community experienced the old salvation history anew, the delivery from Egypt, the miracle at the Red Sea, the revelation at Sinai—as new and current reality. So the religion of Israel received a truly unique stamp that distinguished it from all of the other ancient cults in the Near East.[13]Mowinckel, p. 80, emphasis added.
Sacral Meals with the King
ἐγένετο καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω – John 1.10
Anciently, the state provided the food for the participants in many of these enthronement ceremonies. We see the gospel writers making these connections in the stories of Jesus miraculously providing food for thousands of people (see Matthew 14.13-21, Mark 6.32-44, John 6.1-15). Part of what these texts are emphasizing is Jesus’ role as sacral king. Jesus is standing in the robes (symbolically) of ancient kings that acted out these dramas at the New Year. We also read of two feasts in 3 Nephi with Jesus being present with the Nephites, and in the second feast, we are told that Jesus miraculously provided the food (3 Nephi 20.6-7). The importance of the king providing the food for the celebrants is an important connection with the ritual of enthronement and the blessing of God to the ancients.[14]See: Bernard Batto and Kathryn L. Roberts, David and Zion: Biblical Studies in Honor of J.J.M. Roberts, Penn State Press, 2004, p. 251. From this text we read: The connection between eating and … Continue readingThere has been connections made between Jesus’ presentation as king and these passages in the Book of Mormon as well as in the Gospel accounts as Jesus miraculously provided food for the believers.[15]See Mike Day, 3 Nephi 20-26 Quotes and Notes. The Sed festival probably dates from the Predynastic Period in some form but is certainly attested to from the reign of King Den (c. … Continue reading
Feasting with the Saints
This promise of all of the Saints participating in the sacrament aligns all of these ideas of kingship, fertility, peace, and justice. In this meal all of the promises of ancient prophets are looking for fulfilment. We see so many connections between this idea and the ordinance of the eucharist in the Greek Orthodox tradition. In the Greek Orthodox church, we see the saints depicted on a screen called the iconostasis. This screen can be seen as a veil, separating the place where the worshippers are and where the eucharist is blessed. Marcus Von Wellnitz sees a connection in the Catholic tradition as well.[16]Von Wellnitz writes, “Finally the veil which separated the holiest and its ark from the remainder of the room was also adopted in its catholic version a barrier was erected between the altar and … Continue reading
The iconostasis functions in the similar way that the veil did in the ancient Israelite temple. It is a screen that separates the believers from the equivalent to the Holy of Holies in the Greek Orthodox tradition, the room where the eucharist is blessed and made holy by the priest. The iconostasis is essentially a curtain or stand (stasis) with icons of the saints (icon) portrayed so that those partaking of the eucharist can see the images (icons) of the dead saints as they partake of the eucharist. In this way, Jesus is made manifest to both the living and the dead. Ritually speaking, both the living and the dead are partaking of the meal, both groups have communion with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This, to me, is essentially the main idea of Section 27, that all of the daughters of Eve and the sons of Adam will be united ritually in an event which will inaugurate the kingship of Yahweh in his holy house, and that we will all be united in a cosmic covenant that will bring fertility to the children of Israel, to the land, and to all of creation. This to me, is essentially what I see happening in Joel chapter 2.11-32. Indeed, this is the message of much of the Old Testament, though it is veiled by the distance of time, culture, and language.[17]These ideas are examined in Old Testament scholarship across multiple scholars and over many years. Many of these ideas I have examined in other podcasts and papers. We will continue to see these … Continue reading
What Section 28 Contains
Section 28, given to Oliver Cowdery, covers a couple of basic things:
- Joseph Smith is in charge, and it is important Oliver know this (28.1-7).
- Oliver has permission to write, but only by “wisdom” and not by commandment. In other words, he can teach principles of truth, but not declare authoritative commands, that is the prerogative of Joseph Smith (28.5).
- Oliver is to go on a mission to the “Lamanites” (28.8).
- The location for Zion has not been revealed, but will “be given hereafter” (28.9).
- Oliver is instructed by the Lord to go and straighten out Hiram Page (28.11-14), to “settle all these things,” something that is ironic considering Oliver raised such a fuss over D&C 20.37 and caused the Whitmer family to stumble. Now the Lord is putting Oliver in the position of the one having to fix the issue, causing Oliver to see things from Joseph’s perspective!
D&C 28 Historical Background
In the summer of 1830, Oliver Cowdery wrote to Joseph Smith from the home of Peter Whitmer, where the Church had been organized earlier that year: “I command you in the name of God to erase those words, that no priestcraft be amongst us.”[18]Jeffrey G. Cannon, “All things must be done in order,” Revelations in Context. See: Joseph Smith, “History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834],” 51, … Continue reading His passion was clear, but what had so alarmed the Church’s Second Elder that he would be so forceful in his communication with the Prophet?
Under divine commission, Oliver had written a document called the “Articles of the Church of Christ” that was later superseded by a second document written by Joseph, titled “Articles and Covenants of the Church of Christ.” Joseph’s document used much of the same language but added significant passages clarifying and expanding on Oliver’s original. Joseph’s later document was accepted by the Church at its June 1830 conference as binding. Notwithstanding the Church’s acceptance, Oliver disapproved of a phrase in the list of requirements for baptism: “And truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins.”[19]Ibid., See also: Joseph Smith, “History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834],” 51.
Perhaps Oliver felt his involvement in the document’s development entitled him to make demands concerning the text. Joseph, however, disagreed, insisting that the requirement had come by revelation. In his response, Joseph asked “by what authority he [Oliver] took upon him to command me to alter, or erase, to add or diminish to or from a revelation or commandment from Almighty God.”[20]Ibid., See also: Joseph Smith, “History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834],” 51.
Joseph worked to bring Oliver and the Whitmer family, who had sided with Oliver in the dispute, to see his position. From the history we read, “I succeeded of bringing not only the Whitmer family, but also Oliver Cowdery also to acknowledge that they had been in error.”[21]Joseph Smith, “History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834],” 51.
Persecution in Harmony caused Joseph and Emma to leave and live with the Whitmer clan in August of 1830. It was at this time that Hiram Page, the husband of Catherine Whitmer, the daughter of Peter Whitmer Sr. and Mary Musselman Whitmer, was found to be receiving revelations on his own personal seer stone.
Newel Knight reports the following from the Hiram Page seer stone experience: About the last of August, 1830, I took my team and wagon to Harmony to move Joseph and his family to Fayette, New York. After arranging my affairs at home, I again set out for Fayette to attend our second conference, which had been appointed to be held at Father Whitmer’s, where Joseph then resided. On my arrival I found Brother Joseph in great distress of mind on account of Hiram Page, who had managed to get up some dissension of feeling among the brethren by giving revelations concerning the government of the Church and other matters which he claimed to have received through the medium of a stone he possessed. He had quite a roll of papers full of these revelations, and many in the Church were led astray by them. Even Oliver Cowdery and the Whitmer family had given heed to them, although they were in contradiction to the New Testament and the revelations of these last days. Joseph was perplexed and scarcely knew how to meet this new exigency. That night I occupied the same room that he did, and the greater part of the night was spent in prayer and supplication.[22]Journal History, 26 September 1830.
Joseph Smith relates his perspective:
As a conference meeting had been appointed for the 26th day of September, I thought it wisdom not to do much more than converse with the brethren on the subject until the conference should meet. Finding, however, that many, especially the Whitmer family and Oliver Cowdery, were believing much in the things set forth by this stone, we thought best to inquire of the Lord concerning so important a matter.[23]History of the Church 1:110.
Newel Knight continues:
After much labor with these brethren, they were convinced of their error and confessed the same, renouncing the revelations as not being of God, but acknowledging that Satan had conspired to overthrow their belief in the true plan of salvation. In consequence of these things, Joseph inquired of the Lord before conference commenced and received a revelation in which the Lord explicitly stated His mind and will concerning the receiving of revelation. (See D&C 28.)
During this time we had much of the power of God manifested among us, and it was wonderful to witness the wisdom that Joseph displayed on this occasion, for truly God gave unto him great wisdom and power, and it seems to me that none who saw him administer righteousness under such trying circumstances could doubt that the Lord was with him. He acted not with the wisdom of man, but with the wisdom of God. The Holy Ghost came upon us and filled our hearts with unspeakable joy. Before this memorable conference closed, three other revelations besides the one already mentioned were received from God by our prophet, and we were made to rejoice exceedingly in His goodness.[24]“Newel Knight’s Journal,” in Scraps of Biography (Faith Promoting Series, Volume 10), Salt Lake City, 1883. Pages 47-65.
No one shall be appointed… except Joseph D&C 28.2
Here Oliver is instructed on how the order of the Kingdom is to operate. Oliver is to hearken to Joseph’s word as Aaron was to follow Moses. We still see echoes of this today as people work to sway followers of Christ to not listen to the voice of the prophet.[25]From the time of Hiram Page down to today, there have been many individuals who have claimed that the Church is “out of the way” or in apostasy and asserted that God has called them to correct or … Continue reading In another section of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord further explains the order of the kingdom:
O hearken, ye elders of my church, and give ear to the words which I shall speak unto you. For behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye have received a commandment for a law unto my church, through him whom I have appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations from my hand. And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me. But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead. And this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments; And this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me. For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those revelations which you have received and shall receive through him whom I have appointed (D&C 43.1-7).
Thou shalt not write by way of commandment, but by wisdom D&C 28.5
It is interesting that the Lord draws a distinction between written and spoken inspiration: Oliver Cowdery could speak by way of commandment, when inspired, but could only write by way of wisdom, giving advice.
That same instruction can apply to us today. Many Saints have sat in a particularly inspired Sunday School class, where insights from the teacher or class members answered serious questions or changed people’s lives. A bishop receives inspiration in many things pertaining to his ward, and Saints heed instructions and callings from their local leaders. All these things are the workings of the Lord.
But they do not pertain to all people and to all times. Though the bishop is inspired to call a woman to serve as Relief Society president in the ward, this does not mean she will always serve in that calling. Though a wise and inspired teacher gives an insight that can help a wandering soul find the right path, that insight may not always apply to the person’s life—and it may not apply to all Church members.
Many of the utterances of the prophets themselves, even though inspired of the Lord, are not recorded as part of the standard works. One important reason is that new scripture may contain new information. What is accepted as part of the standard works are the revelations that contain eternal truths, insights, instructions, and commandments from the Lord, which add to our understanding of the Lord and his gospel.
When a revelation is added to the standard works, as has happened periodically since the Church was organized, the sustaining vote means that the members of the Church recognize and accept the Lord’s direction that the particular revelation be considered his enduring word, either because of the specific doctrines or instructions in it, or because of the insights and wisdom that can come from studying it. In sustaining the action, the members also willingly make themselves accountable to the scriptural instruction.[26]Melvin Peterson, I Have a Question, Ensign, 1978. At the time of this publication, Melvin J. Peterson was the professor of Church history and doctrine at Brigham Young University.
Thou shalt not command him who is at thy head – D&C 28.6
James E. Faust of the First Presidency put it this way: The Prophet Joseph Smith stated that “it is contrary to the economy of God for any member of the Church … to receive instruction for those in authority, higher than themselves.”[27]Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 21; see also D&C 28:12.
In addition, some have claimed higher spiritual gifts or authority outside the established priesthood authority of the Church. They say that they believe in the principles and ordinances of the gospel and accept the President of the Church as the legal administrator thereof, but claim they have a higher order which the President does not have. This is often done to justify an activity which is not in accordance with the doctrines of the Church. There can be no higher order, however, because the President of the Church both holds and exercises all of the keys of the kingdom of God on earth. The Lord has said of the President of the Church “that none else shall be appointed [to receive commandments and revelations] except it be through him.”[28]President James E. Faust, “The Prophetic Voice,” Ensign, May 1996.
Later challenges to these ideas
Cassandra Hedelius explains:
After these revelations (D&C 28 and 43), there were still more difficulties to untangle. In late February 1831, a Mrs. Hubble “professed to be a prophetess of the Lord, and professed to have many revelations, and knew the Book of Mormon was true, and that she should become a teacher in the church of Christ. She appeared to be very sanctimonious and deceived some who were not able to detect her in her hypocrisy.”[29]History of the Church, 1:154n. As with Hiram Page, she wasn’t being outrageously, obviously evil. She claimed good things, like the truth of the Book of Mormon. But some truth does not legitimize other errors.[30]Cassandra Hedelius, “A House of Order, a House of God: Recycled Challenges to the Legitimacy of the Church,” presentation given at the 2015 FairMormon Conference, held in Provo, Utah, 7 … Continue reading
I like how Hedelius explains that some who try to lead others away from the truth emphasize their “high callings” that they have had in the church. She says, “Taken together, these revelations leave no room to be mistaken about the Lord’s assurances that we can trust in the legitimacy of the church and its leaders. Revelation comes only through a regularly appointed prophet. Anyone else purporting to receive revelation and teach it to the church is out of line–even someone as respected and spiritually privileged as Hiram Page, one of the Eight Witnesses, could not dispense revelation without authority. I emphasize Hiram Page’s calling because it is common for Mormon Gnostic visionaries to emphasize their high callings in the church, as though we should believe someone because he used to be a High Councilor, or even because he used to be a personal friend of an Apostle. That’s moonshine. It simply doesn’t matter.”
References
| ↑1 | George Q. Cannon, “Editorial Thoughts,” Juvenile Instructor, January 15, 1897, 52–53. See also: Justin Bray, “The Lord’s Supper in Early Mormonism,” as found in You Shall Have My Word: Exploring the Text of the Doctrine and Covenants, 41st Annual Brigham Young University Sidney B. Sperry Symposium, Brigham Young University, 2012. |
|---|---|
| ↑2 | History of The Church, 1:106. |
| ↑3 | “While the Church did not adopt the custom of using water exclusively in the sacrament at that early time, yet it was from this time that water was used as a substitute for wine, which had been used principally because of its resemblance to blood. Today throughout the Church water is used in the sacrament in remembrance of the blood of Jesus Christ which was shed for the remission of sins in behalf of all who repent and accept the Gospel.” See: Church History and Modern Revelation 1.132. |
| ↑4 | Elder David B. Haight, “Remembering the Savior’s Atonement,” Ensign, Apr. 1988. |
| ↑5 | In the celebration of the Eucharist, the glorified Christ becomes present under the appearances of bread and wine in a way that is unique, a way that is uniquely suited to the Eucharist. In the Church’s traditional theological language, in the act of consecration during the Eucharist the “substance” of the bread and wine is changed by the power of the Holy Spirit into the “substance” of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. At the same time, the “accidents” or appearances of bread and wine remain. “Substance” and “accident” are here used as philosophical terms that have been adapted by great medieval theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas in their efforts to understand and explain the faith. Such terms are used to convey the fact that what appears to be bread and wine in every way (at the level of “accidents” or physical attributes – that is, what can be seen, touched, tasted, or measured) in fact is now the Body and Blood of Christ (at the level of “substance” or deepest reality). This change at the level of substance from bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is called “transubstantiation.” According to Catholic faith, we can speak of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because this transubstantiation has occurred (cf. Catechism, no. 1376). This is a great mystery of our faith—we can only know it from Christ’s teaching given us in the Scriptures and in the Tradition of the Church. See: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, The real presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist: Basic Questions and Answers.
It is interesting to note the Greek Orthodox position on this. From The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, we read the following: While questions over the nature of the Eucharistic presence (that is, whether the bread and wine are understood truly to become Christ’s body and blood, or whether they are representative memorials only) have been pivotal in much of Western Christian history, in Orthodoxy the matter has rarely been of substantial issue. Church fathers and other ecclesiastical writers such as Clement of Alexandria often reflect on the symbolic and metaphorical aspects of the Eucharistic gifts: Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood” (John 6.34), describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows (Paedagogus 1.6)… Given the Orthodox insistence that the Eucharist offers to the faithful Christ’s true body and blood, its position is sometimes compared to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation (that the bread and wine are substantively transformed into body and blood; and more specifically, that the substance of the elements is transformed, while the accidents – those things discernable to the senses, such as taste and appearance – remain unchanged), contrasted with the Lutheran conception of consubstantiation (that Christ’s body and blood are “with” the bread and wine in sacramental experience). While it may rightly be said that the Orthodox view accords more strongly with a transubstantionist position, the traditional Orthodox response has been to insist that both views are external to the church’s normal mode of expression, and that transubstantiation in particular suffers from proposing too scientific a means of explaining the Eucharistic mystery (its specific definition being rather late, likely dating to the 12th century, and building upon a renewed attention in the West to Aristotelian categories of substances and accidents). Nonetheless, the Greek term metousiosis, which is comparable to the Latin transubstantiatio, does appear in Orthodox liturgical and theological texts – though not as often as other vocabulary (e.g., metastoicheiosis, “a change of elements”). See: John Anthony McGuckin (editor), The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Volume 1, Wiley-Blackwell Ltd., 2011, p.232. |
| ↑6 | Today the sacrament is an ordinance in which Church members partake of bread and water in remembrance of Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice. This ordinance is an essential part of worship and spiritual development. Through this ordinance, Church members renew the covenants they made with God when they were baptized. See: Sacrament, Gospel Topics. |
| ↑7 | We read echoes of this feast throughout canonized scripture as well in sacred texts of other cultures throughout the history of the world. See for example, in Genesis 14.17-24 where we read of the feast between Melchizedek and Abraham, or in Exodus 24, where Moses and several sacral priests partake of a feast with Yahweh as they receive an endowment of glory in the very presence of God. We also read of a sacral meal at Ramah when Samuel anoints Saul as ruler over Israel in 1 Samuel 9. We also see David initiating a sacred meal in connection with his bringing the Ark of the Covenant to “Yahweh’s mount of victory” in 2 Samuel 6.15-19. I would obviously add D&C 27 to this list of canonized texts associating Jesus’ kingship over the cosmos and his relationship to all believers, as well as Revelation 19.6-9, a text that refers to the “marriage supper of the Lamb,” where attendants are wearing fine linen, clean and white, feasting with Yahweh in a ritual setting. For more on the idea of the feast associated with God in other cultures, see: Roberts, God, Prophet, and King, on page 639 where she says: The motif of eating and drinking with the deity is related to the idea of the banquet of the gods, a common theme throughout the ancient Near East, where it fulfills not only a religious function but serves political ends as well. In Canaanite mythology the high god El presides over the divine assembly on his sacred mountain “at the source of the rivers and the springs of the double deeps” (KTU 1 .2.iii.4-5). Yamm’s initial challenge to Baal comes as the assembly of the gods is gathered together at a banquet over which El presides as host (KTU 1.2.Ì.1-38). After defeating the enemy, Yamm, Baal is hailed as king (KTU 1.2.ÌV.25-40). Baal celebrates his victory and his newly won king- ship at a lavish banquet on Mount Saphon (KTU l.l.i.1-20). After the successful completion of his house and the reaffirmation of his kingship, he again hosts a feast on Mount Saphon (KTU 1.4.vi.44-45, 51-52, 54-55), offering his guests honored seats at his table and an abundance of food and wine. The gods and goddesses come together to affirm Baal’s kingship by eating and drinking on his royal mountain In Enuma Elish, the anunnaki implore Marduk to fight Tiamat and rescue them. In return, they promise Marduk kingship over the assembly of the gods. Marduk slays Tiamat and her partisans. As a sign of respect and devotion the gods build Babylon, a city worthy of Marduk, who has vanquished their enemy. The gods then call a feast to celebrate and affirm the kingship of Marduk (Enuma Elish 6.70, 73). During the lusty eating and drinking the anunnaki pledge their allegiance to Marduk. The banquet of the gods is a political move that confirms Marduk’s kingship. As a result, the order of the universe is reestablished, and the constellations and boundaries of the heavens are set in place. |
| ↑8 | Sigmund Mowinckel, Religion and Cult: The Old Testament and the Phenomenology of Religion, translated by John F. X. Sheehan, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2012, chapter 7 Established Orders, p. 60-62 electronic version. |
| ↑9 | The whole cosmic history portrayed in the drama of the Feast of Tabernacles was a cyclic continuum of making and keeping covenants. The first scene was in the Council when Jehovah was anointed to be King and Protector of Israel, and the prophets and kings of Israel were similarly chosen and given their respective assignments. The gods created the heavens and the earth, and placed man here. Then followed the Lord’s covenants with Adam and Eve. Those covenants included the most important of all—the promise that death would preclude the danger that they might have to stay in their earthly state forever. After they left the Garden, the king and queen were given the powers and blessings they would need to fulfill their eternal covenants. He receives Melchizedek Priesthood (Psalm 110), and the Abrahamic Covenant (Psalms 47, 105, 106). The king received the blessings of Moses, which included the authority to administer in the rites, offerings, and sacrifices of the Aaronic Priesthood. (Psalm 77, 95, 103) He was then given all the blessings of the Lord’s covenant with David, (Psalm 72. 89) so he held all the offices of king and priest. In the drama, after the king had obtained all the requisite preparatory powers, he was engaged in a ritual combat whose conclusion precluded the possibility that he could keep his eternal covenants. Jerusalem and the Temple were symbolically destroyed and the king sent into the confines of death. However, Jehovah interceded and restored that possibility to him. Jehovah himself descended into the underworld, defeated death and hell, and restored the king to the world of the living. On the morning of the seventh day of the drama, Jehovah (represented by the Ark of the Covenant, the king, and all the people met, and in a triumphal procession walked around the city, measuring it with their steps, redefining it as sacred space. There was a New Jerusalem, a new Temple, and they entered the city as Zion. They entered the Temple, and there the king (and symbolically, each person who had participated in the drama) received the rites of coronation and adoption. (presumably those described in Isaiah 61: wash, clothe, anoint, crown, and receive a new royal king-name). The next day, the eighth and final day of the drama, the festival concluded with sacrifices, feasting and rejoicing that symbolized eternal peace, happiness, and prosperity. See Baker, The Temple Drama of the Ancient Israelite Feast of Tabernacles. |
| ↑10 | See Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, p. 60. Mowinckel writes, “As far as we can see, the king’s enthronement was celebrated each year in a feast not only in Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, and the other Eastern empires but also in Israel. Ps. 132 shows that this annual enthronement of the king was also felt to be a repetition of David’s legitimization as Yahweh’s king at Zion, and was accompanied by promises to the royal house corresponding to those which at that time were given to David. |
| ↑11 | Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature, University of Chicago Press, 1948, p. 123-124.. Frankfort explains: It is likely that Pharaoh traveled to a number of cities in the period of transition. On this assumption we can explain that throughout the performance of the Mystery Play Pharaoh remained on board the royal barge, which served as his quarters during travel.
Actors in the play, besides the king, are the royal princes, officials, priests, and even craftsmen. The action is sometimes of a practical nature, as when the crowns or scepters which are to be used in the ceremony are brought in; but, even then, mythological allusions and parallels are adduced to sustain the supernatural significance of these acts. Actuality is never allowed to stand by itself. Throughout the play we can observe a deliberate attempt to fuse the historical event, the coronation of one particular Pharaoh, with the perennial truth that Horus succeeds Osiris… We cannot possibly do full justice here to this side of our text and to the innumerable ramifications which it establishes by these primitive means… In a way the coronation of the king in the play was no more than mimed, since it was repeated a number of times and required the definitive ceremony at Memphis to become irrevocable. Yet the play was no mere make-believe or even mere representation. It was necessary for the king to pass through its repeated ceremonies at the various cities traditionally entitled to be thus involved in establishing the religious ties which united the new ruler with his country. The performances were instrumental in establishing these bonds. The king was not properly king unless he had enacted the Play of the Succession at various cities or until he had performed “Union of the Two Lands; Circuit of the Walls; Festival of the Diadem” at Memphis, on one of nature’s New Year’s Days. |
| ↑12 | Mowinckel, Religion and Cult, chapter 9, The Cycle, p. 80 electronic version. |
| ↑13 | Mowinckel, p. 80, emphasis added. |
| ↑14 | See: Bernard Batto and Kathryn L. Roberts, David and Zion: Biblical Studies in Honor of J.J.M. Roberts, Penn State Press, 2004, p. 251. From this text we read: The connection between eating and drinking and covenant-making and remaking is well known, as Kathryn Roberts aptly observes: ritual eating and drinking not only seals the covenant but also legitimates the enthronement of the human king and confers divine approval. Samuel anointed Saul as ruler over Israel after a sacrifice and sacred meal on the sacral high place at Ramah (1 Samuel 9). When David brought the ark onto “Yahweh’s mount of victory” in Jerusalem, he offered sacrifices and distributed shares to the worshipping community (2 Samuel 6-7). This feasting on Yahweh’s mountain solidified David’s role as sacral king, the king of Yahweh’s choosing, and firmly established Jerusalem as his capital. One can hardly overemphasize the importance of the royal feast in terms of the ideology and legitimation of kingship as well as royal covenanting in the ancient Near East. A king’s favor with the gods and populace was inextricably bound to his ability to sustain their cults as well as to lavish the court, if not the populace itself, with resplendent feasts. Of course, and to the point, the human king provided (paid for) the food… the verification of the deity’s oracular grant of favor was inseparably linked to the substantial wealth amassed by the king. See also: Kathryn Roberts, God, Prophet, and King: Eating and Drinking on the Mountain in First Kings 18.41. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, October, 2000, volume 62, no. 4, pages 632-644. |
| ↑15 | See Mike Day, 3 Nephi 20-26 Quotes and Notes. The Sed festival probably dates from the Predynastic Period in some form but is certainly attested to from the reign of King Den (c. 2990-2940 BCE) of the First Dynasty. The name comes from the deity Sed, an early wolf-god (sometimes depicted as more of a jackal), who was originally among the most important gods, associated with the strength of the king, justice, and balance (and so linked with the goddess and concept of ma’at). Sed was eventually absorbed by Wepwawet and Anubis and superseded by Osiris who, by the New Kingdom, had taken Sed’s place in the festival. As with all the great festivals, the state provided the people with food and beer for the duration. See: Joshua J. Mark, Festivals in Ancient Egypt, Ancient History Encyclopedia, March 2017. See also Britannica Academic, Sacred Kingship: “The King as Shepherd,” where we read, “An Egyptian pharaoh once said of himself: “He made me the shepherd of this country.” In Mesopotamia the description of the king as a shepherd was quite frequent; in the 3rd millennium BCE the term was applied to Sumerian city princes (e.g., Lugalbanda in the 1st dynasty of Uruk [Erech]). The function of the king as shepherd also has been noted in India. The image of the shepherd expresses the most important functions of the king—he provides his people with food; he leads them and protects them from dangers and, at the same time, shows his superiority over them. Christ’s description of himself in the New Testament as the “good shepherd” is, in a sense, a description of his official position in the Christian church, which also describes him as king, prince of peace, and Lord. |
| ↑16 | Von Wellnitz writes, “Finally the veil which separated the holiest and its ark from the remainder of the room was also adopted in its catholic version a barrier was erected between the altar and the rest of the church where the faithful gathered to witness the liturgical rites the sanctuary is called the holy place haikal and it is cut off from the nave by a lattice screen. John Chrysostom mentions veils which covered the sanctuary during the consecration of the sacramental emblems in his day and a poem by St Paulinus of Nola commenced with the line “veiled are the holy altars.” In the Eastern rites of Catholicism the altar is concealed behind a solid screen. Sometimes it is a curtain which hides the altar during the “anaphora.” Almost all churches in the early centuries possessed a network partition which separated the altar from the rest of the church and also the side altars were veiled in by a screen.” See: Marcus Von Wellnitz, The Catholic Liturgy and the Mormon Temple, BYU Studies Quarterly: Vol. 21 : Iss. 1 , Article 2. |
| ↑17 | These ideas are examined in Old Testament scholarship across multiple scholars and over many years. Many of these ideas I have examined in other podcasts and papers. We will continue to see these ideas examined as we move through the Old Testament in the Come Follow Me podcasts. See: Overview of the First Israelite Temple Drama, 1/23/2020. See also the podcast Ep 34 | 1 Nephi 20-21, First Israelite Temple Drama. See also the podcast Ep 73 | Plain & Precious Things with Dave Butler. See also LeGrand Baker and Stephen Ricks, Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord? The Psalms in Israel’s Temple Worship in the Old Testament and in the Book of Mormon, Eborn Books, 2011. |
| ↑18 | Jeffrey G. Cannon, “All things must be done in order,” Revelations in Context. See: Joseph Smith, “History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834],” 51, josephsmithpapers.org. |
| ↑19, ↑20 | Ibid., See also: Joseph Smith, “History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834],” 51. |
| ↑21 | Joseph Smith, “History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834],” 51. |
| ↑22 | Journal History, 26 September 1830. |
| ↑23 | History of the Church 1:110. |
| ↑24 | “Newel Knight’s Journal,” in Scraps of Biography (Faith Promoting Series, Volume 10), Salt Lake City, 1883. Pages 47-65. |
| ↑25 | From the time of Hiram Page down to today, there have been many individuals who have claimed that the Church is “out of the way” or in apostasy and asserted that God has called them to correct or to lead the Church. They have drawn after them not only the unstable but also “the very elect” (Matthew 24:24). In recent times, people such as Denver Snuffer have drawn Latter-day Saints into their breakaway groups by claiming that the leaders of the Church aren’t teaching the complete and true doctrines of God. Others have claimed special knowledge of mysteries and truths that aren’t being taught by Church leaders; these individuals include authors such as Julie Rowe. See: Cassandra Hedelius, “A House of Order, a House of God: Recycled Challenges to the Legitimacy of the Church,” presentation given at the 2015 FairMormon Conference, held in Provo, Utah, 7 August 2015. In her presentation, Hedelius lays out the tension between receiving personal revelation and the revelation given to the president of the church. I would also say that while I am a huge fan of seeking personal knowledge and wisdom, it is important to balance this position, something I believe Hedelius works to do. Elder Oaks’ address sums up the quest perfectly: “We must use both the personal line and the priesthood line in proper balance to achieve the growth that is the purpose of mortal life. If personal religious practice relies too much on the personal line, individualism erases the importance of divine authority. If personal religious practice relies too much on the priesthood line, individual growth suffers. The children of God need both lines to achieve their eternal destiny. The restored gospel teaches both, and the restored Church provides both.” See Dallin H. Oaks, “Two Lines of Communication,” Ensign, October 2010. |
| ↑26 | Melvin Peterson, I Have a Question, Ensign, 1978. At the time of this publication, Melvin J. Peterson was the professor of Church history and doctrine at Brigham Young University. |
| ↑27 | Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 21; see also D&C 28:12. |
| ↑28 | President James E. Faust, “The Prophetic Voice,” Ensign, May 1996. |
| ↑29 | History of the Church, 1:154n. |
| ↑30 | Cassandra Hedelius, “A House of Order, a House of God: Recycled Challenges to the Legitimacy of the Church,” presentation given at the 2015 FairMormon Conference, held in Provo, Utah, 7 August 2015. |