E.M.B. Green on the Early Christian Application of Sacrificial Language to the Eucharist

With respect to the early Christian usage of “sacrifice” (Greek: θυσια; Latin: sacrificium) as well as early Christian application of Malachi 1:11 to the Eucharist, one Anglican commentator wrote:

Origen called preaching the gospel a sacrificale opus (Hom. In Rom. 15) and so did Chrysostom (In Rom. Hom. 39 Ipsum mihi sacerdotium est, praedicare et evangelizare. Hanc offero oblationem [‘My priestly work is to preach and evangelise. This is the oblation I offer’]). Augustine (De Civ. 5) calls mercy ‘a true sacrifice, and acceptable to God’. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. V. 5, 11, 67) defines the ‘sacrifice which is acceptable to God’ as ‘unswerving separation from the body and its passions’, and prayer is frequently called a sacrifice (Clem Alex. Strom. vii. 6, 31, 32; Origen c. Celsum vii. 1, viii. 21; Didascalia, p. 47 [Gibson’s edition])). This should warn us against attributing too much doctrinal significance to sacrificial language about the Eucharist. It was a sacrifice in the literal sense—something made holy, something set apart for God: like prayers, alms, mercy and evangelism. It is very interesting to notice in this connection that even Malachi i.11, the passage which was the origin of the sacrificial language being applied to the Eucharist, was by no means confined to it. Tertullian interprets the ‘pure offering’ as the preaching of the gospel among the heathen (Adv. Jud. 5); in another place he says, ‘The sacrifice that Malachi meant is devout prayer proceeding from a pure conscience’ (Adv. Marc. vi. I). This exegesis is not peculiar to Tertullian; both Jerome (Com. In Mal. i.11) and Eusebius (Demonstr. Evang. i. 6) explain Malachi’s sacrifice as the prayers of God’s people the world over. Harnack (History of Dogma, i. pp. 209ff) point out that Justin’s citation of Malachi i.11 in Dialogue 117 arises out of a discussion of the Eucharist, but that the only things he calls sacrifice as the prayers. ‘The elements’, says Harnack, ‘are only δωρα, προσφοραι, (dōra, prosphorai) which obtain their value from the prayers in which thanks are given for the gifts of creation and redemption as well as for the holy meal . . . The sacrifice of the Supper in its essence, apart from the offering of alms, is here also (even in Justin) nothing else than an act of prayer (see Apol. I. 13, 65-67: Dial. 28, 29, 41, 70, 116-18).’ (E.M.B. Green, “Eucharistic Sacrifice in the New Testament and the Early Fathers” in J.I. Packer, ed. Eucharistic Sacrifice: The Oxford Conference of Evangelical Churchmen [London: Church Book Room Press, 1962], 58-83, here, pp.73-74)

For more, see, for e.g., the listing of articles at:

Responses toRobert Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone (2000/2009)

"Christians" in the Book of Mormon: An Anachronism?

The term "Christians" appears in the Book of Mormon one century before the birth of Jesus:

And he fastened on his head-plate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a band of Christians remain to possess the land . . . And those who did belong to the church were faithful; yea, all those who were true believers in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come. And therefore, at this time, Moroni prayed that the cause of the Christians, and the freedom of the land might be favored. (Alma 46:13, 15-16)

And thus he was preparing to support their liberty, their lands, their wives, and their children, and their peace, and that they might live unto the Lord their God, and that they might maintain that which was called by their enemies the cause of Christians. (Alma 48:10)

Some critics of the Book of Mormon have argued that this is an anachronism as, they charge, the followers of Jesus were not called "Christians" until Acts 11:26, after the ascension of Jesus and well over a century after the date of these Book of Mormon texts:

And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. (Acts 11:26)

There are a number of problems with this argument. Firstly, the Book of Mormon purports to be a translation into English of an ancient text; it stands to reason that the language from which it was translated is not the same it was translated into. The Nephites may have called themselves something akin to “Messiah followers” (e.g., Meshihim, from Messiah) that Joseph Smith translated as “Christian,” the best word in his vocabulary to denote such. Furthermore, Luke’s comment refers to when the Greek term Χριστιανος was used of the fledgling Church—the Nephites did not write or speak in Greek.

Let me quote two previous LDS apologetic responses.

John Tvedtnes (in response to Jehovah’s Witnesses):

"Acts 11:26 says: ‘The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.' (KJ)  But Alma 46:15, purportedly describing events in 73 B.C.E., has Christians in America before Christ ever came to earth" (p. 25).  Were we to say that the Templars were organized in Germany and settled in the Holy Land in the late 19th century, you might try to correct us by saying that the Templars were organized in the year 1118 by Hugh de Payen and participated in a Crusade to the Holy Land in the years that followed.  Actually, both statements are correct, for we would be referring to two different Christian groups that called themselves "Templars."  Since Luke, who wrote the Acts of the Apostles, didn't know about the followers of Christ in the New World, he would naturally assume that the term "Christian" was first used in Antioch in his own day. In the same way, many history books credit Columbus with having discovered America, though there is now abundant evidence for the Vikings having visited North America five hundred years earlier.  If one acknowledges that prophets such as Isaiah (e.g., Isaiah 53) foresaw the coming of Christ, there should be no problem in having a people living a few decades before his birth and who looked forward to his arrival calling themselves "Christians."  Since the term "Christians" is from the Greek word that gave us "Christ," it would not, of course, have been used by the Nephites. They may have called themselves Meshihim, from the Hebrew Messiah. All we can say for certain is that the anglicized form "Christians" was used in the English translation to represent whatever term the Nephites used.

D. Charles Pyle (in response to Marian Bodine):

There is no contradiction, when one considers the facts. The events of the Book of Mormon occurred in the Americas at about 73 BC; the events of Acts somewhere between AD 40 and 50. Since Luke did not live in the Americas during the year 73 BC, it is obvious that he would not have been aware of these prior events, separated by more than 100 years and by the Atlantic Ocean. His not being aware of this historical event, would account for his use of the word first at Acts 11:26.

Further, the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient text. Since Joseph Smith used the vocabulary available to him, what other word could he have used to properly convey the sense of a text that spoke of followers of the Messiah?

“Christian” in the Book of Mormon is clearly not an anachronism and/or a contradiction between the Book of Mormon and the Bible.

For more articles addressing Greek names and words in the Book of Mormon, see:

Notes on Greek Names in the Book of Mormon

Allegedly Anachronistic Greek Words in the Book of Mormon

Blake Ostler on the Special Theory of Relativity, the General Theory of Relativity and LDS Theology

Commenting on the Special Theory of Relativity (STR), General Theory of Relativity (GTR), and its relationship to the Latter-day Saint belief that God the Father has a body, Blake Ostler wrote:

The challenges presented by STR and GTR confront Mormonism with some force because God the Father is not merely material, he is corporeal. Any body, even a glorified body, must have spatiotemporal extension and be located within the three dimensions of space and a fourth dimension defined by a temporal coordinate. God the Father is thus located at a place and a temporal, inertial frame of reference. Further, the Godhead is material though not limited to any particular inertial frame of reference. A God who is present in space-time must be subject to the law of entropy which applies to all things in the material universe. Thus, God’s body is subject to the law of entropy which dictates that his body will increase in entropy or decrease in organization over time. That is, it is logically possible that the Father’s body will decompose at some time. If the Godhead is material and the Father is corporeal, then they are limited to space-time. Any entity limited to space-time must also be subject to the law of gravity which defines space-time curvature in local regions defined by matter.

The sense in which the Father’s body is like a human body must be qualified somewhat. The Father may have a body in some sense distinctively like a human body, but the Father is not a mere body any more than persons are mere bodies. The senses in which a glorified body may be different from human bodies are numerous. For example, a glorified body is presumably like the body of the resurrected Christ—a pneumikos or spiritual body in the terminology of the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 15:44). This type of body, although made of matter, is matter in a very special or equivocal sense for it is, like spirit, more pure and refined than crass matter that is visible to human eyes; “All spirit is matter, but it is more pure, and can be discerned only by purer eyes. We cannot see it, but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter” (D&C 131:7-8). Presumably one of the properties of a glorified body is that it is not impeded by other material objects like walls, for the resurrected Christ apparently appeared in a closed room, “the doors being shut,” when he appeared to the ten apostles in the absence of Thomas (John 20:26).

But what then is a body like that can pass through walls? If the Father tried to cross the vast universe, would the travel be limited to the mere speed of light and thus take vast amounts of time to get from here to there like other material objects in the universe? If God wandered too near a black hole, would his body be pulled into gravitational forces which is inescapable by every other type of material body known to us? If the universe collapsed in the opposite of the big bang, the big crunch, would God’s body be smashed by the incredible gravitational forces? I don’t mean to be impious. These questions naturally arise if we take seriously the notion that the Father has a material body located within the space-time universe, for our bodies clearly would be crushed by such forces. Yet I think our well-founded intuition is that God must be impervious to such forces. The theory of relativity thus appears to provide a strong reason for locating God outside of space-time and rejecting the notion of a material God.

Of course, given recent experimental results, it is possible for material objects to travel faster than the speed of light. Another way to escape these difficulties is to suggest that the matter constituting God’s body is gloriously transformed so that it is not subject to the same natural laws that human bodies are subject to. However, such a move adopts an equivocal meaning of “matter” and “body” so different from their usual meaning that one has to wonder what cognitive content remains in such words when used in such ways. Further, the Mormon tradition has squarely rejected the view that God’s mode of being is entirely other than ours or is entirely mysterious, though there are many aspects of God’s existence which are clearly beyond our capacity to grasp. In any event, Mormon writers have asserted not merely that God is material in some respects or that the Father has a body, but also that God’s body “is as tangible as man’s” (D&C 130:2). This assertion suggests at least some continuity of meaning between what a human body is like and God’s body.

The problems suggested by the natural properties of material objects, such as being subject to entropy, can be resolved by the notion of God’s concurring power. As explained in the discussion of God’s maximal power, God transcends the natural space-time universe to the extent that properties of natural objects depend on God’s concurrence for their effective causal activity within the space-time universe. Moreover, the very fact that material objects organize and define space-time in the sense that they do is also dependent on God’s concurring power. Thus, the natural tendency which material objects to decompose and increase in entropy in a closed system can be frustrated if God withdraws his concurring power. A glorified body may thus be one that is not subject to the laws of entropy because God has withdrawn his concurring power from the material objects of which such bodies are composed. However, he withdraws his concurring power only to the extent that it relates to the tendencies to increase in entropy. Indeed, it seems possible for God to constantly redirect the mass-energy of the universe toward organization in localized regions so that material objects can expend energy in self-organizing ways. The total sum of mass-energy is never depleted or reduced; it is merely organized and reorganized in ways that can serve God’s purposes. That the nomological properties possessed by natural substances can be effectuated in a world only if God concurs entails that no natural law is necessarily controlling for God. He can determine whether the law of entropy defines the behavior of mass-energy.

The problem presented by gravity and black holes can be resolved in an analogous way. According to GTR, gravity merely defines the natural tendency material objects have to travel in a straight line in space-time. If this natural tendency is frustrated by withdrawing concurring power, then the material object may not travel in a straight line in space-time. From our perspective, it would thus appear that a material object would escape the gravitational pull of even a black hole because it would not “fall” into the black hole even if it went beyond the event horizon.

The notion that God is immediately present to all things in all inertial frames of reference seems to be impossible, however, if there simply is no simultaneous “now” which can be defined which applies to all places in the universe at once. Given Einstein’s version of GTR, there simply is no such thing as a universe which exists “all at once.” There simply is no privileged position from which two events can be defined as simultaneous. The same reality O can be future (and therefore not yet actual) with respect to one observer in an inertial frame of reference FR₁ and yet O is already present and therefore actual with respect to an observer in another frame of reference FR₂. If O is both not yet actual in FR₁ and actual in FR₂, how can God experience O as both actual and not yet actual? Since whether two events are really simultaneous depends on the observer given the GTR, there cannot be any being who is present to all actualities throughout the universe in a single frame of reference. This problem cannot be resolved merely by reference to God’s concurring power, for God cannot know as actual what is not actual. The only way to resolve this problem is to define a frame of reference which is not limited to any particular perspective or inertial frame of reference but which includes them all. Yet if Einstein’s theory of GTR is correct, there simply is no such overarching and inclusive frame of reference. (Blake T. Oster, Exploring Mormon Thought, volume 1: The Attributes of God [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2001], 351-54)

Frederick J. Pack on "Miracles" being actions within, not outside, the sphere of natural law

The conception of “outside the sphere of natural law” is not compatible with God’s relation to nature. Deity of the Creator of everything in the universe and, therefore, He works “within” the natural law and not “outside” of it. (Frederick J. Pack, “Natural and Supernatural” in Science and your Faith in God: A Selected Compilation of Writings and Talks by Prominent Latter-day Saints scientists on the subjects of Science and Religion [Salt Lake City: Utah, 1958], 200)

Excerpts from "The Psalms, a New Translation"

I have not posted as much as usual as I am currently studying for my finals in accountancy and taxation. Today I went through the following translation of the Psalter:

The Psalms, A New Translation: Translated from the Hebrew And Arranged for Singing to the Psalmody of Joseph Gelineau (London: Fontana Books, 1963)

Here are some excerpts (it follows the “Catholic” enumeration of the psalms, so I have changed them to the enumeration that LDS and others are familiar with [e.g., Psalm 110 is Psalm 109 in the LXX and Vulgate])

What is man that you should keep him in mind, mortal man that you care for him? Yet you have made him little less than a god; with glory and honour you crowned him. (Psa 8:5-6)

God stands in the divine assembly. In the midst of the gods he gives judgment. “How long will you judge unjustly and favour the cause of the wicked? Do justice for the weak and the orphan, defend the afflicted and the needy. Rescue the weak and the poor; set them free from the hand of the wicked. Unperceiving, they grope in the darkness and the other of the world is shaken. I have said to you: ‘You are gods and all of you, sons of the Most High.’ And yet, you shall die like men, you shall fall like any of the princes.” Arise, O God, judge the earth, for you rule all the nations. (Psa 82:1-8)

Then Phinehas stood up and intervened, thus the plague was ended and this was counted in his favour from age to age for ever. (Psa 106:30-31)

The Lord’s revelation to my Master: “Sit on my right: I will put your foes beneath your feet.” The Lord will send from Sion your sceptre of power: rule in the midst of all your foes. A prince from the day of your birth on the holy mountains; from the womb before the daybreak I begot you. The Lord has sworn an oath and will not change. “You are a priest for ever, a priest like Melchizedeck of old.” The Master standing at your right hand will shatter kings in the day of his great wrath. He, the Judge of the nations, will heap high the bodies; heads shall be shattered far and wide. He shall drink from the stream by the wayside and therefore he shall lift up his head. (Psa 110:1-7)

Jesus' use of Illeism in John 6:46 and 17:3

Commenting on Jesus’ use of illeism (wherein a person refers to themselves in the third-person), including his “Son of Man” sayings, Roderick Elledge noted the following:

Jesus’s words affirm and characterize his relationship with the Father. The distance between speaker and the self-referent created by the illeism offers a subtle contribution to Jesus’s presentation of his transcendent nature that he shares with the Father. While at times Jesus speaks of himself in the first person in relation to the Father, the choice of illeism emphasizes “the Son,” “the Son of Man,” and “the Son of God” in parallel (third-person) presentation with the Father. This dissociative third-person self-presentation in conjunction with another third-person referent does not inherently imply equality of status between the two. Yet, in this context, the choice to present both his own identity in the third person and the Father in the third person alludes to their shared transcendent nature. Apart from the illeism relating a parallel presentation of the Father and Son, the illeism in itself functions to highlight the authority and status of the speaker. The context of the illeism highlights this authority. Jesus states: “The dead will hear the voice of the Son of God.” The presentation of himself from this external perspective offers an emphasis of this associated authority in a manner which the first-person pronoun would not.

John 6:46 and 17:3 are two additional representative texts that reflect illeism in a similar context in John’s Gospel. In 6:46 Jesus (presenting himself as the bread of God that comes down from heaven) states that “no one has seen the Father, except the one who is from God” (ο ων παρα του θεου). This reference reflects a more descriptive aspect in comparison to “the Son,” “the Son of Man,” etc. Yet, the rhetorical effect of the self-reference is consistent with Jesus’s other self-references. The distance created between the speaker and the reference functions to emphasize the associated status and authority of the speaker. In John 17:1-3, Jesus refers to himself illeistically as he prayers to the Father. “And this is eternal life that they may know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (ον απεστειλας ‘Ισουν Χριστον). This is the only occurrence of the use of this reference by Jesus. The context is unique in that Jesus’s audience is the Father. Yet, Jesus also speaks to another audience indirectly. Ridderbos underscores how Jesus involves the “overhearing disciples” in his prayer, “depicting before their eyes the power given him by the Father in its full salvific meaning, as it concerned them” (The Gospel According to John: A Theological Commentary [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997], 549). Though the prayer is directed to the Father, the illeism contributes to Jesus’s self-presentation to his disciples. Consistent with his other uses of illeism, the dissociative self-reference presents himself from an external perspective, affirming his status and authority in a way the first-person reference could not. Yet, within the context of this emphasis of identity, the choice of illeism on the part of Jesus seems to reflect an instructional component, his words serving to teach and illuminate the disciples developing understanding of who he is. (Roderick Elledge, Use of Third Person for Self-Reference by Jesus and Yahweh: A Study of Illeism in the Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Its Implications for Christology [Library of New Testament Studies 575; London: T&T Clark, 2018], 128-30)

The Understanding of "Remembrance" in Some Early Christian Liturgical Texts

While reading Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed (trans. R.C.D. Jasper and G.J. Cuming; Glasgow: Wm Collins Sons & Co., 1975), it struck me as interesting that some early Christian liturgical texts understood τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25), not as “do this in memory of me” but “do this as my memorial” (cf. Joachim Jeremias’ discussion of αναμνησις in The Eucharistic Words of Jesus and Fritz Chenderlin, “Do This as My Memorial”: The Semantic and Conceptual Background of Αναμνησις in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25):

He took bread and gave thanks to you, saying, ‘Take, eat; this is my body, which shall be broken for you.’ Likewise also the cup, saying, ‘This is my blood, which is shed for you; when you do this, you make my remembrance.’ (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 4:9-10 [p. 22])

For our Lord and Saviour and King of all, Jesus Christ, in the night when he was betrayed and willingly underwent death, took bread in his holy and undefiled (and) blessed hands, looked up to heaven to you, the Father of all, blessed, gave thanks over it, sanctified, broke (and) gave it to his disciples (and) apostles, saying, ‘Take and eat of this, all of you; this is my body, which is given for you for the forgiveness of your sins. Do this for my remembrance.’

Likewise, after supper, he took a cup, blessed, sanctified, (and) gave it to them, saying, ‘Take this and drink of it, all of you; this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the forgiveness of their sins. Do this for my remembrance. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim my death (and) confess my resurrection.’ (The British Museum Tablet, 54036 [p. 39])

For (our Lord Jesus) Christ himself, (in the night when) he handed (himself) over . . . his disciple (and) apostles, saying, ‘Take . . . form it; this (is) my body, which is given for you for the forgiveness of sins.’ Likewise, after supper he took the cup, blessed, drank, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Take, drink; this is my blood, which is shed for you for forgiveness of sins. As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim my death, you make my remembrance.’ (The Deir Balyzeh Papyrus Oxford, MS Gr. Lit. d 2-4 P [p. 40; ellipsis in original])

God the Lord and eternal redeemer, who, the day before he suffered, took bread, gave thanks, blessed, and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take and eat; this is my body, which shall be betrayed for you. As often as you eat it, do this for my remembrance.’ Amen. Likewise the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This is the cup of the new covenant in my blood, which shall be shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. As often as you drink it, do this for my remembrance.’ Amen. (The Mozarabic Liturgy [pp. 96-97])

The Versions of the Decalogue in Mosiah 16, Exodus 20, and Deuteronomy 5

In the book of Mosiah in the Book of Mormon, as well as in Exo 20 and Deut 5, the Decalogue is stated. I think it would be interesting to present the versions of the Decalogue in a side-by-side comparison to see similarities and differences in the renditions thereof:

Mosiah 16:12-24 (*)	Exo 20:2-17	Deut 5:6-22
(first commandment omitted; "remainder" [i.e. nos. 2-10] quoted by Abinadi: "And now I read unto you the remainder of the commandments of God . . . " [Mosiah 13:11])	I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.	I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of things which is in heaven above, or which is in the earth beneath, or which is in the water under the earth. And again, thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them nor serve them, for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth centuries of them that hate me, and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.	Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.	Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I am the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third or fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.	Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.	Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work; but the seventh day, the sabbath day of the Lord thy God, thou shalt not do any work, thou nor thy son nor thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy maidservant nor thy cattle nor thy stranger that is within thy gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth and the sea and all that in them is; wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.	Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates. For in six days the Lord made heaaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day, wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.	Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor why maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out of thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.
Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.	Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.	Honour thy father and thy mother, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
Thou shalt not kill.	Thou shalt not kill.	Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.	Thou shalt not commit adultery.	Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.	Thou shalt not steal.	Neither shalt thou steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.	Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighour.	Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Thy shalt not covet thy neighbor's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant nor his maidservant nor his ox nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.	Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.	Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is thy neighbour's.

(*) The text I am using is Royal Skousen, The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text.

Jeremiah 27:12-13 as a Parallel to the Background of Official Declaration 1

In the book of Jeremiah we read the following:

I spoke to King Zedekiah of Judah in the same way: Bring your necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him and his people, and live. Why should you and your people die by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence, as the Lord has spoken concerning any nation that will not serve the king of Babylon? (Jer 27:12-13 NRSV)

What is interesting is that there is a parallel to the background of OfficialDeclaration 1 as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants—when God’s people are faced with destruction, there is an allowance (in the time of Jeremiah, to serve the king of Babylon in order to survive; in the case of OD-1, to cease the practice of plural marriage to allow the Church to continue to exist).

Possible Allowance of One-Handed Ordination to the Priesthood Among the Nephites

As many know, I am currently researching a volume on sacramental theology with a focus on baptism and the Eucharist. One of the topics one has been looking into is the changes and developments to the form (wording) as well as “essential forms” (what has to be done, physically, not just verbally, to validly confect an ordinance/sacrament, etc). One such example is the topic of one-handed ordination to the priesthood (as opposed to two-hands being part of the “essential form” thereof). It appears that the Nephites, at least in the early years, practised one-handed ordination to the (Melchizedek) Priesthood:

For I Jacob and my brother Joseph had been consecrated priests and teachers of this people by the hand of Nephi. (Jacob 1:18)

That such a practise continued centuries later can be seen in Alma 4:4:

And they began to establish the church more fully; yea, and many were baptized in the waters of Sidon and were joined to the church of God; yea, they were baptized by the hand of Alma, who had been consecrated by the high priest over the people of the church, by the hand of his father Alma.

Perhaps some will claim that "by the hand of" is a way of expressing "by the agency of" or "by the allowance of" and the like, and that the use of "hand" (singular) is not to be seen as having any theological importance. While possible and should not be discounted a priori, and this seems to be the face for “by his [Abraham’s] own hand” vis-à-vis the relationship between the patriarch Abraham and the authorship of the Book of Abraham, the prima facie reading is that Jacob and Joseph were consecrated/set apart as priests and teachers by Nephi using a hand to do such (one could also claim that Jacob was being clumsy as, theologically, one could be misled by his use of the singular, especially as he is discussing, albeit in passing, an important ecclesiastical practice). The same could be said of Alma 4:4—the people were indeed baptised by the person of Alma by his “hand” (a singular hand would have been used to place them into the water—cf. the modern LDS practice) and it was by the (singular) hand that his father Alma the Elder used to ordain Alma the Younger to the priesthood.

Anthony Cekada, a traditionalist/Sedevacantist Priest and author of the (excellent) book, Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI, has an interesting article on one-handed ordination to the priesthood in the Roman Catholic tradition:

The Validity of Ordination Conferred with One Hand

Irenaeus on Human Free-Will and Mirroring "after all we can do"

In his Against Heresies, Irenaeus of Lyons wrote the following which mirrors “after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23):

Moreover, we learn from the Scripture itself, that God gave circumcision, not as the completer of righteousness, but as a sign, that the race of Abraham might continue recognisable. For it declares: "God said unto Abraham, Every male among you shall be circumcised; and ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, as a token of the covenant between Me and you." This same does Ezekiel the prophet say with regard to the Sabbaths: "Also I gave them My Sabbaths, to be a sign between Me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord, that sanctify them." And in Exodus, God says to Moses: "And ye shall observe My Sabbaths; for it shall be a sign between Me and you for your generations." These things, then, were given for a sign; but the signs were not unsymbolical, that is, neither unmeaning nor to no purpose, inasmuch as they were given by a wise Artist; but the circumcision after the flesh typified that after the Spirit. For "we," says the apostle, "have been circumcised with the circumcision made without hands." And the prophet declares, "Circumcise the hardness of your heart." But the Sabbaths taught that we should continue day by day in God's service. "For we have been counted," says the Apostle Paul, "all the day long as sheep for the slaughter;" that is, consecrated [to God], and ministering continually to our faith, and persevering in it, and abstaining from all avarice, and not acquiring or possessing treasures upon earth. Moreover, the Sabbath of God (requietio Dei), that is, the kingdom, was, as it were, indicated by created things; in which [kingdom], the man who shall have persevered in serving God (Deo assistere) shall, in a state of rest, partake of God's table. (Against Heresies, 4.16.1)

That Irenaeus held to a synergistic understanding of soteriology can be seen in the previous section:

And not only so, but the Lord also showed that certain precepts were enacted for them by Moses, on account of their hardness [of heart], and because of their unwillingness to be obedient, when, on their saying to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a writing of divorcement, and to send away a wife?" He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts he permitted these things to you; but from the beginning it was not so;" thus exculpating Moses as a faithful servant, but acknowledging one God, who from the beginning made male and female, and reproving them as hard-hearted and disobedient. And therefore it was that they received from Moses this law of divorcement, adapted to their hard nature. But why say I these things concerning the Old Testament? For in the New also are the apostles found doing this very thing, on the ground which has been mentioned, Paul plainly declaring, "But these things I say, not the Lord." And again: "But this I speak by permission, not by commandment." And again: "Now, as concerning virgins, I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful." But further, in another place he says: "That Satan tempt you not for your incontinence." If, therefore, even in the New Testament, the apostles are found granting certain precepts in consideration of human infirmity, because of the incontinence of some, lest such persons, having grown obdurate, and despairing altogether of their salvation, should become apostates from God,--it ought not to be wondered at, if also in the Old Testament the same God permitted similar indulgences for the benefit of His people, drawing them on by means of the ordinances already mentioned, so that they might obtain the gift of salvation through them, while they obeyed the Decalogue, and being restrained by Him, should not revert to idolatry, nor apostatize from God, but learn to love Him with the whole heart. And if certain persons, because of the disobedient and ruined Israelites, do assert that the giver (doctor) of the law was limited in power, they will find in our dispensation, that "many are called, but few chosen;" and that there are those who inwardly are wolves, yet wear sheep's clothing in the eyes of the world (foris); and that God has always preserved freedom, and the power of self-government in man, while at the same time He issued His own exhortations, in order that those who do not obey Him should be righteously judged (condemned) because they have not obeyed Him; and that those who have obeyed and believed on Him should be honoured with immortality. (Against Heresies, 4.15.2)

With respect to the section in bold, the Protestant translators of the Ante Nicene Fathers wrote the following admitting it affirms free-will:

Note this stout assertion of the freedom of human actions. (ANF 1:480)

 Obviously Irenaeus was not a Proto-Protestant with respect to his soteriology on this point (and many others [e.g., he affirmed baptismal regeneration]). For more against Reformed theology and the topics of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide and the TULIP, see:

Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

Various Theological Sources on Jesus' Suffering in Gethsemane

My friend Christopher Davis reproduced the following quotes from various (mainly historic Protestant) sources commenting on Christ’s suffering in Gethsemane. With his permission, I am reproducing them as they show that the view Jesus’ suffering in Gethsemane playing a role in the atonement is not unique to Latter-day Saint theology and Scripture:

Martin Luther:

“The sweating of blood and other high spiritual sufferings that Christ endured in the garden, no human creature can know or imagine; if one of us should but begin to feel the least of those sufferings, he must die instantly. There are many who dies of grief of mind; for sorrow of heart is death itself. If a man should feel such anguish and pain as Christ had, it were impossible for the soul to remain in the body and endure it—body and soul must part asunder. In Christ only it was possible, and from him issued bloody sweat." - Martin Luther, Section 172 of The Table Talk of Martin Luther, p.64

"Indeed, all people who are pulled in by the gravity of Christ's passion experience the spiritual rebirth that makes them capable of true love of God and genuine sorrow for sin. But this human sorrow, as Staupitz would emphasize in the same breath, is always so pitifully small that it definitely cannot attain the forgiveness of sins on the basis of its own emotional quality. ONLY CHRIST'S INFINITELY PRICELESS SORROW FOR HUMAN SIN IN THE GARDEN OF GETHSEMANE AND THE SPIRITUAL SUFFERING OF HIS PASSION (WHICH FAR EXCEEDED HIS PHYSICAL PAIN ON THE CROSS) COMPENSATED FOR ALL THE INADEQUACY OF OUR HUMAN REPENTANCE. Only in that is there any causal connection between the sinner's penitential love and the forgiveness of sins." - Berndt Hamm, "The Early Luther: Stages in a Reformation Reorientation", p.18

Melancthon W. Jacobus:

“His approaching death, and it was as though they had just begun, though He had been a 'man of sorrows.' The context shows that He suffered now and was 'very heavy'—oppressed and burdened. He had no sins of His own to make Him sorrowful, but HE HAD ASSUMED THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF SINNERS, HE HAD UNDERTAKEN TO BE 'MADE A CURSE FOR US.' Mark says, 'He began to be sore amazed and to be very heavy.' He bore the curse of sin—THE WEIGHT OF HIS PEOPLE'S CONDEMNATION LAY UPON HIM.

My soul is exceeding sorrowful, &c. Here He broke out in an expression of His inward agony. As yet all was quiet in the garden—no one had bruised Him—the mere dread of dying could not so have distressed Him, for martyrs have triumphed at the stake—but he was pouring out His soul unto death. (Isa. 53. last vs.) HE STOOD ALREADY IN THE SINNER'S PLACE, AND HENCE, HIS EXCEEDING SORROW OF SPIRIT 'EVEN UNTO DEATH' —REACHING THE MEASURE OF DEATH SUFFERINGS BEFORE PHYSICAL DEATH CAME ON. OBSERVE, IT WAS SOUL-SORROW UNTO DEATH!

Watch with me. This means substantially the same as Luke's language, 'Pray that ye enter not into temptation' (22. 40); yet, including, besides this vigilance and prayer for themselves, the idea of sympathizing with Him. He called for their liveliest interest. He was brought to that point of shrinking where He called in their help. It was near midnight.

A little further—that is, beyond them—removing from the three disciples so as to be quite alone in His grief. Luke's words, 'about a stone's cast,' refer to this. Fell on his face. Luke says, He 'kneeled down and prayed.' But Matthew mentions this more distressed and prostrate attitude which His prayer took, expressive of a most overwhelming wo. All these attitudes of earnestness and anguish He took. This was the natural gesture of his emotion.

If it be possible. Luke has it, 'If thou be willing.' Mark refers it also to the Father's pleasure, and speaks of ail things being possible with God. Here is the conflict and agony in the Redeemer's breast, showing the extremity to which he was brought, even to the point of shrinking! HERE IS HIS FILIAL SPIRIT UNDER THE HEAVIEST SUFFERING. Here it is proved how necessary it was that Christ should take this cup, and not only that He should die, and none other, but that He should take This Cup, and not another cup— even this cup of the curse! It was not possible that He should be released from this—for in this there was substitution and expiation. 'He hath borne our griefs,' &c. Cup, or chalice. As a cup contains something to drink, it is used to express a draught of bitter experience.

Nevertheless. This he refers at last to the Father's appointment, and thus He defers to the Father's pleasure. It was not more important that Christ should be voluntary in His sacrificial work, than that in Him the Father should be 'well pleased' (Isa. 42. 21). This was expressed at His baptism. 'This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.' 'It pleased the Lord to bruise Him. He hath put him to grief.' (Isa. 53. 10.) 'THOU SHALT MAKE HIS SOUL AN OFFERING FOR SIN' 'THE LORD HATH LAID ON HIM THE INIQUITIES OF US ALL.' (Isa. 53. 10.) 'A BODY HAST THOU PREPARED ME,' HE SAYS; AND NOW, IN THE SACRIFICE, THE FLESH THAT WAS TAKEN IN ORDER TO DIE, SCARCELY SURVIVES THIS AGONY; AND THE HUMAN SOUL SHUDDERS AND SHRINKS AT THE ENDURANCE. THIS NEVERTHELESS HINTS AT THE COVENANT WHICH CHRIST HAD ENTERED INTO WITH THE FATHER, WHICH BOUND HIM TO ITS TERMS. Though the curse was awful, yet the will of the Father was supreme. Though Christ shrunk, yet He was voluntary, in consideration of that covenant engagement.

Asleep. Luke has it, He 'found them sleeping for sorrow.' (ch. 22. 45.) This refers to the three whom He had taken apart. No other Evangelist mentions the cause of their drowsiness. But Luke was a physician (Col. 4. 14), and he was prepared to speak on this point, and he would be likely so to do. So he notices the bloody sweat (22. 44), and the cure of Malchus' ear (22. 51). Persons condemned to die are often waked from sound sleep by the executioner. Excessive sorrow brings on sleep. This is hinted at by our Lord in the next verse. Saith unto Peter. Peter had boasted, but now he was to see and feel his weakness. How feeble are our best resolutions or dispositions towards God. How easily are we overcome by the world, the flesh and the devil. What could we do but for upholding, and strengthening, and reclaiming grace.

Watch and pray, that ye enter not; or, in Mark, 'lest ye enter into temptation.' They were in danger of losing their confidence in Christ, when they should see Him betrayed into the hands of sinners. And here they are directed to watch against this temptation, which He saw to be coming on. A concern for their own souls in this coming trial, should keep them watching against Satan's power in their hearts. We should always watch, knowing that the adversary is always ready to ensnare and destroy us. They were to pray against being overcome, and lest they should be overcome by that temptation. So we are to pray that we may not run into temptation, nor come in the way of it— especially that we may not yield to it. And if we do not pray, the tempter will gain the advantage. The spirit indeed is willing (Mark has the same Greek wora, but it is there rendered 'ready.' They were in danger from the infirmities of the flesh. These are a fruitful source of temptation. Satan attacks us through the flesh, and takes advantage of our weaknesses. Therefore we are the more earnestly to pray for all needed supports and helps in the trying hour. We should take this passage (says Bengel), not to excuse our torpor, but to sharpen our vigilance (see Heb. 5. 7).

He went away again. The tenor of His prayer seems altered now, and it is rather a devout submission. He returns now to give in His free and full consent to the endurance. THE SUFFERINGS ARE HER SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN WELL UNDERSTOOD BEFOREHAND. THIS WAS MOST IMPORTANT. This is distinctly declared by John (18. 4), 'Jesus knowing all things that should come upon him.' YET, 'DRINKING THE CUP,' THAT IS, TAKING ALL THE LOAD OF OUR CONDEMNATION, AND GOING THROUGH THE BITTER EXPERIENCE, WAS FULL OF AGONY, FROM WHICH THE FLESH COULD NOT BUT SHRINK. Luke notes that an angel from heaven here appeared and strengthened Him (vs. 43), and that 'His sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood falling down to the ground,' (vs. 44,) occasioned, as in other instances on record, by the extreme suffering. Yet he does not say blood, but 'as it were' blood—bloody—or large as drops of blood. And this was from anguish of soul—from burdens laid upon His spirit. ALREADY HE LAY UNDER THE TREMENDOUS WEIGHT OF THE CURSE, AND STOOD CHARGED WITH THE INIQUITIES OF SUCH AS HE HAD UNDERTAKEN FOR IN COVENANT WITH THE FATHER. Yet, in the midst of it all, He declares His willingness to drink the cup, because this was His part in the eternal covenant of redemption, and by this means Jesus was to 'save His people from their sins.'”

Norman MacLeod:

"In the garden of Gethsemane sin was triumphant. Holiness was abandoned even by the All-Holy. It was the hour of the prince of darkness. The Father had withdrawn His consoling presence. The pitiless storm of Divine wrath beat upon the soul of the suffering Saviour in all its fury. HE STOOD CHARGED WITH THE COLLECTIVE GUILT OF ADAM'S FALLEN RACE; and all the arrows of Almighty justice flew at once to His heart. How fearful must have been the pressure of that physical suffering which caused Him to pray that, if it were agreeable to the will of His Father, the bitter cup might pass from Him! But this could not be. As the representative of a guilty world, He must tread the wine-press of God's wrath alone. There is no way of reconciling these intense sufferings of the immaculate Son of God with the attributes of the Most High upon the principles of the Socinian, who utterly denies their vicarious nature. THE AGONY IN THE GARDEN IS A KNOT THAT NOTHING CAN UNTIE, BUT THE OLD DOCTRINE OF OUR SIN BEING REALLY IMPUTED TO CHRIST, AND CHRIST BEING MADE A SIN AND CURSE FOR US. In the agony of Jesus we behold, then, the true nature and the proper effects of sin. "The wages of sin is death." Therefore His "soul was exceeding sorrowful even unto death." We see here a specimen of that "indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish," which every soul of man would have had to suffer, had He not become the sufferer in our stead. LET US THINK OF GETHSEMANE AS THE PLACE WHERE JESUS BORE THE WRATH OF JEHOVAH, THAT WE MIGHT BE RESTORED TO HIS SMILES AND MERCY. As we mourn over the entrance of the devil into the Garden of Eden, and the dreadful fall of our first parents, let us behold with joy the ‘seed of the woman’ wrestling with this base usurper in the garden of Gethsemane, that He might enable us to crush him beneath our feet.” - Norman MacLeod, “Christ In the Garden”, The Christian Guest (1859), p 357-358.

Hugh Latimer:

“He took Peter, James, and John, into this garden. And why did he take them with him, rather than other? Marry, those that he had taken before, to whom he had revealed in the hill the transfiguration and declaration of his deity, to see the revelation of the majesty of his Godhead, now in the garden he revealed to the same the infirmity of his manhood: because they had tasted of the sweet, he would they should taste also of the sour. He took these with him at both times: for two or three is enough to bear witness. And he began to be heavy in his mind; he was greatly vexed within himself, he was sore afflicted, it was a great heaviness. He had been heavy many times before; and he had suffered great afflictions in his soul, as for the blindness of the Jews; and he was like to suffer more pangs of pain in his body. BUT THIS PANG WAS GREATER THAN ANY THAT HE EVER SUFFERED: YEA, IT WAS A GREATER TORMENT UNTO HIM , I THINK A GREATER PAIN, THAN WHEN HE WAS HANGED ON THE CROSS; than when the four nails were knocked and driven through his hands and feet; than when the sharp crown of thorns was thrust on his head. This was the heaviness and pensiveness of his heart, the agony of the spirit. And as the soul is more precious than the body, even so is the pains of the soul more grievous than the pains of the body: therefore there is another which writeth, Horror mortis gravior ipsa morte; "The, horror and ugsomeness of death is sorer than death itself." THIS IS THE MOST GRIEVOUS PAIN THAT EVER CHRIST SUFFERED, EVEN THIS PANG THAT HE SUFFERED IN THE GARDEN. It is the most notable place, one of them in the whole story of the passion, when he said, Anima mea tristis est usque ad mortem, "My soul is heavy to death"; and cum coepisset expavescere, "when he began to quiver, to shake." The grievousness of it is declared by this prayer that he made: Pater, si possibile est, &c., "Father, if it be possible, away with this cup: rid me of it." He understood by this cup his pains of death; for he knew well enough that his passion was at hand, that Judas was coming upon him with the Jews to take him.” - Hugh Latimer, The Seventh Sermon of M. Latimer preached before King Edward (1549)

Hippolytus (early Christian):

“Thus then, too, though demonstrated as God, He does not refuse the conditions proper to Him as man, since He hungers and toils and thirsts in weariness, and flees in fear, and prays in trouble. And He who as God has a sleepless nature, slumbers on a pillow. And He who for this end came into the world, begs off from the cup of suffering. And in an agony He sweats blood, and is strengthened by an angel, who Himself strengthens those who believe in Him, and taught men to despise death by His work.” - Hippolytus, Against Noetus, 18

International Bible Commentary:

“This conflict presents our Lord in the reality of His manhood, in weakness and humiliation, but it is impossible to account for it unless we admit His Divine nature. Had He been a mere man, His knowledge of the sufferings before Him could not have been sufficient to cause such sorrow. The human fear of death will not explain it. As a real man, He was capable of such a conflict. But it took place after the serenity of the Last Supper and sacerdotal prayers, and before the sublime submission in the palace and judgment hall. The conflict, therefore, was a specific agony of itself. He felt the whole burden and mystery of the world's sin, and encountered the fiercest assaults of Satan. Otherwise, in this hour this Person, so powerful, so holy, seems to fall below the heroism of martyrs in His own cause. His sorrow did not spring from His own life, His memory of His fears, but from the vicarious nature of the conflict. The agony was a bearing of the weight and sorrow of our sins, in loneliness, in anguish of soul threatening to crush His body, yet borne triumphantly, because in submission to His Father's will. Three times our Lord appeals to that will, as purposing His anguish; that purpose of God in regard to the loveliest, best of men, can be reconciled with justice and goodness in God in but one way; that it was necessary for our redemption. Mercy forced its way through justice to the sinner. Our Lord suffered anguish of soul for sin, that it might never rest on us. To deny this is in effect not only to charge our Lord with undue weakness, but to charge God with needless cruelty. "Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows…. He was wounded for our transgressions. He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed" [Isaiah 53.4-5]" - International Bible Commentary, Matthew, p.359