Gramps,

When and how were the temple sacrifices stopped after Jesus introduced the sacrament?

Vicki

Answer

Dear Vicki,

We know that, right after His crucifixion, the Lord excused His followers from the necessity of blood sacrifices.  See, for example, 3 Nephi 9:19:

And ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be done away, for I will accept none of your sacrifices and your burnt offerings.

We presume that such sacrifices among the Nephites stopped immediately.  But in Judea, such sacrifices continued in the temple as they had for the last thousand years.  Early Christian converts up until Paul’s ministry were nearly all Jews, and it seems that many of them continued to observe Jewish temple rites and even sacrifices.  See, for example, Acts 21:26, where Paul brings other Christians into the temple to symbolize their ritual purification and even intends that an (animal) offering be made for them.

The temple at Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 by Roman legions who were quelling a Jewish revolt.  Six hundred years later, rulers sympathetic to Judaism permitted the resumption of animal sacrifices on the temple mount and the reconstruction of the temple; these attempts were ended when Christians briefly regained control of the area.  By the end of the seventh century AD Muslims invaders had taken Jerusalem and built the Dome of the Rock on the traditional site of the temple; which structure still stands today.

As for the Church:  Joseph Smith observed in passing that animal sacrifice would be briefly resumed as part of the restoration of all things (see generally History of the Church 4:211-212).  A church member named Wandle Mace remembered Joseph discussing with the Twelve, the possibility of an animal sacrifice being offered at the Kirtland temple; though it is unclear whether this sacrifice was ever done.  Wilford Woodruff also recalled Brigham Young describing plans for a space for animal sacrifices in the Salt Lake Temple; though no such facility was ever actually incorporated in the finished temple.  However, Joseph Fielding Smith has affirmed:

Now in the nature of things, the law of sacrifice will have to be restored, or all things which were decreed by the Lord would not be restored. It will be necessary, therefore, for the sons of Levi, who offered the blood sacrifices anciently in Israel, to offer such a sacrifice again to round out and complete this ordinance in this dispensation. Sacrifice by the shedding of blood was instituted in the days of Adam and of necessity will have to be restored.
 

The sacrifice of animals will be done to complete the restoration when the temple spoken of is built; at the beginning of the millennium, or in the restoration, blood sacrifices will be performed long enough to complete the fulness of the restoration in this dispensation. Afterwards sacrifice will be of some other character. (Doctrines of Salvation 3:94)

Gramps

Gramps,

Does the LDS church help people with money situations if the person is not LDS?

Sara

Answer

Sara,

The LDS Church has many methods to help people who are struggling. When there is a natural disaster the church does send out much in humanitarian aid and volunteers to the affected area. In those cases all you need to be is a victim of such a disaster to receive assistance. It does not matter if those people are a member of the LDS Church or not.

That is the large scale. For the individual and individual families, the Church teaches people to be self reliant. For each individual to hold the responsibility to take care of themselves and their dependents. The church will do nothing to remove that responsibility or allow a person to shift it off themselves and on to the Church. But the Church also recognizes that people do occasionally run into problems that overwhelm them. In those cases the Church also has a program. This program is where the members fast for one day a month and then donate the money that would have been spent on food to the Church to help others. These funds can be used to help anyone at the local Bishop’s discretion.

The Bishop holds the responsibility for the wise use of fast offering funds. Any individual who wishes church assistance will need to talk to the Bishop of their local area. The bishop will ask questions and try to understand the needs of anyone that comes to talk to him. The bishop will then try to figure out the best way to return that person to self-reliance. Some times the answer is cash, other times it could be with food, still other times it could be a referral to someone else. Sometimes it can be all three.  There will be some times that no help is given (as harsh as that sounds).   One of the things a Bishop will also have to consider is the amount of fast offering funds he has available to work with.  If his funds are already used to help others, then his ability to help with funds can be strictly limited.

So Sara to answer your question, yes there is a program that the LDS church has in place that can help both its members and non-members financially. However it is limited and controlled by the Bishop who has the burden of deciding if and how to help for both members and non-members alike.

Gramps

I have a question concerning Fast Sunday. A week ago (which was fast Sunday) I had to take prescription medicine that says, Take With Food. I fasted my two meals, but put one bite of food in my mouth Sunday morning to take my pill. One bite is all I had. Was this breaking my fast? I’ve heard different things. One person said just to not take my medicine for a day, but if I hadn’t, my ear would have been in unbearable pain. Another said we’re not supposed to fast when we’re sick, but only my ear and mouth (I had just had 2 teeth pulled) were bothering me, and I really felt the urge to fast about a certain thing that Sunday. I’ve also been told that it’s not breaking my fast; the Lord understands I had to take the medicine. This seems most logical to me, but I am confused. What do you say?

Lindsay

Dear Lindsay,

It appears that we have a couple of issues to consider- one is an issue of semantics and the other is an issue of procedure. First to the semantics. The definition of fasting in the context of LDS Church procedure is to abstain from food or drink for two consecutive meals, and to give the money saved by not eating to the Church as a fast offering. A special day has been set aside once a month for the members of the Church to observe the fast together. It is normally held on the first Sunday of the month and is the traditional day on which opportunity is given to the members of the Ward to publicly express the witnesses that they have received of the truthfulness of the gospel and of the blessings of the Lord in their lives. If one takes any food or drink for whatever reason during the period of the fast, technically the fast is broken.

Now to the question of procedure. Fast day is traditionally held on the first Sunday of the month, but that is a tradition of procedure, not a principle of the gospel. For instance, if stake conference or general conference is held on the first Sunday of the month, fast Sunday is shifted to some other time.

Does fast day have to be on a Sunday? The first fast days, organized by Joseph Smith, were held on the first Thursday of each month. A fast meeting was held on that day to which the members who had fasted were to bring the food that they had not eaten, so that it could be distributed to the poor. Fast day was not changed to Sunday until November 5, 1896. The change from the first Thursday to the first Sunday of the month came about in this manner.

“Hyrum M. Smith, who later became a member of the Council of the Twelve, was a missionary in Newcastle, England, in the year 1896. On the Thursday of the fast meeting, members of the Church in that land had to get excused from their employment with a loss of pay. Some of them were workers in the coal mines. When these came from the pits, they had to go home, bathe, and change their clothes. This was a loss both of time and compensation. Hyrum wrote to his father, President Joseph F. Smith, and asked why, under such circumstances, the fast day had to be a Thursday and not a Sunday. President Smith took the letter to the meeting of the First Presidency and the apostles and presented it there. The following is an excerpt from the minutes of the meeting held November 5, 1896:

President Joseph F. Smith introduced the subject of fast meetings, suggesting that a change of the time from the first Thursday to the first Sunday in each month would probably be beneficial. This was endorsed by President George Q. Cannon, and after other brethren had spoken on the subject, it was decided that the Tabernacle services be dispensed with on the first Sunday of each month, and that the saints in this city as well as in the country wards, should have the privilege of meeting in their meeting houses at 2 o’clock p.m., to observe fast day” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol. 1, p. 93.)

It would seem from the above that if there were a personal reason that prevented one from fasting in the established fast day, it would be perfectly in order to choose another day on which to observe the fast. That day could be devoted to prayer, as appropiate, and could be as much a basis for a generous fast offering as would be fasting on any other day.

Gramps

If you chew a piece of gum, is it breaking a fast? Thanks.

Anna, from Washington

Dear Anna,

Fasting has a dual purpose. One purpose is to provide funds for the care of the poor, and the other purpose is to increase our spirituality by the practice of overcoming our bodily appetites and passions. One gains spiritual strength by overcoming the temptation to partake of food or water during the fasting period. If we find some way of easing the burden we may in some sense may be defeating part of the purpose. However, I imagine that the decision in such matters is left up to the individual-another case of let your conscience be your guide.

Gramps

Aloha Gramps,

I am currently the Relief Society President of our Ward in the Mormon Church and my husband and I had an interesting talk the other day about how our tithing money is spent. The State of Hawaii is currently experiencing a teacher’s strike and there are a few members in our ward who are teachers and awaiting the Governor’s decision. My husband felt that going on strike is a personal decision which also puts your family’s welfare at risk. Should the Church be taking money from its members to make ends meet for the families on strike? Isn’t this why we are asked to save money in our food storage plan? The reason why we are asking is because an individual stood up and said he was keeping a food storage and that he had most of the requirements for his family but he would go see the Bishop for what he didn’t have. Is that planning? We feel that only the really needy should be taking from the bishop’s storehouse and if you made this decision to do without a salary and leave your family’s life in the hands of someone else that should be your own responsibility.

Concerned

Answer

Dear Concerned,

There are several questions embedded in the concern that you expressed above. First, you seem to relate tithing monies with assistance from the bishop’s storehouse. Cash assistance given by the bishop to the worthy poor comes from the fast offering fund. Tithing is not normally used for the cash needs of welfare assistance. Secondly, you seem to imply that the bishop is obligated to help those who come to him for assistance regardless of the circumstance. The bishop will provide welfare service according to his own inspired judgment, assessing both the worthiness and the needs of the individual. So regardless of any particular individual’s desire for assistance, I’m confident that the bishop will make appropriate judgments and provide assistance in accordance with church policy, inspired guidance and the needs of the individual.

Gramps

Gramps,

We have a question that is almost, well, like we “should know better than to ask,” yet we really don’t ‘know better’. All our life we have been taught that we cannot put ourselves in the Lords’ debt, and we truly believe that. We don’t have to “give” any longer than the Lord keeps giving to us. We have learned from experience that He blesses us far beyond our dreams when we are obedient. We understand that when we do as requested to “double our Fast Offerings” that the blessings ‘will come’, and they do. When we pay our tithes the windows of heaven are opened to us.

Now, after trying to be obedient in the area of donations of material means, and trying to double our Fast Offerings each time we listen to our local leaders or a speaker in sacrament meeting tell us of the need for the donations and the blessings that follow, we find ourselves paying a Fast Offering that almost exceeds our monthly grocery bill. And my husband feels we really should ‘cut back’.  We are both returned missionaries, active in our ward, and temple attenders.  We are a young couple trying to raise four young children and have budgeted right down to the wire, and find it almost impossible to make ends meet.  I know we should not ask “How long do we keep doubling?” but it is getting increasingly difficult and we are beginning to ‘go without.’ We have cut and cut in other areas.  Guess we could use some of your wisdom, and well, do we keep on doubling and doubling? When our children need medications and medical care?  Almost ashamed to ask, but we would appreciate an answer from you, since we have read and respected your wisdom for so long. Thanks so very much.

A young couple in Idaho

Answer

Dear Young Couple,

It’s terribly important to keep things in perspective. The wage earner, for instance, would do well to pay a tithing on his gross income, i.e. before taxes and other deductions. However, if a store owner who made a profit of 5% of his gross income, were to pay tithing on the gross, he would quickly lose his business because his business costs him 95% of his income. So the businessman must pay tithing on the profit from his business, not on the total income.

A young couple without children may be in a position to sacrifice some material needs in donating liberally to the church, but when children come along, priorities must change. These children, our Father’s children, are on loan to us. They are given into our care for the purpose of developing in them the principles of faith and testimony, and to prepare them to acquire the knowledge of the gospel. Also, we are charged with their happiness.

If we pay excessive fast offerings, anticipating added blessings from the Lord, and in so doing, sacrifice in any degree the welfare of our children, the Lord will undoubtedly not be pleased, as by our actions we will assuredly produce more harm than good.

If we hear from our local authorities to ‘double our fast offering’ and do so, we will be blessed for our obedience to counsel. However, I am sure that if we keep hearing this counsel and keep doubling our fast offerings each time we hear it, we soon won’t have enough money to take care of any other responsibility, or even to keep ‘obediently’ doubling our fast offering.

I’m sure the authorities never suggested that you quadruple your fast offering. So, having doubled it, you are now in compliance. It is not the amount of money given that is of value to the Lord, but it is the condition of the heart of the giver. If we live in the spirit of the gospel, trying to be obedient to the principles of the gospel and devoting ourselves in kindness to the welfare of our Father’s other children we will indeed fulfill His will.

It may be well to reflect on the change brought about by the Savior in the Old Testament law of sacrifice of material possessions, as He explained in 3 Ne 9:20, to the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

Gramps