Who do the Priests represent each Sunday at the Sacrament table?

[nuclearfuels]

Probaby overthinking this.

Since the Sacrament represent the Savior, who do the priests represent? God, the Council of gods, Jesus (not sure how this would work since He's represented by the Sacrament)?

Thanks

[teddyaware]

47 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Probaby overthinking this.

Since the Sacrament represent the Savior, who do the priests represent? God, the Council of gods, Jesus (not sure how this would work since He's represented by the Sacrament)?

Thanks

The Lord administered the sacramental emblems of his death to his disciples in the Holy Land prior to his death and resurrection, and he also administered the same sacred emblems to the Nephites after his death and resurrection. Therefore it’s obvious that the priests in Sacrament represent the Savior blessing the sacred emblems of his own sacrifice.

[JLHPROF]

Two possibilities -

1. If the sacramental emblems represent Christ's death and resurrection then they would be representing the angels in Luke 24:1-7/John 20:11-13

There are a LOT of symbols of this in the sacrament, from the slab table to the folding cloth linens.

2. If the sacramental emblems represent the good news of the gospel and the resurrection of Christ being taken to all the world (congregation) then they would be the two witnesses establishing the truth of all things - the same reason missionaries work in pairs.

Edited December 12, 2021 by JLHPROF

[Scott Lloyd]

Deleted. 

Edited December 12, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/11/2021 at 10:32 PM, nuclearfuels said:

… who do the priests represent?

Whom. Object form of the pronoun who. 
 

As him is the object form of the pronoun he, her is the object form of she and them is the object form of they. 

Edited January 3, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Navidad]

15 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Probaby overthinking this.

Since the Sacrament represent the Savior, who do the priests represent? God, the Council of gods, Jesus (not sure how this would work since He's represented by the Sacrament)?

Thanks

Tell me more about the Council of gods.

[Stargazer]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whom. Object form of the pronoun who. 
 

Like him is the object form of the pronoun he, her is the object form of she and them is the object form of they. 

I don't do that any longer. Try to correct incorrect uses of who/whom.  Too many people hypercorrect and use whom because they think it's the more proper or formal way to say it. And it sounds a LOT more jarring (to me) than using who for the object form.

I cringe when people write "Whom are you?" I am just going to allow whom to die out, if it can do so. English has mostly shed its use of case endings, and will no doubt rid itself of all of them, eventually. So if someone asks "Who do you love?" I'm not going to say "Do you mean, 'Whom do you love?'" 

[Stargazer]

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Tell me more about the Council of gods.

Also referred to as the Council in Heaven, which was the occasion in premortal life when the Father presented His plan to His spirit children who would come to this earth.

“In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 349).

PofGP - Abraham 4:26 "And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

See also the King Follett sermon:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Probaby overthinking this.

Since the Sacrament represent the Savior, who do the priests represent? God, the Council of gods, Jesus (not sure how this would work since He's represented by the Sacrament)?

Thanks

I would say the apostles who go out and take the remembrance of the atonement (ie: "the gospel") to "all the corners of the earth"/ ward building )

But maybe  the apostles ALSO represent the council which brings good tidings "per omnia secular seculorum" ("through all the worlds of worlds")

The Klingon Gospel?

Hmmmm....

 

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I don't do that any longer. Try to correct incorrect uses of who/whom.  Too many people hypercorrect and use whom because they think it's the more proper or formal way to say it. And it sounds a LOT more jarring (to me) than using who for the object form.

I cringe when people write "Whom are you?" I am just going to allow whom to die out, if it can do so. English has mostly shed its use of case endings, and will no doubt rid itself of all of them, eventually. So if someone asks "Who do you love?" I'm not going to say "Do you mean, 'Whom do you love?'" 

And it is futile and distracting.

Italian was once Latin, English was a mash of German and French, French itself a derivative of Latin,etc, etc.

You ain't gonna stop global warming by not striking a match, or the tide by building a wall.

 

[Stargazer]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And it is futile and distracting.

Italian was once Latin, English was a mash of German and French, French itself a derivative of Latin,etc, etc.

You ain't gonna stop global warming by not striking a match, or the tide by building a wall.

 

An interesting facet of formal English grammars of the past:

• The very first book describing English grammar was written in Latin.
• The reason why the fatuous rule of English grammar that says one may not split infinitives came about is because it is impossible to do so in Latin.

[nuclearfuels]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

See also the King Follett sermon:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

Love this sermon

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Also referred to as the Council in Heaven, which was the occasion in premortal life when the Father presented His plan to His spirit children who would come to this earth.

“In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 349).

PofGP - Abraham 4:26 "And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

See also the King Follett sermon:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

Thanks so much. I know that when the OT speaks of gods, it is referring to human judges or other pagan deities. When Joseph Smith speaks of the head of the Gods and a council of the Gods, who are the Gods . . . the hosts of not-yet-embodied-spirits? If that is the answer, were these not-yet-embodied-spirits already exalted in some manner? Inquiring minds need to know! Thanks!

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

An interesting facet of formal English grammars of the past:

• The very first book describing English grammar was written in Latin.
• The reason why the fatuous rule of English grammar that says one may not split infinitives came about is because it is impossible to do so in Latin.

I first learned English grammar in Latin class in High School.  Until then, it was all Greek to me.  

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

................

Since the Sacrament represent the Savior, who do the priests represent? God, the Council of gods, Jesus (not sure how this would work since He's represented by the Sacrament)?..................

The emblems of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper represent the Savior (body and blood).  The blessing of those emblems is a holy ordinance administered by priests.  The Sacrament table is the altar, while the bread & water (wine) are emblematic of the body and blood of the sacrificial Lamb of God.  At His Last Supper (a Jewish Passover seder), Jesus implemented a new form of the ancient Jewish Passover temple rite.  At the time of the Passover in ancient Egypt, a lamb was killed and its blood smeared on the doorways of the Israelites, so that the angel of death would "passover" them and not kill their firstborn.  The Passover meal was eaten that night consisting of cooked lamb, etc., which was thereafter an annual rite at Passover, in which lambs were taken to the temple by each family elder (where the Aaronic priests bless it, kill it, and cook it), and then eaten at the seder meal in order to remember that first Passover meal.  Without the temple, Jews no longer serve lamb at the seder, but perform the full rite anyhow each year.  Members of the LDS Church perform it weekly.  In each case, it is a memorial.

https://www.chabad.org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/1980/jewish/Passover-Seder.htm?gclid=Cj0KCQiA2NaNBhDvARIsAEw55hiPqXInKwmEx1IkBtiklctCyoq9wUPt8i30N6LMD2k7m15MfwuElUUaAjv8EALw_wcB

Edited December 12, 2021 by Robert F. Smith

[JAHS]

They simply represent the priesthood authority that is required to perform the ordinance. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

h. I know that when the OT speaks of gods, it is referring to human judges or other pagan deities.

Isn’t this interpretation though?

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1211&context=studiaantiqua

Edited December 13, 2021 by Calm

[Navidad]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Isn’t this interpretation though?

Hi Calm: Sure it is interpretation as is all understanding of all scripture, fiction, non-fiction, and language. Every time we read something we interpret it through a variety of means. The context often indicates that the term is referring to pagan deities like Baal or Molech. Not much doubt about that interpretation. The interpretation of gods being human judges comes from the Hebrew language and how the specific words are used in other non-scriptural literature and contexts. There is not much doubt about that. However it would be disingenuous not to acknowledge that studying the use and meaning of words in other contexts  isn't a key principal of hermeneutics or interpretation.

For example each Biblical word for hell is not unique to the Bible. We have a host of material informing us of the then current meaning of the word. That gives us great insight into why each word was used in different contexts by different authors. We have exactly the same in English. If I used the words mad, irate, enraged, indignant, and furious I could simply translate each of them as "angry" and be done with it.  However in so doing I would miss the specific and unique distinctions in each of those words.

Hermeneutics, the study of interpretation helps us find the unique distinctions in each word. It is very hard and challenging work. I have often preached an hour sermon on just a few possible meanings for a single word in the Bible. Some NT authors like Paul often use what are called hapaxlogomenes. These are instances of a Greek word only being used once in the Scripture. Sometimes the word is even a made up compound word of many Greek words. Paul specializes in those. Then in Greek if you add the case, gender, tense, mood, and voice you add many more possible meanings of the word.

The task of the faithful expositor of the Bible is to find the very best meaning of a word given all of that plus the context, prior uses, and common uses in the time. If I write the word "papel" in Spanish what does it mean? Well it might mean paper. It might also mean role. It might mean character, or function. Figuring out which meaning to give it is what is done by the use of hermeneutics. The same is true of English words like read, play, novel, and hundreds of others. We often interpret the meaning unconsciously because to the native speaker the meaning, given the context is obvious. When not so obvious, we have to figure it out. That is what the scholar-interpreter of Scripture does. Thanks and take care.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I don't do that any longer. Try to correct incorrect uses of who/whom.  Too many people hypercorrect and use whom because they think it's the more proper or formal way to say it. And it sounds a LOT more jarring (to me) than using who for the object form.

I cringe when people write "Whom are you?" I am just going to allow whom to die out, if it can do so. English has mostly shed its use of case endings, and will no doubt rid itself of all of them, eventually. So if someone asks "Who do you love?" I'm not going to say "Do you mean, 'Whom do you love?'" 

My observation is that incorrect use of who is far more common than incorrect use of whom. In fact, I rarely encounter the “hyper-correcting” you identify (I don’t think I’ve ever seen “whom are you”).  
 

It’s not that difficult for most people if they simply remember to use who where they otherwise would use he, she or they, and whom where they otherwise would use him, her or them. 
 

It’s largely a matter of ear training. Most of us know without thinking about it to say with him, not with he.

Edited December 13, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[longview]

The sacrament table represents the altar.  It also symbolizes Jesus because He is the altar.  No earthly altar can withstand the crushing weight of the Atonement.  Only His body can handle it.

The cloth that covers the emblems of the Sacrament symbolizes the veil of the temple.  Several scriptures state that Jesus is the veil.  When Jesus died on the cross, the veil of the temple was rent from top to bottom.  I suppose to symbolize the power of the resurrection that enables people to return to the presence of God.

[halconero]

20 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The Lord administered the sacramental emblems of his death to his disciples in the Holy Land prior to his death and resurrection, and he also administered the same sacred emblems to the Nephites after his death and resurrection. Therefore it’s obvious that the priests in Sacrament represent the Savior blessing the sacred emblems of his own sacrifice.

I am in this camp.

I tend to believe that when we perform an ordinance in the name of the Son we stand as proxy for Him, petitioning the Father as if it were He petitioning the Father. Hence the reason we should seek the will of God as we pray and to ask only that which the Son would ask.

[halconero]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Hi Calm: Sure it is interpretation as is all understanding of all scripture, fiction, non-fiction, and language. Every time we read something we interpret it through a variety of means. The context often indicates that the term is referring to pagan deities like Baal or Molech. Not much doubt about that interpretation.

Actually, there is considerable doubt. Most secular study of the Biblical texts tends to explain Ancient Israelite Religion as primarily henotheistic or monolatrist before the Exile, after which it began to evolve into a more staunchly monotheistic during the 2nd Temple Period. The pre-Exilic interpretation was that of a Divine Council or Heavenly Host comprising the elohim and the bene elohim.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

The interpretation of gods being human judges comes from the Hebrew language and how the specific words are used in other non-scriptural literature and contexts. There is not much doubt about that. However it would be disingenuous not to acknowledge that studying the use and meaning of words in other contexts  isn't a key principal of hermeneutics or interpretation.

Greek, Aramaic, and Syriac, actually. The rendering of elohim into un-godlike beings dates to the 2nd temple period, where the elohim began to be translated as either angeloi (angels) or kriterion tou Theou ("the judgement of God"). The judges idea, while present in the Greek Septuagint,  in particular derives from the Onkelos Targum, an Aramaic translation of *another* Greek translation by Onkelos/Aquila, a Roman convert to Judaism. From the post-exilic Hellenistic-Jewish tradition it entered into both Rabbinic thought and into the Latin Vulgate, and through that literary passageway entered into the KJV and our own English thought on the matter. It really is the product of post-Exilic/Rabbinic/Christian thought that takes a monotheistic worldview and imposes it on the text.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, halconero said:

I am in this camp.

I tend to believe that when we perform an ordinance in the name of the Son we stand as proxy for Him, petitioning the Father as if it were He petitioning the Father. Hence the reason we should seek the will of God as we pray and to ask only that which the Son would ask.

This is consistent with what Joseph Fielding Smith taught, that when we perform the ordinances we are doing what Christ has the ultimate right and responsibility to do, which is why when he delegates one of his personal responsibilities to us we must always perform them in the name of Jesus Christ — I.e. by proxy as if he were personally present.

Edited December 13, 2021 by teddyaware

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, halconero said:

Actually, there is considerable doubt. Most secular study of the Biblical texts tends to explain Ancient Israelite Religion as primarily henotheistic or monolatrist before the Exile, after which it began to evolve into a more staunchly monotheistic during the 2nd Temple Period. The pre-Exilic interpretation was that of a Divine Council or Heavenly Host comprising the elohim and the bene elohim.

Greek, Aramaic, and Syriac, actually. The rendering of elohim into un-godlike beings dates to the 2nd temple period, where the elohim began to be translated as either angeloi (angels) or kriterion tou Theou ("the judgement of God"). The judges idea, while present in the Greek Septuagint,  in particular derives from the Onkelos Targum, an Aramaic translation of *another* Greek translation by Onkelos/Aquila, a Roman convert to Judaism. From the post-exilic Hellenistic-Jewish tradition it entered into both Rabbinic thought and into the Latin Vulgate, and through that literary passageway entered into the KJV and our own English thought on the matter. It really is the product of post-Exilic/Rabbinic/Christian thought that takes a monotheistic worldview and imposes it on the text.

Good evening - I have carefully read your comments. It is written in a style that seems to indicate you are disagreeing with what I wrote, but yet it seems that while you added more context than I did, nothing that is different from what I said. You do believe in Molech and Baal as examples of a few of the deities of the surrounding cultures and peoples, do you not? You do seem to believe in searching and handling the various elements and texts that help us in understanding and interpreting the Bible, in whatever form or number of books that you consider canonical if, that is you believe in the Bible as canon. Here is what I said - "The context often indicates that the term is referring to pagan deities like Baal or Molech. Not much doubt about that interpretation." Do you believe there is considerable doubt that the Bible contains references to pagan (perhaps not the best choice of words)  deities like Baal or Molech? That is all I said in that regard.

I do however believe there is a something missing and we may disagree about reliance only or principally on "most secular study of the Biblical texts." What is missing in your comments is the supervision and reliance on the Holy Spirit as the one commissioned by the Father to superintend the text, regardless of the language. I spent many hours in the presence of modern day translators of the text who prayed without ceasing for the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit as they did their exhausting work with a whole host and variety of texts in front of them. It matters not if we are talking the ancient or the modern translations, absent the Holy Spirit we have no reason to trust any of it, including the LDS scriptures, do we?

Wouldn't you agree that "most secular study" either minimizes or entirely dismisses the work of the Holy Spirit in the authorship and preservation of the text, whether in Koiné Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, Ugaritic, or Hebrew? Textual analysis and comparison is essential, but I do so as an Evangelical with the firmest belief and reliance upon the Holy Spirit as the author and keeper of the Word of God, regardless of the actual text or translation that one or one's faith group may prefer. The Old Testament in whatever language or text points to the atonement. The New Testament points to the atonement. Certainly there are those in my tradition who believe different things about the text and end up interpreting prophetic, apocalyptic, and yes, even historical texts differently. I for one, never claim certainty about my understanding of the text, but absent the Holy Spirit we are left without the greatest of the hermeneutic tools - that of reliance that the Bible is God's word. Perhaps we don't understand or agree on the interpretation of all the words, but that in no way limits the book from being His word with His message of the gospel - whether prospective or retrospective. We approach it with hard work and study, but mostly with humility whether we are handling the Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, or Ugaritic (which in some ways holds further keys of understanding the Hebrew, especially in the cultural milieu of Baal worship), Fula, Boko or Busa (the language I worked in for a short time), or some as yet untranslated language for which there is no orthography. Take care and best wishes.

Edited December 13, 2021 by Navidad

[Anakin7]

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com

Edited December 13, 2021 by Anakin7