Mike and Ann Thomas (Protestants) and Romans 6:3-7

Mike and Ann Thomas, two former Latter-day Saints who embraced a form of Protestantism in 1986, wrote the following where they show they clearly lack basic reading skills, not just basic exegetical skills:

 

. . . Peter says that through faith in Jesus we die to sin and live a new, righteous life. We are cut off from sin because in Jesus, sin and death are conquered. Paul describes it like this:

 

Don’t you know that all of us who were baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life . . . We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, and we should no longer be slaves to sin—because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. (Romans 6:3-7).

 

Through faith in Christ we are ‘born again’. Our original birth was as descendants of Adam, who fell, and ‘the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men’ (Rom 5:18). Our ‘new birth’ (1 Pet 1:3) makes us children of God and we ‘received the Spirit of sonship’ (Rom 8:15). (Mike Thomas and Ann Thomas, Mormonism: A Gold Plated Religion [Aylesbury, England: Alpha, 1997], 164)

 

Firstly, Paul in Romans 6 is speaking about water baptism and how that is the instrumental cause of justification, not Sola Fide. In the symbolic view, baptism is similar to the relationship a wedding ring has to being married—it is an outward sign of something that it did not bring about as one being “in Christ” and justified precedes water baptism. However, Paul’s theology of baptism in this pericope is antithetical to this perspective. The apostle speaks of one being baptised “into [εις; cf. Acts 2:38] Christ,” including being a partaker of his death and resurrection, with baptism being the instrumental means thereof (through use of the preposition δια). Furthermore, Paul, through his use of the conjunction ωσπερ and adverb ουτος, both meaning "just as," likens Christ’s being raised by the Father to our being given, by the Father, newness of life through the instrumental means of baptism. Notice the explicit language of vv. 3-5:

 

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ (εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν eis Christon Iesoun) were baptised into his death (εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν eis ton thanaton autou ebaptisthemen)? Therefore, we are buried with him (συνθάπτω synthaptō)  by baptism into death (διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἰς τὸν θάνατον dia tou baptismatos eis ton thanaton): that (γαρ gar) like as (ὥσπερ hosper) Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so (οὕτω houto) we also should walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:3-5)

 

Commenting on the grammar of v. 5, Jarvis J. Williams noted:

 

The explanatory γαρ in 6:5 links the verse with his previous comments about the believer’s death with Christ through water-baptism in 6:3-4. His argument appears to be that believers died to sin and should no longer live under its power (6:2). Their water-baptism proves that they participate in the death of Jesus and experience a spiritual death to the power of sin (6:3). Therefore, Paul concludes that believers have been buried with Jesus through their participation in water-baptism, a baptism that identifies them with the death of Jesus (their representative [5:12-21]) and thereby kills the power of sin in their lives, so that they would live with Jesus in the resurrection just as Jesus presently lives in the power of his physical resurrection (6:4). Believers who died to the power of sin by being baptized into Jesus’ death will certainly (αλλα και) participate in a physical resurrection just as Jesus died and resurrected, because those who died to the power of sin (just as Jesus died = τω ομοιωματι του θανατου αυτου) will participate in a future resurrection (just as Jesus has already been resurrected) (6:5). (Jarvis J. Williams, Christ Died for Our Sins: Representation and Substitution in Romans and their Jewish Martyrological Background [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2015], 178).

 

In Rom 6:7, the KJV reads:

 

For he that is dead is freed (δεδικαίωται, dedikaiōtai) from sin.

 

The Greek of this verse is not speaking of being “freed” merely but justified—Paul uses the third person indicative perfect passive of δικαιοω, the verb meaning "to justify.” In Paul's theology, God not only simply "frees" a person from sin, but they are "justified/made righteous" through the instrumentality of water baptism. Don’t take my word for it; here are some scholarly resources:

 

The other, more likely explanation seeks to interpret the vb. [δικαιοω] not as “free,” but as “justify, acquit” in the genuine Pauline sense, and [sin], not in the sense demanded above (something like “obligation to the Torah”), but in its Pauline sense, an act against the will of God (so Lyonnet, Romains, 89; Cranfield, Romans, 310–11): the one who has died has lost the very means of sinning, “the body of sin,” so that one is definitively without sin; one has been freed of the fleshy, sin-prone body. In either case, a change of status has ensued; the old condition has been brought to an end in baptism-death, and a new one has begun (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 33; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 437, emphasis in bold added)

To quote Stanley Porter:

  

Romans 6.7 has proved problematic in a number of ways, with the result that interpreters and translators often end up obscuring the meaning of this short clause complex: ‘For the one who is dead is justified from sin’ (Rom. 6.7). Often interpreters understand the sense of the lexeme ‘justified’ as indicating being freed (from sin) (Cranfield 1975-79: 1, 311). This may well be the consequence of what Paul is saying. However, the sense of the argument moves in a slightly different direction. Paul has been talking of death and life and the role of sin and slavery. Here he says that the one who is dead, that is, the one who is dead to sin in light of being crucified with Christ (Rom. 6.6), as he has suggested in Rom. 6.2 above, is one who is justified so as to be apart from or independent of or even free from sin. This is, in effect, a recapitulation of the argument that he made regarding Abraham in Rom. 3.21-4.25. The follower of Christ, who is dead to sin through identification with the death of Christ, is one who is justified or ‘righteoused’ apart from sin, that is, the person is no longer subject to sin. (Stanley E. Porter, The Letter to the Romans: A Linguistic and Literary Commentary [New Testament Monographs 37; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015], 135)

 

Commenting on the relationship between justification, the forgiveness of sins, and the resurrection of Jesus, Brandon Crowe wrote:

[H]ow does the resurrection related to the forgiveness of sins and the law of Moses in 13:38-39? Does Luke’s account of Paul’s speech shed light on the doctrine of justification, perhaps even in a way that is consistent with Paul’s letters? In verses 38-39 Luke speaks of being justified by faith in Jesus (en toutō pas ho pisetuōn dikaioutai), in contrast to what it was not possible to be justified (dikaiōthēnai) from (apo) by the law of Moses. Despite the preference of many modern English translations, the language of dikaioō in verses 38-39 is best translated in terms of being justified, rather than being freed. From what is a person justified? It must be from sin. Paul uses similar language in Romans 6:7: “For the one who has died has been justified [dedikaiōtai] from [apo] sin.” The Lukan Paul in Acts 13 correlates justification by faith (v. 39) with the forgiveness of sins (v. 38). Significantly, this good news derives from Paul’s exposition of the resurrection, which is apparent from oun and dia touto in Acts 13:38. These refer back to Jesus, who was raised and did not see decay (vv. 36-37).

But how close is the Pisidian Antioch speech in Acts to the Pauline doctrine of justification? Has Luke misunderstood, or only half understood Paul? Although Paul does speak of justification in contrast to the law of Moses (e.g., Gal. 2:16; 3:11; 5:4), it is objected that Paul speaks less clearly about the correlation of forgiveness of sins to justification. However, if the “we” passages in Luke are taken at face value to indicate that Luke accompanied Paul on some of his travels (which remains the best view), then it beggars belief to think that Luke has misunderstood this key theological emphasis of an apostle he knew personally. A better view is that Acts 13:38-39 provides another angle on the (“Pauline”) doctrine of justification and one that supports the “older” perspective on Paul—namely, that one’s right standing before God does not depend on one’s adherence to the law of Moses and that justification entails the forgiveness of sins.

Particularly pertinent for the present discussion is the relationship in Acts 13 between justification and Jesus’s resurrection. The casual link between Jesus’s resurrection and believers’ justification in Paul’s Pisidian Antioch sermon recalls similar connections in Paul’s letters. For example, in Romans 4:24-25 believers are justified because of Jesus’ resurrection. Thus Romans speaks of justification on the basis of Christ’s resurrection, in addition to justification on the basis of Christ’s death (cf. 3:24-25). This variety of emphasis in Paul further encourages readers of Acts not to misconstrue Luke’s understanding of the atoning work of Christ—justification is not based upon either the death of Christ or his resurrection; it is based on Christ’s entire work.

It is also noteworthy that Paul relates the resurrection of Christ to Adam in both Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. In both cases, the obedience of the last Adam leads to life for those with faith in Christ (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:20-49). These passages relate the obedience of Christ to his resurrection, which Luke also does. Not only does Luke clearly view Christ as a new Adam (cf. Luke 3:38), but Jesus is consistently identified as the Holy and Righteous One (using the dik- word group; see Luke 23:47; Acts 3:14-15) who did not see decay. Jesus’s resurrection in Acts is predicated in large measure upon his perfect obedience (see the use of Ps. 16 in Acts 2:24-36; 13:34-37; cf. 13:22), which is similar to Paul’s Adam Christology (Rom. 5:18-19; 1 Cor. 15:21-22). Luke and Paul agree that justification comes through the resurrection of the perfectly righteous one. (Brandon D. Crowe, The Hope of Israel: The Resurrection of Christ in the Acts of the Apostles [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2020], 63-64, emphasis in bold added)

 

Mike and Ann Thomas then reference Rom 5:18. However, if they were to read the next verse, it should refute their Protestant soteriology.

For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous (δικαιος).

The verb “to be made” in this verse is καθιστημι, which means “to constitute.” It does not have the meaning of merely legally declaring something to be “x” without it actually being “x.” Compare the following usages of the verb in the New Testament:

Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made (καθιστημι) ruler over this household, to give them meat in due season? . . . Verily I say unto you, That he shall made (καθιστημι) ruler over all his goods. (Matt 24:45, 47)

And delivered [Joseph of Egypt] out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him (καθιστημι) governor over Egypt and all his house . . .But he that did his neighbour wrong trust him away, saying, Who made (καθιστημι) thee a ruler and a judge over us? . . .This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made (καθιστημι) thee a ruler and a judge? The same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush (Acts 7:10, 27, 35)

For every high priest taken from among men is ordained (καθιστημι) for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb 5:1)

For the law maketh (καθιστημι) men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. (Heb 7:28)

Note how the term is defined in TDNT:

 

Theologically the most significant verse is R. 5:19: ὥσπερ γὰρ διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν οἱ πολλοί, οὕτως καὶ διὰ τῆς ὑπακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται οἱ πολλοί. Here, too, there is hardly any linguistic or material difference between κατεστάθησαν and ἐγένοντο. The meaning is that “as the many became sinners through the disobedience of the one man, so the many become righteous through the obedience of the one.” This does not imply that the forensic element is absent. 2 C. 5:21 and Gl. 3:13 show that in Paul ποιεῖν and γίνεσθαι do not necessarily bear an effective sense; they may also have an affective. The context decides. In R. 5 the forensic element is evident at v. 18 (κατάκριμα—δικαίωσις). Vv. 13f. also show that in the judgment of God the thing which counts is not exclusively the nature of the individual but the dominant character of the old (or the new) creation (→ ἐν, II, 541 f.). According to the current Jewish view God decides qualitatively in the sense that the quality ultimately decides His sentence and our destiny. Borrowing from other Jewish conceptions, Paul boldly reverses the relation. God’s sovereign sentence decides both destiny and quality. To be sure, guilt is involved. Yet it is in Adam that the many, and virtually all, became sinners. Conversely, the many, again virtually all, but in fact believers, become righteous in Christ in spite of their own sin (δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ, R. 4:5). They will stand forth as righteous in God’s judgment. Pronounced righteous, they will then normally become righteous in fact as well (R. 8:3 f.). Here, however, the emphasis is on the judicial sentence of God, which on the basis of the act of the head determines the destiny of all. The subtleties which have rightly been found in the passage lie in the teaching rather than the wording. The suggestion that Paul has united senses 1. and 2. into a pregnant eschatological riddle is too artificial. (Albrecht Oepke, “Καθίστημι, Ἀκαταστασία, Ἀκατάστατος,”in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–], 3:445–446)

 

BDAG, with reference to Rom 5:19, defines the term thusly:

 

3. cause someone to experience someth., make, cause τινά τι (Eur., Androm. 635 κλαίοντά σε καταστήσει; Pla., Phlb. 16b ἐμὲ ἔρημον κατέστησεν; POxy 939, 19 σε εὐθυμότερον; Jos., Ant. 6, 92; 20, 18; Just., A I, 33, 6 τὴν παρθένον … ἐγκύμονα κατέστησε) ταῦτα οὐκ ἀργοὺς οὐδὲ ἀκάρπους καθίστησιν this does not make (you) useless and unproductive 2 Pt 1:8.—Pass. be made, become (Menand., fgm. 769 K.=483 Kö. ἅπαντα δοῦλα τοῦ φρονεῖν καθίσταται; Herodas 1, 40 ἱλαρὴ κατάστηθι=be(come) cheerful; Diod. S. 17, 70, 3; Περὶ ὕψους 5; PRein 18, 40 [108 BC] ἀπερίσπαστος κατασταθήσεται=‘be left undisturbed’; EpArist 289 σκληροὶ καθίστανται; Philo, Aet. M. 133) ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν … δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται Ro 5:19 (FDanker in Gingrich Festschr. ’72, 106f, quoting POxy 281, 14-24 [20-50 AD] in possible legal sense; cp. PTebt 183; but cp. Cat. Cod. Astr. IX/2 p. 132, 12 of restoration to a healthy condition). The two pass. in Js where the word occurs prob. belong here also (φίλος τ. κόσμου) ἐχθρὸς τ. θεοῦ καθίσταται 4:4; cp. 3:6, where the text may not be in order.—JdeZwaan, Rö 5:19; Jk 3:6; 4:4 en de Κοινή: TSt 31, 1913, 85-94.—Restored text Hs 10, 3, 4 (POxy 404 recto, 19) (s. καθαρότης).—DELG s.v. ἵστημι. M-M. TW.

 

Furthermore, no one doubts that one is more than just “declared” to be a sinner; one is actually a sinner and is sinful intrinsically; it would break the parallel between “being a sinner” and “being righteous” in Rom 5:19 to introduce into it such a distinction that Reformed theology reads into this verse (that the former is a real, ontological category, but the latter is only a legal category). Therefore, those who are said to be righteous (δικαιος) are not simply placed into a legal category and labeled “righteous”; they are actually righteous.

Elsewhere in their book, they write that:

 

The Scriptures do teach that ‘if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord”, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved’ (Rom 10:9). This being the case, then once saved we are baptised as a sign and a seal on that which has already taken place. Baptism follows salvation, it does not lead to it. (Mormonism: A Gold Plated Religion, 217)

 

For a full discussion of Rom 10:9 and why Mike and Ann Thomas are guilty of eisegesis, see:

Full Refutation of the Protestant Claim Romans 10:9-10 Teaches Sola Fide

Further Reading:

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness

Listing of articles refuting Mike Thomas of Reachout Trust

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 38: "The Final Answer to God: The Fate of the Unevangelized in Catholic and Mormon Thought"

 

Episode 38: "The Final Answer to God: The Fate of the Unevangelized in Catholic and Mormon Thought"

Michael Jensen on Universal Atonement and Colossians 1:15-23

  

What is the connection between the two parts of this [Col 1:18] verse? How is his supremacy connected to the church? Jesus’s resurrection from the dead establishes his supremacy because his resurrection life animates his body-the church. His victory constitutes a new people, since he is the firstborn from among the dead—many must surely follow. This extraordinary, cosmic act of reconciliation involves the Colossians themselves, as Paul explains in verses 21 to 23. They were once in a state of alienation and outright enmity from God. This was a condition that had come about because of their evil behavior. It was, in other words, a matter of deliberate rejection of the divine moral will. The process of atonement thus involved both the justification (“free from accusation”) and the sanctification (“present you holy in his sight”) of the Gentile Colossian believers, which they take hold of by faith (1:22-23), having heard the gospel that Paul serves. And this gospel, which the Colossians have believed—is preached “to every creature under heaven” (εν παση κτισει τη υπο των ουρανον). It is, this is to say, an announcement not simply to the individual human beings whose sin is atoned for, but to the entire created order. This seems to be a similar thought to that which Paul expresses in Romans 8, where the creation’s temporary subjection to futility is linked to the redemption of human beings.

 

This is not a doctrine of universal salvation. Reconciliation and peace, presumably, involves the repudiation of that which is evil. It is, however, a doctrine of cosmic redemption of that which is evil. It is, however, a doctrine of cosmic redemption in the blood of Christ. The whole of the creation is the object of his work in dying for sin and rising to new life. All of creation has suffered the effects of human sin; now, in the blood of Christ, since sin has been atoned for, the creation has been reconciled to the Creator just as it was made in hum, through him, and for him. Jesus Christ completes the mission of humanity as God’s true image and becomes for the created order the presence of the fullness of God. he becomes firstborn twice: once over all creation, and again as the “firstborn from among the dead.”

 

Pal does not here, or elsewhere in Colossians, make any direct connection between his theology the cross and “the common good.” He only mentions “outsiders” in 4:5-6, when he enjoins Christians to “be wise in the way you act towards outsiders.” However, the cosmic scope of his work on the cross surely invites us to consider the implications of the atonement for social ethics. The reconciliation of all things—and the declaration of peace—is a reality established by the blood shed upon the cross. What might be infer here? The gospel is the declaration that God’s peace has been established by means of the cross. It is an invitation for every creature under heaven, including every human being. The peace of God is a reality in which the whole creation now stands, by the power of the cross. The powers and authorities have been disarmed by the cross (2:15)---not just as an exposé, but as a triumph. Thus the community of believers—renewed in God’s image (3:10)—are called to practice this cross-shaped peacemaking with one another, since all earthly distinctions have been eclipsed in Christ (3:11—see also Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:11-22). Their perfect unity, stemming from love, is to be an expression of the peace of Christ ruling in their hearts (3;14-15). They know peace with God and so they practice reconciliation with one another, forgiving as the Lord forgave them (3:13-14). (Michael Jensen, “The Significance of the Atonement for the World: The Cross of Christ, the Church, and the Common Good,” in Unlimited Atonement: Amyraldism and Reformed Theology, ed. Michael F. Bird and Scott Harrower [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Academic, 2023], 227-28, comment in square brackets added for clarification)

 

Avram R. Shannon on Matthew 23:2-3

  

The apparent meaning of Matthew 23:2 is actually the best reading here—namely, Jesus acknowledges the validity of the Pharisees’ interpretation. Jesus could have urged the people to go and live the written law of Moses and not to listen to the interpretations of the scribes and Pharisees since they were certainly not the only ancient Jews who taught and interpreted the law of Moses. The New Testament is full of stories of Jesus and his followers learning from the scriptures and interpreting them, including the living of the Sabbath. In Matthew, Jesus tells the people to listen to the Pharisees (v. 3). A reading that Jesus is condemning the Pharisaic halakah is necessary only if one assumes that Jesus is opposed to the oral law and halakic discourse as a concept. This does not mean that Jesus even needs to agree with the specific halakah of the Pharisees (indeed, he often does not, especially when it comes to the Sabbath). It does mean, however, that Jesus approves of the process of discussing and interpreting the commandments which he himself gave on Mount Sinai (see 3 Nephi 15:5).

 

Indeed, this difficulty may perhaps be explained most easily by suggesting that the “heavy burdens” in Matthew 23:4 do not refer to halakic discussion of the commandments, but instead are being presented as evidence for Jesus’s actual condemnation of the scribes and the Pharisees: the fact that “they say, and do not” (v. 3). In this reading the “heavy burdens” are actual physical burdens. The Pharisees make other people lift things for them but do not work themselves. The Pharisees’ failing is grounded in the tendency of elites to have others do their physical labor for them. Thus Jesus’s problems with the Pharisees as religious leaders is not their interpretation of the commandments as such, but their unwillingness to follow even their own interpretations, just like they are unwilling to do their own work. This explains how Jesus can both tell the people to do whatever the Pharisees instruct them to do as well as warn them against the actions of the scribes and the Pharisees. (Avram R. Shannon, "The Sabbath in Rabbinic Judaism: Exploring the How of Keeping the Commandments," in Sacred Time: The Sabbath as a Perpetual Covenant, ed. Gaye Strathearn [Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2022], 154-55)

 

Avram R. Shannon on Numbers 15:32-36

  

That the law for keeping the Sabbath day holy needed further interpretation and exploration is made explicit with the story recorded in Numbers 1532-36. Here an Israelite is caught gathering wood on the Sabbath day and is brought to Moses and Aaron for judgment. Numbers 15:34 is extraordinarily telling: “And they put him in ward [or “custody,” Hebrew mišmâh], because it was not declared what should be done to him.” This verse makes explicit what is implied elsewhere in scripture about keeping the Sabbath day holy: the laws are not sufficient on their own to enable one to completely live the law. Moreover, the punishment for breaking the Sabbath (or breaking it in that particular way) is not contained in the commandment on the Sabbath in Exodus. Thus, in order to keep this commandment properly, more inspiration and interpretation is necessary. In the example of this man gathering sticks, Moses inquires of Jehovah, who mandates that the man be put to death, underscoring the importance of the Sabbath day not only to the ancient Israelites but also to later readers of the scriptures. (Avram R. Shannon, "The Sabbath in Rabbinic Judaism: Exploring the How of Keeping the Commandments," in Sacred Time: The Sabbath as a Perpetual Covenant, ed. Gaye Strathearn [Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2022], 153, emphasis added)

 

Justin Bray on the Introduction of, and Controversy Concerning, Individual Cups to Replace the Common Cup in Latter-day Saint Eucharistic Practice

Commenting on Seldon Clawson and the attempt to introduce individual cups for the sacrament instead of the common cup in the Eighteenth Ward (September 1910), which would later be implanted among all Latter-day Saints later, Justin Bray noted that:

 

Individual cups were a welcome change for many but not all Latter-day Saints. Despite the evidence for its safety, some resisted the ideas of switching to more hygienic cups. Clawson spoke of how a “strong conservative group opposed the change” to individual sacrament cups in his Sunday School class. He later wrote, “Those opposing the change agreed that Joseph Smith the Prophet approved and used the goblet. The duly appointed servants of the Lord blessed and consecrated the sacrament. For any of the Saints to question it showed their weakness in the faith.” There was a “Jesus is my protection” mentality among Church members at the time. One woman in the class remarked, “I am not afraid to drink or to have my children drink from the same cup as my brothers and sisters. My fear is that my children and I may not live worthy to partake of the sacrament.” For this woman, the risk of disease was the price to pay to participate in the sacrament. If her family fell ill on the Lord’s errand, so be it. The debate over sacrament cups in the Eighteenth Ward thus reflected broader tensions emerging between liberal and fundamentalist Christians in America at the time. Latter-day Saints, like their Protestant counterparts, blended reason, rationality, and faith in uneven ways.

 

But Clawson was not alone in his pleas. He convinced some of his Sunday School class of the danger of terms. “The progressive members,” he wrote, “argued that in the beginning wine was used [in the sacrament]. Wine contained alcohol which was therapeutic to germs. Therefore, people using water are exposed to contagious diseases. If the individual sets could be used, we will avoid contagion that precedes disease.” The debate was brought before the Eighteenth Ward bishop and the Salt Lake Stake President before finally reaching the highest councils of the Church. President Joseph F. Smith sympathized with Clawson but questioned whether Latter-day Saints would accept a change to the traditional method whether Latter-day Saints would accept a change to the traditional method of administering the Lord’s Supper. He assumed Church members would “prefer to use the old system.” Clawson ultimately received approval to test individual sacrament cups in the Eighteenth Ward, which began to take place on June 11, 1911. Despite their positive reception and a strong endorsement from the First Presidency, individual cups spread slowly to other Latter-day Saint congregations over the next several years due to cost and germ theory denialism. it was not until the influenza pandemic of 1918 that they spread more rapidly throughout the Church.

 

Although seemingly small and insignificant, the shift to individual sacrament cups represents some of the generational tensions of a church in transition. It was not easy for some aging Latter-day Saints to abandon time-honored traditions. Indeed, some members felt like casualties in the Church’s quest for assimilation. This is a constant theme throughout Church history that continues today. The uniqueness of the Church is continually questioned as the next generation balances its peculiarity with public acceptance. Some Latter-day Saints found changes in something as simple as sacrament cups as a step toward being “just another church,” rather than God’s chosen people who are set apart from the world. Looking at the shift in sacramental cups highlights these enduring anxieties. (Justin Bray, "The Sabbath, the Sacrament, and the Latter-day Saints," in Sacred Time: The Sabbath as a Perpetual Covenant, ed. Gaye Strathearn [Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2022], 220-21)

 

In a note to the above, we read the following:

 

One of the most common defenses of shared sacrament cups was a literal interpretation of the sacramental blessings. Many believed that the prayer on the water “killed” any germs. Members of the Groveland Ward in eastern Idaho, for example, used a common cup throughout the 1918 influenza pandemic and beyond. In 1921, they had their own debate over the sacrament cup issue. Daniel Foss Olsen, a member of the ward, later wrote about the deliberation between ward members: “Some people were very reluctant to make the change [to individuals cup],” Olsen related. “When others pointed out that this was being done as a sanitary measure to keep people from drinking other people’s germs, those favoring the old way responded that the sacramental prayer would kill the germs away.” Janice Elaine Olsen Williams, “Daniel Foss Olsen: Always a Reacher,” 2006, 79-80, FamilySearc.org. Lola Newbold of Cambridge, Idaho, later wrote, “Mother said the water was blessed so we wouldn’t get any germs.” Linda Hamilton Clark and Larry G. Hamilton, “Lola Pearl Newbold Hamilton: The Early Years, 1911-1932,” 2009, 6. FamilySearch.org. Max Francis Jensen of the Independence Ward in eastern Idaho similarly remembered, “Mother would always say it had been blessed if we got a little squeamish about it.” “Lie History of Max Francis Jensen,” 1982, 29-30, FamilySearch.org. (Ibid., 238 n. 64)

 

Justin Bray on the use of extemporaneous prayers for the elements of the sacrament among early 19th century Latter-day Saints

Commenting on the use of extemporaneous prayers over the bread and wine in early Latter-day Saint practice, Justin Bray noted that:

 

Because prayers rarely appear in early Latter-day Saint records, it is difficult to determine how often and to what degree officiators deviated from those prescribed for the bread and wine. In 1845, however, George D. Watt transcribed the sacramental prayers given by Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball in Nauvoo, Illinois, proving a glimpse into their improvised nature at the time. Both apostles followed a basic outline of invoking the name of God and asking him in the name of Jesus Christ to “bless and sanctify” the bread and wine. But there was also room for variation. Young began his prayer with, “Our Father in Heaven, in the name of Jesus we pray that thou would bless and sanctify this bread to the use of and benefit of all that take of it.” He further asked that the bread become “the bread of life” to all who partake, “realizing that thou hast done for us.” He added, “Our Lord[,] help us to repent of all our sins[,] to return from all our evils[,] to do thy will and work righteousness that we may be accepted of thee.” Heber C. Kimball is said to have given a similar extemporaneous prayer over the water. (4) Even the slightest alteration to a word or two would be noticeable to a modern Latter-day Saint, let alone full sentences like those employed by Young and Kimball. Yet it appears that, at the time, this was common practice. (Justin Bray, "The Sabbath, the Sacrament, and the Latter-day Saints," in Sacred Time: The Sabbath as a Perpetual Covenant, ed. Gaye Strathearn [Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2022], 209-10)

 

The note for the following reads:

 

As cited in David W. Grua, “’Strictly Adhering to the Inspired Form’: Early Latter-day Saint Sacramental worship and the Canonical Prayers” (unpublished paper presented at “Joseph Smith Papers Conference: Joseph Smith and Sacred Text in Nineteenth-century America,” Salt Lake City, September 10, 2021). Extemporaneous sacrament prayers continued to be given as Latter-day Saints migrated to the Great Basin region. In 1852, Heber C. Kimball said, “We have dedicated this sacrament to the Father and to the Son, that the saving principles of life may be in and that, in partaking of it, we may become sanctified. We bless the water as well as the bread and ask God to sanctify it and fill it with life and the principles of salvation.” “Discourse,” Deseret News, February 3, 1852, 2. In 1863, Kimball explained, “We are now partaking of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper; when we partake of the bread, let us pray the Father that strength may be given to our bodies that they may not wither, but be strengthened to reach a good old age; when we partage of the wine—or water—which is emblematic of his blood, let us ask the Father that our blood may never be spilled unless it is necessary for the advancement of his kingdom and the glory of God.” “Remarks,” Deseret News, March 11, 1863, 1. (Ibid., 230 n. 4)

 

Further Reading:

David W. Grua and Jonathan A. Stapley on Early LDS Approaches to the Sacrament Prayers