"The Spirit of The LORD is upon Me"

The Old Testament, as is well known, was originally penned in the Hebrew language. Less well known is the fact that after the Babylonian Captivity (586 BC) the Jewish scribes started altering the texts to make the sacred records conform to their evolving theology. 

But the truth has a way of shining through.

There is a great truth in those scriptures, a good many, but one I want to focus on for Christmas: That God The Father has a body of flesh and bones, and that His Son, God The Son, Jesus Christ, came to earth to receive His body from His Father, and to do the will of His Father in that holy body, namely to suffer and die for the sins of the world, and to rise from the dead triumphant.

Where, you ask, do the Hebrew scriptures teach that God has a body of flesh and bone? This is impossible to find if we search for the modern Western European style of teaching, "A + B = C", at least in the ancient tomes. However, this explicit form of clarity is precisely what The Lord did for us modern folk through Joseph Smith, as in The Doctrine and Covenants, Section 130:22: "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit." The doctrine can be made no clearer.

The ancient Hebrews had a different way of sharing knowledge and doctrine. The ancient Hebrew manner of instruction often involved a narrative where every detail stated, and even the things not stated, carried the meanings. In Genesis 1:1 we read "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." But in verse 2 we read "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." 

It so happens that "The Spirit of God" is a translation of "Ruakh Elohim", which literally means "Spirit God". Now, by Hebrew grammar, if you put two nouns together you usually convey that the first noun belongs to the second, as in "Ben Elohim" 'Son of God', although the Hebrew writers did not actually record a word "of" between "Ben" and "Elohim", rather the meaning of possession was implicit in the juxtaposition of the two nouns "Son" and "God". However, there is another meaning conveyed by having two nouns together, namely that the first noun may serve as a title, as in "Angel Gabriel" or "King David". 

Inasmuch as "The Spirit of God" in Hebrew literally reads "Spirit God", what distinction was Moses making between "Spirit God" and "God" who created the heaven and the earth? Imagine that two missionaries are standing next to each other and I ask, "What is the name of the Elder, the tall one?" By virtue of adding a modifier to one Elder, "the tall one", I as much as state that the other Elder "is shorter" by comparison. Thus, to say "Spirit God moved upon the face of the waters" Moses as much as told us that "God" who created the heaven and the earth has a body of flesh and bones.

The Old Testament Record on the Corporeality of God. 

The Old Testament was penned in Hebrew. This is no surprise to most folks. What is surprising to discover is that the Hebrew scribes began making unauthorized alterations in the text after their Babylonian captivity (586 BC). The scribes accelerated the rate of alterations in the 200 years before the Savior's birth, but the Pharisees took the process to a relative fever pitch in the 100 years after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. This Hebrew text that was edited by the scribes and later the Pharisees is known as the Masoretic Text, and it is what most of the world now calls "The Hebrew original".

How do we know that changes were made? We know in two ways. One, the Sanhedrin (central Jewish authority after the Babylonian Captivity up to the Temple's destruction in AD 70) approved an official translation of the Hebrew scriptures to Greek in about 200 BC. This Greek translation, called the Septuagint, was quite close in sense to the Hebrew source text, only the Greek translation reads differently from the inherited Masoretic Text, that Hebrew text that passed through Pharisaic editing in the second century AD. More conclusive still, the entire Book of Isaiah was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, in Hebrew, from about 250-200 BC, and this scroll reads differently from the Masoretic edition that we have since inherited. In several instances what looked like deviations or "sloppy" translation work in the Septuagint (as some allege) is now demonstrably proven to be accurate; it is not the Septuagint translation that is wrong, but the source Hebrew text that was later altered.

But why would the post-Babylonian exile Jews alter the Hebrew scriptures? For that matter, why would the post-Temple Pharisees also alter the Hebrew text? Because after Babylon the Jews, having lost prophets, began melding or fusing God The Father and God The Son as well as The Holy Spirit (Spirit Elohim) into one single God. The problem was that the scriptures clearly showed that all Three were separate, though One in purpose.  So the Jewish scribes began altering verses to "correct" the scriptures or to ensure that the reader would form the "correct" understanding of the text. The Pharisees went on to alter the Hebrew text even further, but for a different reason: The Pharisees wanted to break the strong connection between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and The Old Testament. This severance was intended to prevent more Jews from coming to see Jesus as The Promised Messiah; if you alter Old Testament prophecies that were fulfilled in Jesus, maybe fewer Jews will see Jesus as the fulfillment of their promised Messiah.

With these changes in mind, I share with you Isaiah 61:1 from the King James Version of The Old Testament:

"The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; 
because the LORD hath anointed me 
to preach good tidings unto the meek; 
he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, 
to proclaim liberty to the captives, 
and the opening of the prison to them that are bound."

From the Masoretic Hebrew text that all our Bibles are translated from the passage reads this way:

"Ruakh Adonai Elohim is upon me; 
because Jehovah hath anointed me 
to preach good tidings unto the meek; 
he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, 
to proclaim liberty to the captives, 
and the opening of the prison to them that are bound."

"Ruakh Adonai Elohim" will probably be understood universally as "The Spirit of the Lord God" mainly because "Adonai" is a title meaning 'Lord' in the sacred sense, and the doubling of titles, "Spirit" and "Lord", would seem to indicate a semantic division, "The Spirit of the Lord God", just as our King James Translation reads.

However, the translation Jews made to Greek in 200 BC reads slightly differently:

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me; he hath sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind."

The differences are noteworthy. Whereas our modern Masoretic Hebrew text reads "Spirit (of the) Lord God" the Septuagint translators presumably used a Hebrew text that read "Spirit (of the) Lord". The Septuagint translators also rendered "he" where even our Masoretic text today reads "Jehovah". Finally, the Septuagint text has an additional phrase, "and recovery of sight to the blind" which is very curious indeed, especially given some of the Savior's most noteworthy miracles of restoring sight even to a man born blind.

The Dead Sea Scrolls add critical dimension and context regarding the sacred titles used in Isaiah 61:1:

"Spirit Jehovah is upon me,
because Jehovah hath anointed me;
he hath sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor,
to heal the broken in heart,
to proclaim liberty to the captives."

What?! Yes, the oldest version of The Book of Isaiah, copied before the Pharisees could alter the text spoke of "Two Jehovahs"; the first Jehovah mentioned in this verse was "Spirit Jehovah", and by virtue of that modifier, "Spirit", the second Jehovah is as much as identified as "Corporeal or Embodied Jehovah".

Thrilling Septuagint textual differences do not end there. In the King James Psalm 40:6 reads as follows based on the Masoretic Hebrew text:

"Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire;
mine ears hast thou opened; 
burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required."

In this Messianic phrase the Psalmist records a peculiar statement on the Messiah's ears being opened. This statement almost seems out of place with the subject of sin offerings which were animal sacrifices meant to point the way to the Messiah's great sacrifice. The same passage in the Septuagint (Greek) reads as follows:

"Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire;
but a body thou hast prepared me; 
burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required."

In this Messianic Psalm the Savior tells The Father "thou hast prepared me a body". This bold declaration makes enormous sense, namely, that in a discussion of bodily sacrifices, usually understood as animal sacrifices, the Messiah would state that The Father had prepared or made Him a body. And it was for the purpose of doing the will of The Father that Jesus received His body from The Father; it was in His half divine mortal body that Jesus suffered for the sins of the world, died, then rose on the third day triumphantly over death. The words of Abinadi, a prophet from The Book of Mormon, summarize these points beautifully: (The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, Mosiah 15:1-3):

"I would that ye should understand that 

God himself shall come down among the children of men, 

and shall redeem his people. 

And because he dwelleth in the flesh 

he shall be called the Son of God, 

and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, 

being Father and Son--

The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; 

and the Son, because of the flesh; 

thus becoming the Father and the Son--"

This week we LDS join our fellow Christians as well as our Muslim, Jewish and Hindu brethren in looking forward for that Divine Being, whom we call the Christ or the Messiah, to come. With our fellow Christian and our Muslim brethren we join in that faith that Jesus came the first time, the Messiah, and He was born of a virgin. With our fellow Christians we share the faith that Jesus is The Son of God. 

The Father and The Son Known by Same Name-Titles

The Hebrew scriptures testify that Heavenly Father, addressed either as "Elohim" (lit. 'Gods') or Jehovah ('Eternal One', 'Lord'), both of which are His two sacred name-titles, "God" and "Jehovah/Lord", has a body of flesh and bones. Because The Father has a body we truly were created in His image, and Jesus grew to become more like (dare I say just like) His Father by receiving a body. In this tabernacle of flesh Jesus did the will of His Father, which was to be the Savior of the World. 

Inasmuch as The Father and The Son are One, united in purpose and love, before His birth The Son of God bore the same title as His Father, "Elohim" ('God').  But as regards The Son of God's personal name before mortal birth, He was "Jehovah". "Jehovah" is His Father's name-title, but  it was Jesus' antemortal personal name. I would like to clarify that point, that "Jehovah" is a title of Heavenly Father just as is Elohim, (Elohim=God/s, Jehovah=Eternal One), but for The Son "Jehovah" was His personal name, and Elohim His title. For that matter, Heavenly Father calls all of us all "Elohim" ('Gods') as well, collectively, since we are no less His spirit children. 

(Psalm 82:6)

"I have said ye are gods [in Hebrew "Elohim"], 
children of the Most High." 

As is well known, the name of our Lord upon mortal birth became "Jesus", and this name was revealed through the prophetic line of the House of Israel.

The New Testament Rests upon the Foundation of the Greek Septuagint

In our New Testament, when Jesus stood up and quoted Isaiah 61:1-2, our text of Luke uses, not a translation of an ancient Hebrew text (certainly not the Masoretic Text which had yet to be fashioned), but in actuality the Greek Septuagint: (Luke 4:18-19)

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, 
because he hath anointed me; 
he hath sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, 
to heal the broken in heart, 
to proclaim liberty to the captives, 
and recovery of sight to the blind, 
To preach the acceptable year of the Lord..."

Why was the Greek Septuagint quoted here (and exclusively throughout the New Testament)? Does The New Testament's reliance on the Greek Septuagint mean that Jesus stood up and opened the Greek manuscript of Isaiah (BTW the Greek the name of Isaiah is "Esaias")? Does this citation in Luke (and many others) imply that Jesus read from a Hebrew text that was compatible with the Septuagint, a Hebrew text that had not the subsequent Pharisaical alterations? Or does this mean that Jesus read from a Hebrew scroll but that the writer or translator(s) of Luke (no one is completely certain whether Luke was penned in Greek or translated to Greek from Aramaic) simply quoted the passage out of the Septuagint since the rest of Luke was being rendered in Greek? One thing is certain, though, that the Septuagint from circa 200 B.C. is The Old Testament foundation of The New Testament.

Accordingly and not surprisingly, the Apostle Paul also relied on the Greek Septuagint. When Paul quoted Psalm 40:6 to teach that we are sanctified by the shedding of the blood of Christ, he used, not the Hebrew text (by the way, I am not anti-Hebrew text, but I am for the Truth of our Lord however that Truth has been preserved) but rather the Septuagint:

(Hebrews 10:5)

"Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, 

Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, 

but a body hast thou prepared me..."

Such examples in The New Testament abound, but I see these beautiful citations, our Lord's quotation as well as the ancient uber-missionary Paul quoting the Septuagint, as validation of the way that honorable translation reads, at least in those passages. Now, to be sure, the Septuagint is a translation, and even it has been altered (it appears that the Septuagint used to read YHWH for Jehovah, but now it reads "Lord" for both Jehovah and Adonai), and there are always nuances lost in translation, but occasionally there are nuances gained. 

The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost Are in Harmony, "One"

The Apostle John delivered some of the most beautiful teachings on The Godhead, or Trinity if you will. He started his Gospel by declaring that Jesus is a God alongside The Father who is The God. Here I will convey the nuances of the Greek text that often get lost in the translation:

(John 1:1-3)

"In the beginning was the Word,

and the Word was with the God, 

and the Word was a God.

This One was in the beginning with the God.

All things through Him came into being

and without Him not one thing came into being

that has come into being."

This is John's poignant declaration is of The God, The Father, and His Word, who is a God.

John went on to describe how we should worship The Father. Here I will again cite a careful translation from the Greek source text:

(John 4:23-24)

"But an hour is coming and now is,

when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth;

for also the Father seeketh such who worship him.

Spirit the God,
and they that worship him in spirit and truth must worship."

That phrase is very curious, "Spirit the God". It is always translated as "God is a spirit", although there is no word "is" used, which is Greek is "estin", and there would have been no problem using "estin" here. If we take this statement, "Spirit the God" to mean "God is a Spirit", then we have to understand that in context of Jesus' spoken words to 10 of  His Apostles and to Mary Magdelene:

(Luke 24:37-39)

"But they were terrified and affrighted,
and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

and he said unto them,
Why are ye troubled?
and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

Behold my hands and my feet,
that it is I myself :
handle me, and see;
for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."

(John 20:16-17)

"Jesus saith unto her, Mary.
She turned herself, and saith unto him,
Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

Jesus saith unto her,
Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father:
but go to my brethren, and say unto them,
I ascend unto my Father, and your Father;
and to my God, and your God."

The Resurrected Christ told 10 of His Apostles to handle Him because they thought he was a spirit and by handling Him they would know that He had a body of flesh and bones. He reminded them that a spirit does not have flesh and bones as He clearly did. Yet earlier, when Mary Magdalene was on the point of hugging Him or in the least touching or handling Him, He asked her not to because He had not yet ascended to His Father. The presumption is that His Father would be the first Person to hug the Resurrected Christ. Again, a "spirit hath not flesh and bones", so here the Savior appears to be speaking from the perspective that God The Father has a body of flesh and bones because physical touch does not occur between one body and another spirit, but from one body to another body, as The Savior pointed out.

The Roaring Fourth Century AD: God is a Spirit

It is worth noting that one of the oldest copies of our four Gospels, some argue the oldest copy, though not without controversy, is the Sinaitic Palimpsest. This important document was rediscovered in 1892 and published in English translation the same year. The Sinaitic Palimpsest has the four canonical Gospels in Syriac (Aramaic), and though most scholars agree this is a translation, some would maintain that the Sinaitic Palimpsest contains a Syriac source text.

The Sinaitic Palimpsest is important for another reason: it dates to the late fourth century AD. This date is critical because the Roman Catholic Church was fashioned by Emperor Constantine by compelling the major western branches of Christianity to unite into a single church (in reality a Roman and Greek confederacy of sorts) starting in AD 325. Within 50 years they had established their key doctrines and assembled The New Testament. However, the Catholic Church began to feel uncomfortable with the absence of the central doctrine, The Trinity and the nature of God (substance-less matter), in The New Testament. Thus a process was begun of inserting a word or phrase here and there to allow for the interpretation of the key Catholic doctrines on God. Here is John 4:23-24 as it reads in the late fourth century Sinaitic Palimpsest:

"But behold, the hour cometh, and now is, 

when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth:

for the Father even seeketh these worshippers,

those who worship him in spirit and truth."

What is astonishing here is the absence of the words "Spirit the God", usually translated as "God is a spirit." This is not all. In the Sinaitic Palimpsest wording of God being a Spirit appears somewhere else, in John 3:6:

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh;
and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit,
and God is a living Spirit."

This additional text, "and God is a living Spirit", does seem to present the reader with a fourth century snap shot of scribes trying to resolve the issue of sacred writ that bears no witness of their key doctrines, doctrines that their newly unified faith had just recently codified. The Sinaitic Palimpsest seems to indicate that at one point a phrase about God being a Spirit was inserted into John 3:6, but later John 4:24 was chosen as the point of insertion. In both instances, however, the statement "God is a Spirit" seems out of context with the discussion mainly because the words appear as a bold declaration with no lead and no further comment.

The process of inserting missing doctrines into sacred write did not stop there. As the Protestant Reformation spread the Catholic Church (BTW: I am not anti-Catholic; I do believe there is much to benefit from knowing history) became more concerned that their highest doctrine of all, the Trinity in the sense of Three Divine Manifestations of a Single Being, was totally unmentioned in The New Testament. So in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries a phrase that seems to speak to this view was inserted into two Greek manuscripts : of places in order to allow for the interpretation of a Trinitarian view if not an overt statement of it. The primary (though not only) such insertion is 1 John 5:7-8:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, 
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: 
and these three are one. 
And there are three that bear witness in earth, 
the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: 
and these three agree in one."  

Here the text in red was entered into two Greek manuscripts in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, just a few decades before the translation of The King James Version of The Bible! 

Scribal liberties notwithstanding, what we have is what we have. We are all spirits now, spirits housed in a body of flesh and bones, and Jesus who is the express image of His Father is also a spirit housed in a body of flesh and bones. As is The Son, so is The Father. As is The Son, we may become.

Conclusion

Scriptural insights are a beautiful gift this Christmas, The Bible, The Septuagint, as well as that Isaiah Scroll from the Dead Sea, and that tome that has come to us via God's direct divine intervention, The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, in short, all the revealed word of God is our great gift, because they reveal that our Father, whether we use the title Elohim (God) or Jehovah (LORD), He has a body of flesh and bone, and that the erstwhile "Spirit Jehovah" was born to receive a body from His and our Father, and to do the will of The Father in that body, which was to take upon Himself our sins and weaknesses, die and rise triumphantly from the grave. Jesus is truly The Son of God. And as challenging as it is, my duty and ours collectively is to learn to do the Father's will in our bodies now.

Merry Christmas and God bless!

Saving, Saving, Saved by Grace

"What must I do to inherit eternal life? What must I do to be saved?"

Though these questions may seem irrelevant to my brethren who identify as atheist, to those of us who believe in God, we recognize that there is a gulf, as it were, of difference between us and God, between what we do or even wish to do and the reunion with God that we theists aspire to.

I am a Latter-day Saint (LDS). I am Mormon. I am a Christian. Some of my fellow Christians who are not LDS ascribe to a belief that to be saved one must only profess a belief in Jesus Christ, that He is The Son of God, our Savior. The scripture that these Christian brethren often cite is in Ephesians 2:

Ephesians 2:1-10

1: And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2: Wherein in time past ye walked according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

4: But God, who is rich in mercy for his great love wherewith he loved us,

5: Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

6: And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus;

7: That in ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

8: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God:

9: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10: For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

The phrases "for by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves" and "not of works, lest any man should boast" seem to be very precise, "believe and by grace ye are saved". My brethren who ascribe to this view see salvation thus achieved as immediate, secured in the moment of belief professed, and irrevocable.

But What of Other Scriptural References?

The point of concern, however, is that The Bible scriptures may seem to be at odds with each other. Here are 10 New Testament passages that, though clear in and of themselves, seem to be at odds with the terms outlined in Ephesians 2.

#1: John 3:3-5

3: Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4: Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5: Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Here Jesus makes a statement that two requirements for entry into the kingdom of God are baptism by water and baptism by the Spirit. In fact, this is the first requirement The Lord outlines for entry into the Kingdom of God. Jesus makes the requirement universal and binding upon all.

#2: Mark 16:16
16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Here Jesus overtly names belief and baptism as necessary for salvation.

#3: James 2:19-20
19: Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well; the devils also believe, and tremble.
20: But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Here James draws the distinction between a tenet held and not observed/obeyed/practiced, as what the devils do, and one that is practiced in the works that we do. The devils have dead faith, and likewise our faith is dead if our faith is not leading us to take the steps or works God requires of us.

#4: Matthew 7:21-23

21: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22: Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23: And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

This passage seems to teach that faith alone is insufficient for a person to be saved if that faith were accompanied by works of iniquity, however much the doer asserts that such dark works were wondrous. Here The Lord acknowledges the role of faith, "Lord, Lord" is a reference to prayer, to reverence, to acknowledgement, to a person's acceptance of Him, The Savior, through reverence. He, The Savior, makes it clear that the type of acknowledgement of Him that His Father will accept is the type that led those who profess His Name, The Savior's, to do the will of His Father in Heaven.

#5: Matthew 10:22

22: And ye shall be hated of all men for my names's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

In this passage Jesus states that salvation comes to those who endure to the end, which seems to be at odds with the belief in instantaneous salvation. Here The Savior makes clear that our diligence must not die off but persevere unto the end, the goal, the objective. Endure to the end is clear, for if we desire to return to our Father in Heaven, why would we cease striving to grow closer to God at any point? We would not cease striving to grow closer to God, but would continue growing closer to Him until we are reunited, and that reunion is salvation. Thus he that endureth "to the end" shall be saved.

#6: Matthew 19:16-17, 26

16: And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

17: And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

26: But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Here the Savior overtly states that the keeping of the commandments is what a person must do to have eternal life. And when his own disciples expressed doubt that anyone could achieve salvation on such terms Jesus said that "with God all things are possible." So what are the steps for entering into life eternal, to that life that is union with God in His presence? The steps are the commandments of God, and thanks to this sacred record, the world has it on the highest authority, Jesus Christ Himself, that the commandments are the steps for walking into or "entering" into life eternal, our ultimate end or objective.

#7: Matthew 28:18-20

18: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;

20: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

This passage does not make an overt reference to "salvation" or "grace", but notice the Savior's instruction, "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Here the Savior's instruction to His apostles is that they should teach obedience to all His commandments. The Savior sent His apostles out to teach the world to keep every single commandment He had commanded them, His apostles. The point is clear, because He, Christ, was sent to bring all people to the very presence of God, if we choose to follow Him we will do what He instructs us to do, and those instructions are His commandments.

#8: Acts 15:9-11

9: And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

10: Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

11: But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Here the Apostles, led by the presiding Apostle, Peter, when discussing a controversial issue, whether the Gentile converts should submit to Mosaic circumcision, states that the Gentiles converts like they, the Jews, "through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved." Peter states "shall be saved" rather than "have already been saved", thus pointing to a future point at which salvation shall come to pass for them. 

#9: Acts 15:18

18: When they heard these things, they held their peace, and gloried God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

As Peter continued his pronouncements on the issue of Gentile requirements for admission into the Gospel, he mentioned that God "also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." Often overlooked, I feel, is that repentance, not solely the act of our asking forgiveness of God, and not even our efforts to unlearn the sin and practice a Godly walk instead of it, but the actual possibility itself to repent, "be forgiven", and strive to learn Godliness instead, that is God's gift that is granted to us.

#10: Revelation 12:10-11
10: And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
11: And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their own lives unto the death.

This reference is powerful in part because it describes the realization of salvation, again, as Peter intimated earlier, will be at a future time. At that future time we will see that it was by the "blood of Jesus", His grace enabled, His Atonement and Resurrection, that we overcame as well as our own testimonies (our own faith in Him) and our hatred of our own lives until death, an expression that means "we chose God's will over ours throughout our lives" thus despising our lives but loving God's.

Now, although these scriptures are only a few, they are consistent with each other in their message. If we look at them carefully we can discern what they indicate: Baptism appears to be the first requirement, though faith is critical before and after, namely, that faith that motivates them who profess The Christ to do the will of The Father. We must press forward throughout our lives because salvation has not brought about its objective, reunion with God The Father, until we have actually been reunified with Him. The commandments we were given are the steps that spiritually and ultimately physically will take us to the presence of God and eternal life with Him. Repentance will play a critical role both before baptism and after; far from being a painful burden, repentance was granted to us by God so that we might live life in His Son now, and eventually live with Him and His Son when we reenter their presence.

Grace Absent in the Old Testament?

The question often arises why grace is absent in the Old Testament especially since it is prominent in the New Testament. I put it to the reader that grace figures in prominently in the Old Testament, but whereas the New Testament translators came to use "grace" as the term for God's loving kindness or mercy, "mercy" was used in the translation of the Old Testament. In any event, the Hebrew word "khessed", often translated "mercy" is precisely the word that gets rendered "grace" in New Testament times. Here are three exemplary citations:

Exodus 20:5-6:

5: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them [idols], 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;

6: And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

A more transparent translation would be "And showing grace unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments."

Exodus 34:6-7
6: and the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
7: Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and fourth generation.

This verse is particularly salient because in it The Lord told Moses that The Lord keeps mercy, "grace" as translated in the New Testament, forgiving iniquity, transgressions and sin, but The Lord also adds that He will not clear or absolve the guilty, that is, the unrepentant, those who persisted in rebellion.

Psalms 109:26-27

26: Help me, O LORD my God: O save me according to thy mercy.
27: That they may know that this is thy hand; that thou, LORD, hast done it.

A more transparent translation would be "save me according to thy grace."

The message of The Lord seems to be consistent, that God's grace (also translated as "mercy" in the Old Testament) is applied to those who keep His commandments. The exception seems to be what Ephesians appears to be saying, that we are saved "not by works." 

Saved by Our Own Works?

The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ contains the teachings of a prophet Alma, which name, "Alma" was discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls as a once known but long since lost Hebrew male name that apparently was related to the Aramaic 'Alma 'world'. How fitting, because his message, the Prophet Alma's message, was for all the world. Alma taught that no human work can atone for sins, that there had to be an atonement, but that atonement had to be infinite and eternal. Alma emphasizes that it is not even animal sacrifice or human sacrifices (meaning "capital punishment for murder" and perhaps also "behavioral" sacrifices) that remove sins, but the sacrifice of The Son of God that removes sins. 

Alma 34:9-14

9: For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made.

10: For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, yea, not of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.

11: Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.

12: But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.

13: Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.

14: And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.

Here Alma makes the case that there is nothing any human can do to atone for his own sins, let alone for those of another. Consequently, to remove the sins of the world, a sacrifice would have to be made, namely, The Son of God. Suffice it to say that Mormons do not believe that "our works save us" in the sense that "our works remove our sins", for the only work that removes sins is that done by The Son of God, and that great Work was accomplished by The Savior at the culmination of His earthly life.

So Do Our Personal Works Impact Our Salvation?

To be clear, our own choices and deeds, often referred to as "works" do not remove sins--only The Savior's Atonement removes sins--yet our works serve a purpose. If the Atonement of Jesus Christ wipes sins away, and if as we continue to repent we invite the Savior's cleansing power once again to wipe the newly committed sins away, then what purpose do our works serve? Our works, our personal choices and deeds, are the very steps we take to draw closer to God, step by step closer, until we have reentered His actual physical Presence. The Book of Mormon prophet Nephi illustrated this when he described baptism as only the entry into the way that leads to eternal life. 

2 Nephi 31:19-20

19: And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.

20: Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

Nephi's expression, "press forward" in the strait and narrow path is vivid and it forms an unmistakable image of our duty to move from the beginning of our new life in Christ to the ultimate goal, eternal life with our Father in Heaven and His Son. Grace, The Lord's loving kindness in agreeing to take upon Himself our sins, lightens the otherwise impossibly heavy burden of removing our own sins. His Atonement makes movement forward possible, that is, His Atonement made it possible for steps back to our Father in Heaven to exist, but we must receive the gift, and we must choose to apply His Atonement in our lives in order to return to God.

John the Baptist declared this very message, but his words get overlooked:

Matthew 3:4
4: ...Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

This citation is often taken to mean that we are clearing a path for our Lord to walk. That imagery is beautiful, that we would prepare the way for The Lord to reach us. Indeed that is what "preparing The way of The Lord" may mean. The words that follow that introductory statement clarify our personal duty, for each of us to "make a straight path to The Lord", which is what is meant by "make his paths straight". That is why "paths" is used here in the plural, that is, each of us must make a straight path to Him, and wherever we are in life, the steps will be the same ones, same in straightness and righteousness (faith, repentance, baptism, enduring to the end as led by The Holy Ghost to keep God's commandments). 

The Focus is on The Lord's Enabling Grace and Not on our Abilities

There is a tendency for us as humans to believe that any ability we have to overcome weakness is solely the result of personal effort. Yes, we choose to move forward, but when we ascribe the remission of sins to our adherence to God's laws, we convert what should be The Lord's enabling steps into dead works. Let me attempt to make my point: To obey God's laws is good, and essential, but to believe that our obedience removes our sins is to assume an honor reserved solely for The Son of God because it was He and He Alone who took upon Himself the sins of the world. No human work, no matter how well motivated, removes a single sin, not even repentance or baptism removes sins. These choices invite the cleansing power of the Atonement in our lives, but it is always only the Atonement of Jesus Christ that removed sin. It is through our works that we receive the Gift, but God's Gift of Mercy or Grace removed all sin. The Lord, both in the Old and New Testaments, instructed the people not to view their adherence to His laws as the act of removing sin, for that belief makes the work a dead work (a work of pride or arrogance), but to remember that it was and is His Grace, His Mercy, that removes the sin (an act of humility before God). The passage in question is in Hosea and Matthew. In Hosea I will supply the King James version then its more correct translation from the Hebrew.

Hosea 6:6 King James Version
6: For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than of burnt offerings.
From the Hebrew:
6: For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice; and the acknowledgement of God instead of burnt offerings.

This passage is beautiful, though the King James translators unintentionally obfuscated it for us by writing "I desired mercy" rather than what the Hebrew says, "I desire mercy" and "the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings" instead of "the acknowledgement of God instead of burnt offerings". When understood in clarity, this verse does not mean that God does not desire our obedience to His laws, laws which require that our will be sacrificed unto His will. What this verse says is that we should acknowledge God and His mercy/grace instead of believing that our obedience has removed sin. Again, our obedience is how we accept His gift of forgiveness into our lives and apply the gift so as to step closer to God. Our obedience is dead without the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and likewise, if we assume the honor that belongs to The Son of God, we have deadened the effectiveness of our works in us even if outwardly those works are what God has asked of us. Jesus referred to this passage of Hosea in Matthew 9:13 when the Pharisees criticized Him for eating with sinners. He instructed the Pharisees to "learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." It is Jesus who has Grace, and though outwardly the Pharisees kept the law, inwardly they took the credit unto themselves. Jesus pointed out that The Lord requires our humble acknowledgement of His Grace rather than pride in our diligence, though diligence is required for us to step closer and closer to God.

Paul and Nephi Described the Same Process, But at Different Stages

The Apostle Paul's words "saved by grace, not by works" may seem at odds with what The Book of Mormon prophet Nephi taught:

2 Nephi 25:23
23: For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

Some of my fellow Christians who are not LDS get annoyed, naturally, at what seems to be an overt contradiction between The Bible and The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. However, look closely at what Nephi wrote: "after all we can do". At what point could any of us say "that is all I can do, I can do no more"? I put it to the reader that the point at which we have done all we can do is the point when we have returned to God for our final judgment. "Now hold on!" my brethren will say. "Are you saying that you get yourself to God?" No, I am saying that Christ enables every single step, but what good are those steps if I will not take each one? Christ's Atonement will not drag me into Heaven kicking and screaming, but I must choose to follow my Lord step by sometimes painful step. At the point at which I have (I truly hope) returned to God's presence, I will look back at every step that took me there and know that although I accepted God's gift, it was by the gift of His grace that I am saved.

Would it surprise you if I told you that Paul's verses in Ephesians were mistranslated? I will cite the passages rendered carefully from the Greek:

Ephesians 2:1-10

1: And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2: Wherein in time past ye walked according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

4: But God, who is rich in mercy for his great love wherewith he loved us,

5: Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are being saved;)

6: And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus;

7: That in ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

8: For by grace are ye being saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God:

9: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10: For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Paul did not write that by grace we are saved but that by grace we "are being saved". What? Yes, Paul actually was speaking of the process of Salvation, just as Nephi did centuries earlier, but whereas Nephi was speaking of the completion of Salvation, at the point of finality and completion, Paul was speaking of the process of Salvation while that long process is underway. Look carefully at what Paul writes.

1. We were dead in transgressions but were quickened and raised up in Christ, which is baptism. Paul then carefully writes "for by grace ye are being saved". We are not yet saved, not yet in God's presence, but the process of our salvation is now underway.
2. Our faith is leading us to salvation, and it is not our works that are removing our trespasses but the Grace of God that removes them, therefore no man can boast of his works (as the Pharisees were so wont to do). By grace we are being saved as we move forward from baptism.
3. Now the oft overlooked teaching, from verse 10, that as Christ's new creations via rebirth through baptism, Christ's "workmanship", we are created unto good works which God hath ordained that we should walk in them.

So, Paul described our spiritual death ending by rebirth as Christ's workmanship, a new life in which we are created unto good works that God ordained that we should walk in. Nephi described the culmination of that walk, that when we have through Christ's grace done the good works God Himself ordained that we should walk in, the very good works Christ through His grace raised us up from spiritual death to walk in, we will know that after all these good works or steps that God commanded and enabled us to do, step by painful step, it was truly by grace that we were saved, mainly because not one of those steps would have removed a single sin; only the Atonement of Jesus Christ removed sin and lifted the burden.

Now, the reader is, as always, at liberty to make of these passages what he or she will. I ask only that in your contemplation you consider that my own views aside, the citations I share are actually textual.

Leaven of Heaven

The question has been put to me, why do the LDS not use unleavened bread for the Sacrament?

The issue merits some attention. I believe that the question is not independent but part of a cluster of related matters:

Why was unleavened bread used anciently, that is, what was its significance

What Christians, if any, use it in religious worship today, and why?

Why do the Latter-day Saints not use unleavened bread?       

So why was unleavened bread used anciently? 

The Lord explained to ancient Israel that He led them out of Egypt in haste, on the heels of His taking the lives of the firstborn sons of Egypt. (Exodus 12:17,29,33,34,39)

(17) And ye shall observe unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.

(29) And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

(33) And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, that they might send them out of the land in haste; for they said, We be all dead men.

(34) And the people took their dough before it was leavened, their kneadingtroughs being bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders.

(39) And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they brought forth out of Egypt, for it was not leavened; because they were thrust out of Egypt, and could not tarry, neither had they prepared for themselves any victual.

Notice how the Israelites are told they shall observe this “day” forever by an ordinance.  We already may notice a couple of interesting points. First, the day of deliverance was Friday evening, the “sacrifice” of the Egyptian firstborn males certainly has its echo in the upcoming Sacrifice of Heavenly Father’s “Firstborn” Spirit Son, His Only-begotten Son in the flesh, the blood of the sacrificial lamb that spared the Israelite firstborn sons appears to be a symbol of the upcoming sacrifice of the Lamb of God, whose blood saves us from death by divine justice, the bitter herbs recall the “bitter cup” that Jesus had to ingest, and then there is the question of the unleavened bread.

The Function of Yeast/Leaven in Bread Making

Now, unleavened bread is simply bread with no yeast, so consequently the bread does not rise. Presumably the Israelites obtained all of their ingredients for bread in Egypt itself—grain/flour, water, salt—and yeast would have been no different. However, yeast is special in two important regards: 1) A small amount of yeast will affect a large amount of dough; 2) Yeast will cause bread to rise.

The Savior addresses the issue of yeast (“yeast” and “leaven” are identical in meaning, only that “yeast” is Germanic and “leaven” is French) as a symbol, and as a symbol it could mean “false doctrine”. (Matthew 16:6,12)

(6) Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

(12) Then understood they how that he bad them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

The Savior’s teaching is interesting in more than one regard. First and foremost, that “leaven” should symbolize false doctrine or, I suppose, sin, is curious. A little sin or a little falsehood can affect the entire loaf of sourced of nutrition (a whole loaf of bread), and as we live off of bread, we would ingest much falsehood over a small allowance of sin. The other point that may get overlooked is that the Savior, interestingly enough, did not bid the apostles to beware of actual yeast. Actual yeast itself was fine, but as a symbol there was certainly such as thing as bad yeast.

Good Yeast in Opposition to Bad Yeast

We have seen how the Savior used leaven as a symbol of false doctrine, and that analogy elucidates an otherwise obscure teaching, the Parable of the Woman and the Leaven. (Matthew 13:33)

(33) Another parable spake he unto them: The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

Some familiarity with the Savior's consistent use of symbols is helpful in understanding this brief yet potent parable. The Kingdom of Heaven is like unto a doctrine (leaven) that taken by the Church (the woman) in hidden or kneaded into three measures of grain (three witnesses) will exalt the entire membership. 

Perhaps what often gets overlooked is that it can be said that the bread of the Kingdom of Heaven had leaven, albeit the spiritual leaven that raises not the bread but the soul.

What Kind of Bread Did the Savior Use When He Instituted the Sacrament?

This topic actually goes toward answering the question, which Christians today use unleavened bread in their Sacrament. The Savior used unleavened bread as this was the bread used in the Passover. (Matthew 26:2,17,26-28,31-32)

(2) Ye know that after two days is the passover, and the Son of Man is betrayed to be crucified.

(17) Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?

(26) And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

(27) And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

(28) For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

(31) Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.

(32) But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee. 

These passages on the Passover and the institution of the Sacrament are very familiar to Christians. There are at least two details I would draw the reader's attention to. First, that the Savior performed the Passover as He Himself had commanded in the Law given to Moses. Second, it was in the midst of the Jewish observation that Jesus instituted the most sacred ordinance known in Christianity, and He did so by taking the old emblems and exalting their significance: The deliverance would now not be from Egypt but from sin, and the blood would soon be spilled to save all mankind. 

There is one additional detail I would draw attention to: That it was also in the institution of the Sacrament that Jesus makes mention yet again of His impending Resurrection, His "rising again". 

This "Rising Again" may bear significance in the matter of "leavened" bread since Jesus declared Himself to be the Bread of Life. (John 6:35)

(35) And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

The symbol of bread satisfying hunger eternally and the quenching of thirst eternally, itself no doubt referring to Jesus being the "Living Waters" but also to "drinking His blood" via faith and renewal of covenants is noteworthy.

As a matter of fact, Canon Law of the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church mandates the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist (Sacrament in the LDS sense). Interestingly enough, the Greek Orthodox Church forbids unleavened bread for the Sacrament viewing the unleavened bread as tied to the Old Testament, the leavened bread as part of the New Testament.

Old Outward Practice Preserved Through Inner Commitment

It is no secret that circumcision (in the Biblical sense circumcision was the trimming of the rim of the foreskin, unlike the modern practice of the complete removal of the tissue) was part of the Law given to Moses. (Leviticus 12:3)

(3) And in the eight day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

Yet the Savior reinterpreted circumcision, the commitment to submit to God's will, even when His will would affect us intimately, solely to a commitment in one's heart, which commitment was part of the Law of Moses as well. (Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6, Romans 2:29)

(16) Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

(6) And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

(29) But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

These verses demonstrate that even when The Lord had commanded the outward ordinance of circumcision, He really required the heart to be bridled and turned to Him. Later, Paul in addressing the Saints in Rome, stated that circumcision was of the heart, in the spirit, to praise God. 

You may be wondering what this practice has to do with leaven. Well, as it happens, leaven too received a reinterpretation in the Gospel of the New Covenant.  (1 Corinthians 5:6-8)

(6) Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?

(7) Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

(8) Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

What is noteworthy here is that the passover along with its unleavened bread is reinterpreted in the Gospel, and our unleavened bread is to be sincerity and truth.

Why Do The LDS Not Use Unleavened Bread For Their Sacrament?

Well, the survey of scriptural passages may have actually demonstrated that "the avoidance of leaven" was not longer a requirement for the recalling the sacrifice of the Son of God. In truth, the Eastern Orthodox Christians and many Protestants routinely use leavened bread for their Sacrament. But as to the specific question why the LDS do not, we actually have a modern revelation on the matter. (Doctrine and Covenants 27:2)

(2) For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory--remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.

I will concede the point that this revelation, in August of 1830, may seem like a novel or arbitrary declaration to those unacquainted with it. When the scriptures are studied carefully, though, we may see in this statement absolute consistency with what the Savior said centuries earlier. We saw that He instituted the Passover for Israel to remember their deliverance from Egypt and the upcoming Sacrifice of the Son of God. We saw that unleavened bread was part of the Passover worship. We also saw that the Savior used leaven as a symbol for doctrine and warned against using false leaven or doctrine, but compared the Kingdom of Heaven as good leaven kneaded into dough so that the bread would rise. Jesus called Himself the Bread of Life, and Jesus prophesied He would rise after the Passover, and He did so as the apostles ate the unleavened bread. We also saw Paul teaching that our unleavened bread is not sincerity and truth. By analogy the Savior transformed physical circumcision of the flesh along with the spiritual circumcision of the heart into only the spiritual circumcision of the heart. The LDS have it on good authority, namely Jesus Himself, that the type of bread or type of fluid used for the sacrament are not so important, but the remembrance of His Sacrifice is what matters. So per LDS doctrine our Catholic and Orthodox as well as Protestant brethren are fine in their choices of avoiding or utilizing leaven. Not all may see eye to eye in this matter, but I would ask only that, as we consider the factors of this particular issue, we bear in mind that which is actually textual.