Sustaining Church officers during the solemn assembly of April 2008 General Conference

I have been thinking recently about the power, significance, and symbolism of using our arms, particularly our right arm or hand.  I’m not sure what it is that gives this power to the way we use our arms and hands, but there is a fundamental force that comes from using them.  It could be that we use our arms and hands to accomplish most of what we do in a day; they are our main tools of action.  We use our arms and hands to get dressed, eat, drive, use a computer, handle objects, express ourselves, shake hands, signal to people, communicate, and do many of the things we do every day.  But there is something else that makes our arms and hands powerful, especially when we raise them up. 

I’ve written before about the use of the hands in many symbolic ways.  It can be seen in art, in marriage, commencement ceremonies, shaking hands, presidential inaugurations, trial oaths, Hinduism and Buddhism (very interesting in its own right), the origin of letters, and prayer.  We seal a deal by shaking hands.  We often use an uplifted hand to signal “STOP,” or to call attention in public places.  We raise our hand to ask a question or give a comment in the classroom or other meetings.  Raising the hand can also be a form of identification, of picking an individual from a group.

I came across an interesting quote from President Joseph Fielding Smith this morning about the use of the right hand in gospel ordinances:

The custom, evidently by divine direction, from the very earliest time, has been to associate the right hand with the taking of oaths, and in witnessing or acknowledging obligations. The right hand has been used, in preference to the left hand, in officiating in sacred ordinances where only one hand is used.

The earliest reference we have to the superiority of the right hand over the left, in blessing, is found in the blessing of Jacob to his two grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh, when he placed his hand “wittingly” upon the heads of the boys (Gen. 48:13-14).

Earlier, when Abraham sent his servant to Abraham’s own kindred to find a wife for Isaac, he had the servant place his hand under his (Abraham’s) thigh, and swear to him that he would accomplish his mission (Gen. 24:1-9). Evidently, this was the servant’s right hand.

The Lord said through Isaiah: “Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea. I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness” (Isa. 41:10).

In the Psalms we read: “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool” (Ps. 110:1; Matt. 22:44; Matt. 25:33-46; Acts 7:55; Rom. 8:34; 1 Pet. 3:22).

It is the custom to extend the right hand in token of fellowship (Gal. 2:9).  The right hand is called the dexter, and the left, the sinister; dexter means right and sinister means left. Dexter, or right, means favorable or propitious. Sinister is associated with evil, rather than good, Sinister means perverse.

We take the sacrament with the right hand. We sustain the authorities with the right hand. We make acknowledgment with the right hand raised.

I thought it insightful after the sustaining of President Monson in the April 2008 General Conference that Elder Hales made this remark:

I, like you, appreciated the participation in the solemn assembly. But I thought I might give one point of doctrine and help. When we raised our hands to the square in the solemn assembly, it was not just a vote in that we gave of ourselves a private and personal commitment, even a covenant, to sustain and to uphold the laws, ordinances, commandments, and the prophet of God, President Thomas S. Monson. I so appreciated participating with you and raising my right hand to the square.

Power in the Right Hand

Genesis 8

Noah's Thanksoffering (c.1803) by Joseph Anton Koch. (click image for larger view)

This morning I was listening to the ABC News report on the incoming hurricane Ike, which is heading straight towards the Galveston/Houston area of Texas, and the forecast of widespread destruction that it is provoking.  The news anchor was reporting from Galveston Island, Texas, where the brunt of the storm is said to be bearing down quickly.  The reporter ended his news clip by saying that there was a rainbow directly over Galveston Island.

It is destructive times like these that cause us to reflect on God, and His place in our world.  It seems like cruel irony that the rainbow was placed as a sign of the covenant that God made with man that He would not flood the earth again.  But then again, that was surely a deliberate decision, that each time we witness these horrific natural events like hurricanes we remember God is still there, and that He knows our trials and tribulations (cf. Hel. 12:3).  Yes, even “if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to hedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good” (D&C 122:7).  Events like these turn us back to God, and remind us to worship Him who is the Creator of heaven and earth.  It is only by obeying God’s commandments and enduring trying times such as these that we can “triumph over all [our] foes” (D&C 121:7-8): 

8 ¶ And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;
10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.
11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth. (Gen. 9:8-17)

This is a very insightful passage of scripture.  What we have here is a covenant pattern, with ritual enactments which bind the covenant.  God establishes a covenant with man, with a promise, and signs that covenant with a physical/visual token (Hebrew ‘owth [H226], also means sign, distinguishing mark, or ensign; perhaps related to our English word oath) by the setting of the rainbow in the sky in remembrance of that covenant.  Both God and man could look upon that token, the rainbow, and remember the covenant that they had made (v. 16).  It is also interesting that Ezekiel uses the rainbow to describe the glory and presence of the Lord (Ezek. 1:28).

Was it only a one-way covenant?  Absolutely not.  There is no such thing; covenants are by definition two-way agreements, which is clear in this scripture (see verses 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17).  The above passage comes directly after Noah and his family had left the ark and Noah built up an altar and offered burnt sacrifices upon it (Gen. 8:20).  Noah was proclaiming his allegiance to God, and his remembrance of the ultimate sacrifice of His Only Begotten Son, and that he would follow God’s commandments by offering sacrifices and burnt offerings (cf. Moses 5:6-8).  These sacrifices were the sign or token of Noah’s promise before God.  Only after Noah offers his sacrifice does God make several reciprocal promises to Noah and his family, followed by God’s token of the covenant in the rainbow:

21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. (Gen. 8:21-22)
1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein. (Gen. 9:1-7)

You’ll notice that the blessings and stipulations of the covenant include promised land, posterity, and health, the same as the covenant that God made later with Abraham (Abr. 2:6-11), Isaac (Gen. 26: 1-4, 24), and Jacob (Gen. 28; Gen. 35: 9-13; Gen. 48: 3-4).  You’ll also notice that these blessings are a reversal of the consequences of the Fall of Adam and Eve.  For instance, Adam and Eve were told that the ground would be cursed for their sake (Gen. 3:17).  Here Noah is told that the ground is no more cursed (Gen. 8:21).  The commandment and blessing to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth is the same command Adam and Eve received before the Fall (Gen. 1:28).

A modern prophet in this dispensation has reemphasized the two-way nature of the covenant that God made with Noah, and the sign and token of the rainbow. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught:

I have asked of the Lord concerning His coming; and while asking the Lord, He gave a sign and said, “In the days of Noah I set a bow in the heavens as a sign and token that in any year that the bow should be seen the Lord would not come; but there should be seed time and harvest during that year: but whenever you see the bow withdrawn, it shall be a token that there shall be famine, pestilence, and great distress among the nations, and that the coming of the Messiah is not far distant.”

But I will take the responsibility upon myself to prophesy in the name of the Lord, that Christ will not come this year, as Father Miller has prophesied, for we have seen the bow… (HC 6:254; March 10, 1844)

The Lord deals with this people as a tender parent with a child, communicating light and intelligence and the knowledge of his ways as they can bear it. The inhabitants of the earth are asleep: they know not the day of their visitation. The Lord hath set the bow in the cloud for a sign that while it shall be seen, seed time and harvest, summer and winter shall not fail; but when it shall disappear, woe to that generation, for behold the end cometh quickly. (HC 5:402; May 21, 1843)

If man does not remember God, and his oblations to Him, then the covenant will be broken.  Does God make such covenants with man today?  I testify that He does, and only in His temple, the house of the Lord.

The singer/songwriter Kirby once wrote a song entitled “Hurricane Rainbow”:

A rainbow bent down
And touched that hurricane hole
Her multi-colored majesty
Made me again – remember when
That big wind she blew
And turned our world to gray
And if it weren't for you
I may not be – here today

A furious wind howls
And the angry waves pound
But we're alright – since we saw
A rainbow come down

Way up in the states they say
This whole island got blown away
Oh how dem newsboys love dat stuff
Rooftops fly – cows sail by
Well sure we lost a few rooftops
Boats were ravaged on the rocks
But that lunatic was way too slow
To blow away – this rainbow

Oh a furious wind howls
And the angry waves pound
But we're alright – since we saw
A rainbow come down

Yes we're alright – since we saw
A rainbow come down

The Rainbow – A Token of the Covenant

A small disclaimer.  I am most definitely an amateur when it comes to Hebrew, so any insights I might gather should be taken with a grain of salt.  Perhaps someone with greater expertise can make a greater inquiry into this particular subject.  These are just some of my observations as I’m learning.

Firstly, the Hebrew word tav is made up of two Hebrew letters, tav and vav, which lends the pronunciation “tawv,” the same way its first letter is pronounced.  The letter tav is also where we get our modern Romanized letter T.  The definition of this word tav (Strong H8420) according to Brown-Driver-Briggs is simply a “desire” or “mark,” or “mark (as a sign of exemption from judgment).”  It is likely a derivative of the Hebrew word tavah (Strong H8427), meaning “to scrabble, limit, mark, or set a mark.”  Gesenius gives an interesting description of the word tav:

(1) a sign, Eze. 9:4 (Arab. a sign in the form of a cross branded on the thigh of neck of horses and camels, whence the name of the letter tav, which in Phoenician, and on the coins of the Maccabees has the form of a cross.  From the Phoenicians the Greeks and Romans took both the name and form of the letter.)
(2) sign (cruciform), mark subscribed instead of a name to a bill of complaint; hence subscription, Job 31:35. It is stated that at the Synod of Chalcedon and other synods principally in the East, some even of the bishops being unable to write, put the sign of the cross instead of their names, which is still often done by common people in legal proceedings; so that in the infancy of the art of writing this could not fail of being the case, so as for the expression to be received into the usage of language.

The next thing I noticed is that the word tav is only found three times in the Hebrew Old Testament.  Two of those times are in the 9th chapter of Ezekiel that we’ve already discussed.  The only other instance is found in the book of Job:

Oh that one would hear me! behold, my desire is, that the Almighty would answer me, and that mine adversary had written a book. (Job 31:35 – KJV)

I immediately saw that the use of the word tav is not as noticeable in this scripture as it is in Ezekiel.  The translation “mark” does not appear, neither does the word “sign.”  Upon further investigation it appears that the English King James translation has changed the rendering of this verse significantly from what the Hebrew reads.  Different renderings can be found in the older Bishops’ Bible (1568) and Geneva Bible (1587), precursors to the King James Version, which seem to record the Hebrew more closely:

O that I had one which woulde heare me: beholde my signe in the whiche the almightie shal aunswere for me, though he that is my contrarie partie hath written a booke against me. (Job 31:35 – Bishops’)

Oh that I had some to heare me! beholde my signe that the Almightie will witnesse for me: though mine aduersary should write a booke against me, (Job 31:35 – Geneva)

Indeed, many commentators agree that a better English rendering of the phrase is “behold my sign” or “behold my mark” or “behold my signature.”  This is even reflected in some of the latest translations:

Oh, that I had one to hear me!
Here is my mark.
Oh, that the Almighty would answer me,
That my Prosecutor had written a book! (Job 31:35 – New King James Version, 1982)

Oh that I had one to hear me! Behold, here is my signature; Let the Almighty answer me! And the indictment which my adversary has written, (Job 31:35 – New American Standard Bible, 1995)

So what was Job setting his mark to?  What was he signing his signature to?  What was the nature of this sign?  Or, if we take the meaning we’ve learned from the Ezekiel context, why was he calling attention to his anointed status?  Furthermore, if the Name that the high priests received in their forehead was the Lord’s, was Job’s mark his own, or was it the Lord’s?  These are all interesting questions to ponder and consider.  I’ll try to give some brief context, which might help to illuminate the meaning of this scripture.

Most of us know the story given in the book of Job in the Bible.  Job is introduced to us as a just and upright man, who was obedient to God and rejected evil; he is even noted as being “perfect” (Job 1:1; perfect = Hebrew tam, meaning complete, perfect, sound, wholesome, morally innocent, ethically pure).  Job was blessed greatly, and was quite prosperous, having a large family and many possessions which gave him the title of being “the greatest of all the men of the east” (Job 1:2-3).  He performed temple-related labors for his household (Job 1:5).  Along comes Satan who makes an agreement with the Lord to test and try Job in his faithfulness (Job 1:7-12).  Through these trials Job loses his possessions, his family, and his health (Job 1-2).  Through all of his tribulations, Job stays true to God, and bears his afflictions with patience, continually calling upon the name of God.  Three “friends” come along and tell him that he must have sinned for such punishments to have been inflicted upon him, and that he must repent.  Another stranger also condemns him for what he has done.  In all of this Job stands firm in the conviction that he has been faithful and true to God, and has not sinned to cause these trials to come upon him.

Job pleading with the Lord

Job makes continual pleadings that God would hear him, and that they could converse with one another:

Oh that I might have my request; and that God would grant me the thing that I long for! (Job 6:8)

Whom, though I were righteous, yet would I not answer, but I would make supplication to my judge.  If I had called, and he had answered me; yet would I not believe that he had hearkened unto my voice. (Job 9:15-16)

Surely I would speak to the Almighty, and I desire to reason with God. (Job. 13:3)

Then call thou, and I will answer: or let me speak, and answer thou me. (Job. 13:22)

Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee… (Job 14:15)

Oh that I knew where I might find him! that I might come even to his seat! … I would know the words which he would answer me, and understand what he would say unto me. (Job 23:3, 5)

Such pleadings recall the Psalmist pattern of prayer for the Lord to hear or give ear to the petitioner (see Ps. 54:2).

Then, what we come to in chapter 31 is a turning point in the narrative, as Matthew Henry informs us:

Job had often protested his integrity in general; here he does it in particular instances, not in a way of commendation (for he does not here proclaim his good deeds), but in his own just and necessary vindication, to clear himself from those crimes with which his friends had falsely charged him, which is a debt every man owes to his own reputation.

Chapter 31 has been labelled “Job’s Covenant”.  Job himself notes in verse 1 that “I made a covenant with mine eyes…”  Here Job is announcing to one and all the covenant that he has taken upon himself, and which he has not broken, including the specific laws or virtues by which he has bound himself to God.  Dr. Stephen Ricks from BYU also has noted the covenant pattern of this chapter in his paper “Oaths and Oath Taking in the Old Testament“:

The force of an oath may be strengthened by expressly stating the penalties incurred for failure to perform it. The number of explicitly mentioned curses is relatively limited in the Old Testament.  An outstanding example of the oath and curse appearing together is in Job 31, where Job, in defense of his actions, calls down a series of terrible curses upon himself if he has failed to live uprightly: “If I have walked with vanity, or if my foot hath hasted to deceit; Let me be weighed in an even balance. . . . Then let me sow, and let another eat; yea, let my offspring be rooted out” (Job 31:5-8; see Psalms 7:3-5; 137:5-6).

Job lists a number of laws or commandments which he has obeyed as part of this covenant, and, if he has not fulfilled them, welcomes down penalties upon his head.  The sins that he denies committing are:

• wantonness & uncleanliness (v. 1-4)
• fraud, deceit, dishonesty in dealings (v. 4-8)
• adultery (v. 9-12)
• poor dealings with fellow man (v. 13-15)
• bad treatment of the poor, widows, or fatherless (v. 16-23)
• love of wealth (v. 24-25)
• idolatry (v. 26-28)
• revenge (v. 29-31)
• inhospitality of the poor/strangers (v. 32)
• hypocrisy in covering sin (v. 33)
• oppression and violation of other’s rights (v. 38-40)

At verse 35, Job appeals to the judgment bar of God to vindicate his righteousness.  He requests that God would hear him or give him a hearing at His bar, and then displays a mark or sign (our Hebrew tav) which somehow represents all of the covenant that he has just finished reciting and which he has faithfully obeyed in his life, and asks if God would answer him (respond, testify, witness) of its truth.  The Geneva Bible Translation Notes record the intent of Job:

This is a sufficient token of my righteousness, that God is my witness and will justify my cause.

Albert Barnes gives us further insight into the potential meaning of the sign or mark given by Job:

According to this, Job means to say that he was ready for trial, and that there was his bill of complaint, or his pleading, or his bill of defense. So Herder renders it, "See my defense." Coverdale, "Lo, this is my cause." Miss Smith renders it, "Behold my gage!" Umbreit, Meinel Kagschrift – My accusation. There can be no doubt that it refers to the forms of a judicial investigation, and that the idea is, that Job was ready for the trial. "Here" says he, "is my defense, my argument, my pleading, my bill! I wait that my adversary should come to the trial." The name used here as given to the bill or pleading (תו  tâv, mark, or sign), probably had its origin from the fact that some mark was affixed to it – of some such significance as a seal – by which it was certified to be the real bill of the party, and by which he acknowledged it as his own. This might have been done by signing his name, or by some conventional mark that was common in those times.

Moreover, looking at the Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament reveals yet another possible translation for the “mark” in Job 31:35.  A literal translation of the Greek reads:

oh that there might be given one to hear me, of the hand but of the Lord unless I was in awe; and as to a writ which I had against anyone, (Job 31:35 – The Apostolic Bible)

The word translated as “hand” comes from the Greek cheir (Strong 5495) meaning “by the help or agency of any one” or figuratively “applied to God symbolizing his might, activity, power,” and is often translated as “hand,” “hands,” or once “grasp” in the New American Standard translation.

The following verses continue Job’s surety of victory and of his at-one-ment with God:

Surely I would take it upon my shoulder, and bind it as a crown to me.  I would declare unto him the number of my steps; as a prince would I go near unto him. (Job 31:36-37)

The chapters which follow include the Lord responding to Job, from out of a whirlwind or from the “veil of a dark cloud” (Job 38:1), thus granting his pleadings for questions and answers:

Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. (Job. 38:3)

Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. (Job. 40:7)

The Lord recounts to Job the unmatched power of God in comparison to the lowliness of man, including an accounting of the supreme strength and power which He is able to bestow according to His will upon His creations, such as the animals behemoth and leviathan:

15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. (Job 40:15-19)

Job confesses to God’s power, that He can do everything, and humbles himself before the Lord (Job 42:2).  Job repeats his wish of a hearing before God:

Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. (Job 42:4)

Job is now granted his wish, and experiences a theophany or vision of the Lord:

I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. (Job. 42:5)

The Lord accepts Job (Job 42:9), and bestows upon him twice as much as he had before, both in terms of possessions and in family value and posterity (Job 42:10, 15-16), a blessing for his obedience and faithfulness to God despite the temptations which Satan had heaped upon him to test and try him.  Interestingly, in many ways Job’s life is a “historical prototype of Jesus: the Man of Sorrows”.

In conclusion, the book of Job is replete with this imagery which I had not before recognized, and which I don’t think has been studied in depth before from this LDS perspective, particularly chapters 31 and 40-42.  Clearly there is much more work that could be done here.  Looking further into the meaning of the original Hebrew (or Greek) is especially instructive.  No doubt this is why the Prophet Joseph Smith was so interested in learning the original language of the scriptures, and in having the brethren around him to do the same, so they could better understand God’s word.

Job’s Covenant: Hebrew Tav and “Behold my sign!” in Job 31

The modern handfasting ritual typically consists of tying the right hands of the couple to be betrothed or wed with a ribbon or cord while the couples exchange their vows.  This is also probably the origin of the common phrase, “tying the knot.”  In some cases, all four hands are tied together to make a figure 8 when viewed from above, the symbol of infinity or eternity (as in the photo on the right).

There is a good treatment on the history of Medieval handfasting on MedievalScotland.org, in which the author quotes from A.E. Anton:

Among the people who came to inhabit Northumbria and the Lothians, as well as among other Germanic peoples, the nuptials were completed in two distinct phases. There was first the betrothal ceremony and later the giving-away of the wife to the husband. The betrothal ceremony was called the beweddung in Anglo-Saxon because in it the future husband gave weds or sureties to the woman’s relatives, initially for payment to them of a suitable price for his bride but later for payment to her of suitable dower and morning-gift. The parties plighted their troth and the contract was sealed, like any other contract, by a hand-shake. This joining of hands was called a handfæstung in Anglo-Saxon, and the same word is found in different forms in the German, Swedish and Danish languages. In each it means a pledge by the giving of the hand. ….  

…After the consents had been exchanged ‘the curate with the consent of both parties with their hands joined betrothed the said David and Janet who took oath as is the custom of the Church‘. In fact, the ceremony of joining hands became so closely associated with betrothals in medieval times that in Scotland, and apparently the north of England, the ordinary term for a betrothal was a handfasting. The use of the term in this sense persisted in Elgin as late as 1635.

This practice is much more widespread than just the U.K.  Such joining of the hands also occurs in Eastern Orthodox weddings.  In fact, several details of their wedding ritual are interesting from an LDS standpoint.  S.Faux over at Mormon Insights has taken note that in the Orthodox ceremony the bride and groom are quite literally crowned king and queen within their sub-kingdom in the kingdom of God, quoting from WeddingDetails.com:

The Greek Orthodox wedding Ceremony consists of two parts: The Betrothal and the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. It is a Christian ceremony.

In the Betrothal service, the Priest blesses the rings of the Bride and Groom, then places them on their right hands. The sponsor then exchanges the rings between them three times signifying that their lives are intertwined forever. ...

The Marriage Ceremony begins immediately thereafter culminating in the crowning [with physical crowns]. It begins with the Priest giving the Bride and Groom lighted candles, which they hold throughout the service. The candles ... indicate that Christ, the Light of the World, will light the way of their new life together.

Following a series of petitions and prayers with special reference to well known couples of the Old Testament, such as Abraham and Sarah [an allusion to the Abrahamic convenant], the Priest will join the right hands of the couple. This is an ancient symbol of marriage in which the Priest prays for God to “unite your servants, and crown them in one flesh…”

The Priest will then lead the couple around the wedding table or altar table three times. He holds the Bible in his hand, reminds the Bride and Groom that the Word of God should lead them through life. The circle represents eternal marriage, for a circle has neither a beginning or and end.

The ceremony ends with a benediction and prayer. The Priest uses the Bible to uncouple the hands of the Bride and Groom signifying that only god can come between them.

An excellent example of such a wedding service can be seen in this 10-minute long YouTube video (many other fine examples can be found on YouTube).  You can clearly see the elements of crowning, joining of the hands, tying the hands together (handfasting), and circling the altar.  Circling the altar also has some interesting relationships that I’ve written about before here in the ancient round dance.

These wedding elements can even be seen in such popular films like My Big Fat Greek Wedding where the actors are crowned with thin wreaths, join right hands, and circle the altar with the priest.

That this practice is very archaic is evident in my post on the Ancient Sacred Handclasp, referencing an article by Stephen Ricks at BYU.

Asking for Her Hand in Marriage, Tying the Knot, and Handfasting

(Continued from Part 3)

Some more tidbits of information from Wells’ The Oxford Degree Ceremonies that might interest you:

• The oath or charge to “observe the ‘statutes, privileges, customs and liberties’ of his university” and the accompanying affirmation “Do fidem” (“I swear”) are most likely over 700 years old, and initially were important to keep a unity among those who had subscribed to the university, and to keep out encroachments.
• The M.A.s are “exempt from Proctorial jurisdiction…” and “It is the M.A. who is admitted by the Vice-Chancellor to ‘begin’, i.e. to teach (ad incipiendum), when he is presented to him,” and many universities now call the end of the academic study “Commencement” because of this.
• A degree is a “‘step’ by which the distinction of becoming a full member” of the university is acquired.  Wells notes Gibbon’s idea that “the use of academical degrees is visibly borrowed from the mechanic corporations, in which an apprentice, after serving his time, obtains a testimonial of his skill, and his license to practise his trade or mystery.” 
• The Bachelor degree was an apprentice degree, an assistant, a pupil-teacher.
• The authority that the Vice-Chancellor had to grant degrees was originally from the Church of England.
• The degree was conferred by two modes:  first, by consent of the existing Masters, and second, by the giving of a “licence” by the Chancellor.  Originally, the granting of the license was conditional by participation in what is called the ceremonial “Act,” which has almost been completely abandoned in modern times.
  

  At it Masters and Doctors formally showed that they were able to perform the function of their new rank, and were then ‘admitted’ to it by investiture with the ‘cap’ of authority [birettatio, or "laying on of the cap"], with the ‘ring’, and with the ‘kiss’ of peace; the kiss was given by the Senior Proctor; the ring was the symbol of the inceptor’s mystical marriage to his science.

• The ceremonies of the “Act” were completely lost – “those ancient ceremonies and institution (sic) being as yet not wholly abolished…”, were last mentioned in 1733.
• M.A.s had to show their qualifications for the degree by “publicly attacking or defending theses solemnly approved for discussion by Congregation.”
• Some traces of the “Act” are preserved in the literary, musical, and celebratory Encaenia, a dedicatory ceremonial event which precedes graduation.  Interestingly, this has connections with the Feast of Dedication (also called the “Feast of Lights” or Hanukkah).  Wikipedia notes about Encaenia:
  

  The word is derived from the Greek word ‘εγκαίνια’, meaning a festival of renewal or dedication, and corresponds to the Latin term Commencement.

  Hanukkah is “is an eight-day Jewish holiday commemorating the rededication of the Second Temple in Jerusalem at the time of the Maccabean Revolt of the 2nd century BCE”.  Such a feast is mentioned in John 10:22.

  Such dedications are usually done to consecrate altars, temples, or other sacred buildings.

• This commemoration includes all the pomp worthy of the the academics:
  

  Commemoration may be, as John Richard Green said, ‘Oxford in masquerade’; there may be ‘grand incongruities, Abyssinian heroes robed in literary scarlet, degrees conferred by the suffrages of virgins in pink bonnets and blue, a great academical ceremony drowned in an atmosphere of Aristophanean (sic) chaff.

• Examinations were required anciently that were “rigorous and tremendous.” Robert de Sorbonne, the founder of the Paris college, gave a sermon once in which he compared the academic examinations with the Last Judgement:
  

  …it need hardly be said that the moral of the sermon is the greater severity of the heavenly test as compared with the earthly; if a man neglects his prescribed book, he will be rejected once, but if he neglect ‘the book of conscience, he will be rejected for ever’.

• One of the examinations anciently was known as Responsions.  Wikipedia notes:
  

  It was nicknamed the Little Go and was generally taken by students prior to or shortly after matriculation.  The examination consisted of comparatively simple questions on Latin, Ancient Greek and mathematics. . . . The name derives from Anglo-French responsion, Medieval Latin responsion, and from Latin responsio, to answer, or give a response.

  Candidates that passed the Responsions were called “sophista generalis,” meaning you had now become a true Sophist, which continues today in our term “sophomore.”

• An interesting aspect of the examination is that it was more concerned with the process, the procedure, the journey, and of becoming something, rather than reproducing knowledge – “it sought its qualifications on all sides of a man’s life.“  Those were admitted who were to be “fit in knowledge and [good] character.”
• Another curious tradition that was part of the degree ceremony was the deposition of certain witnesses who would testify of the fitness of the candidate for the degree they were seeking.  They had to “swear this from ‘sure knowledge’” and “to the best of their belief.”  The process took place as follows:
  

  These depositions were whispered into the ears of the Proctor by the witnesses kneeling before him.  The information was given on oath, and as it were under the seal of confession; for neither they nor the Proctors were allowed to reveal it.

• Much importance was placed on the academic dress.  It was symbolic – “From the soberest drab to the high flaming scarlet, spiritual idiosyncrasies unfold themselves in the choice of colour; if the cut betoken intellect and talent, so does the colour betoken temper and heart.”  Any alteration of the dress style was to be punished by imprisonment.
• The academic dress (gowns, caps and hoods) was to be procured by the candidate, by an oath, and was to be worn “on all proper occasions”.  Wouldn’t that be interesting if this statute continued to be practiced today?  But certain sacred clothing does find itself a permanent station or investiture in certain circumstances.
• The marks of the academic dresses, hoods, caps, colors, etc., all corresponded to your station in the University.
• Some of their cloaks were to be died purple to “suite the dignity of their position and to be like the blood of The Lord.”
• Being dressed with the gown was a noted experience:
  

  The gown, the ‘putting on’ of which is now the distinguishing mark of the taking of the B.A. or M.A., is simply the survival of a mediaeval garment which was not even clerical, the long gown (toga) or cassock, which was worn under the cappa [cape].

• The hood had its proper place in the ceremonial clothing:
  

  The mark, however, which specially distinguished the degree was the hood, as to which the University was always strict, assigning the proper material and the proper colour to that of each faculty. . . . Originally it seems to have been attached to the cappa, and, as its name implies, was used for covering (the head) when required. . . . The M.A. hood, even in its present mutilated form, still presents survivals of the time when it was a real head covering…

• The “cap of authority” was invested as part of the ceremonial “Act” in former times at Oxford University.  The style of the cap was unique and peculiar, and had quite a history:
  

  The cap was sometimes square (biretta), and sometimes round (pileus). Gascoigne (writing in 1456) tells us that in his day the round cap was worn by Doctors of Divinity and Canon Law, and that is had always been so since the days of King Alfred; not content with his antiquity, he also affirms that the round cap was given by God Himself to the doctors of the Mosaic Law [agreeing with Nibley's proposition].  He adds the more commonplace but more trustworthy information that the cap was in those days fastened by a string behind, to prevent its falling off.

  Wells adds that some of the modern inventions are not improvements to the archaic form:

  The modern stiff corners of the cap are an addition . . . the old cap drooped gracefully from its tuft in the centre . . . Later usage has specialized the round cap of velvet as belonging to the Doctors of Law and Medicine, and a most beautiful head-gear it is; it is preserved, in a less elaborate form, at the degree ceremony in the round caps of the Bedels.

  The tuft was eventually replaced by the tassel.  The universal alteration, adoption, and subsequent loss of symbolism of the cap is denounced by Wells:

  With the disappearance of social distinctions in dress, the tassel has been extended to all, except to choir-boys, and so the coveted badge of the mediaeval Master is now the property of all University ranks, and is undervalued and neglected in the same proportion as it has been rendered meaningless.

• Wells is disappointed overall in the stability of the academic dress over time:
  

  Academic dress has sadly lost its picturesqueness, especially for the undergraduate; his gown no longer reaches to his heels, as the statute still requires it to do . . . At the present time the scanty relics of mediaeval usage are at the mercy of the tailers; and though it must be said for their respresentatives in Oxford that they do their best to maintain old traditions, yet there is no doubt that innovations are slowly but steadily introduced . . .

• The Sheldonian Theatre was a consecrated building, originally built and “set apart for the immediate worship of God.”  This was the same arrangement for the older location of degree ceremonies, the Divinity School.

I hope this has been an educational analysis into the origins of the graduation attire, and more particularly the ceremonies, which date to over a millenia ago.

The Degree Ceremonies of Oxford University – Part 4

(Continued from Part 1)

Dr. Hugh Nibley’s opening remarks in his earthshaking address, “Leaders to Managers: The Fatal Shift,” given at the BYU commencement ceremony on August 19, 1983, would have fit even more perfectly in an Oxford setting. In refering to his statement in a commencement prayer he gave in 1960 in which he said, “We have met here today clothed in the black robes of a false priesthood,” he took this opportunity to explain:

Why a priesthood? Because these robes originally denoted those who had taken clerical orders; and a college was a “mystery,” with all the rites, secrets, oaths, degrees, tests, feasts, and solemnities that go with initiation into higher knowledge.

But why false? Because it is borrowed finery, coming down to us through a long line of unauthorized imitators. It was not until 1893 that “an intercollegiate commission was formed . . . to draft a uniform code for caps, gowns, and hoods” in the United States. Before that there were no rules. You could design your own; and that liberty goes as far back as these fixings can be traced. The late Roman emperors, as we learn from the infallible DuCange, marked each step in the decline of their power and glory by the addition of some new ornament to the resplendent vestments that proclaimed their sacred office and dominion. . . . 

But where did the Roman emperors get it? For one thing, the mortarboard was called a Justinianeion, because of its use by the Emperor Justinian, who introduced it from the East. He got his court trappings and his protocol from the monarchs of Asia. . . . The shamans of the North also had it. . . .

Another type of robe and headdress is described in Exodus and Leviticus and the third book of Josephus’s Antiquities, i.e., the white robe and linen cap of the Hebrew priesthood, which has close resemblance to some Egyptian vestments. . . . Both their basic white and their peculiar design, especially as shown in the latest studies from Israel, are much like our own temple garments. . . . The original idea behind both garments is the same--to provide a clothing more fitting to another ambience, action, and frame of mind than that of the warehouse, office, or farm. . . .

Both the black and the white robes proclaim a primary concern for things of the mind and the spirit, sobriety of life, and concentration of purpose removed from the largely mindless, mechanical routines of your everyday world. Cap and gown announced that the wearer had accepted certain rules of living and been tested in special kinds of knowledge.

Nibley continues to explain how the robes’ purpose shifted from setting someone apart from the world, to making a public display of someone’s supposed wisdom and knowledge before the world, to “masquerade in affectation.” It was a system that the Sophists set up in order to sell their knowledge to the highest bidder, who would then be given the same trappings to parade before their inferiors.

And down through the centuries the robes have never failed to keep the public at a respectful distance, inspire a decend awe for the professions, and impart an air of solemnity and mystery that has been as good as money in the bank. . . . What took place in the Greco-Roman as in the Christian world was that fatal shift from leadership to management that marks the decline and fall of civilizations. . . .

In a forgotten time, before the Spirit was exchanged for the office and inspired leadership for ambitious management, these robes were designed to represent withdrawal from the things of this world--as the temple robes still do. That we may become more fully aware of the real significance of both is my prayer.

We will see just how fully the university orders sought to imitate the order of the Ancient of Days, just as the Egyptians did thousands of years before them (Abraham 1:26). But, as always, we will follow Nibley’s example and precedence in that we will “describe and discuss only one of them [Oxford's degrees], preserving complete silence on the other [the Mormon temple],” and that “what is glaringly obvious to [the author] hardly needs to be called to the attention of any adult practicing Latter-day Saint . . .”.

As I mentioned in the previous post, Joseph Wells, former tutor and Warden of Wadham College at Oxford, who wrote a book in 1906 entitled The Oxford Degree Ceremonies, will be our guide. I did find a more recent study by L. H. Dudley Buxton that was published in 2007 under the title Oxford University Ceremonies, but I did not have as much access to this book. Wells’ analysis, on the other hand, is in the public domain.

In recent times, the degree ceremonies have taken place at the Sheldonian theatre at the university (see the picture at the beginning of the post). The officials of the ceremony include the Vice Chancellor, the Proctors, and the Registrar, who make their dramatic entrance in procession, being preceded by three staves or maces as symbols of authority. The proceedings follow like this:

• The Vice-Chacellor begins the assembly, called “the Ancient House of Congregation,” by declaring “the ’cause of this Congregation’”. This is done in English (the rest of the following ceremony proceeds in Latin), and usually includes a description of the ceremony and why they preserve the ancient tradition whereas other universities are more informal, the reason being respect for the graduates and tradition.
• The ceremony begins by a declaration from the Registrar that all prerequisites of the participants to participate in this ceremony have been taken care of previously – “the candidates for the degrees have duly received permissions (gratiae) from their Colleges to present themselves, and that their names have been approved by him; he has already certified himself from the University Register that all necessary examinations have been passed, and has been informed officially that all fees have been paid”.Such graces (gratiae) given from each of the Colleges read:
  

  “I, A.B., Dean of the College C.D., bear witness that E.F. of the College C.D., whom I know to have kept bed and board continuously within the University for the whole period required by the statues for the degree of B.A., according as the statues require, since he has undergone a public examination and performed all the other requirements of the statues, except so far as he has been dispensed, has received from his college the grace for the degree of B.A. Under my pledged word to this University.
  -A.B., Dean of the College C.D.”

• The degrees are taken in the order of Doctor of Divinity, Doctor of Civil Law or of Medicine, Bachelor of Divinity, Master of Surgery, Bachelor of Civil Law or of Medicine, Doctor of Letters or of Science, Master of Arts, Bachelor of Letters or of Science, Bachelor of Arts, and finally Musical degrees. The same forms for bestowing the degrees described below are followed for each of these separate degrees, and are thus repeated for each. Wells notes the importance of the repetition: “but it is important to remember that the essentials recur in each admission . . . This repetition was once a much more prominent feature; within living memory it was necessary for each ‘grace’ to be taken separately, and the Proctors ‘walked’ for each candidate. Degree ceremonies in those days went on to an interminable length, although the number graduating was only half what it is now”. The degree is granted in a fourfold process:
  1. Supplication – A supplication (supplicat) is made by one of the Proctors, a petition or appeal of the House to allow the candidate(s) to be allowed to receive their degree. A sample from an M.A. degree is given:
     

     E.F. of C. College, Bachelor of Arts, who has completed all of the requirements of the statues (except so far as he has been excused), asks of the venerable Congregation of Doctors and Regent Masters that these things may suffice for his admission to incept in the same faculty.

     The Proctor next reads each of the names of the candidates to receive the degree. After supplication, both Proctors walk down the House of Congregation, turn, and walk back. This is, in theory, the way the Proctors take votes of the M.A.s present for the ceremony – “it is the clear and visible assertion of the democratic character of the University; it implies that every qualified M.A. has a right to be consulted as to the admission of others to the position which he himself has attained”. Today, such a procession is mostly symbolic and traditional. After returning to their seats, one of the Proctors declares “‘the graces (or grace) to have been granted’…”

  2. Presentation – Following supplication, the candidates are presented before the Vice-Chancellor and Proctors by the Dean or professor at the head of the respective colleges, placing the candidate(s) on his/her right hand side, and grasping their right hand to one of the candidates’ right hands. The Dean and candidate(s) give a “proper bow” (debita reverentia) towards the Vice-Chancellor and each of the Proctors as the Dean, in the case of the M.A., says,
     

     Most eminent Vice-Chancellor, and excellent Proctors, I present this B.A. to you for admission to incept in the faculty of Arts.

     Wells notes the peculiarity of the grasp of the right hands:

     The old custom was that the presenter should grasp the hand of each candidate and present him separately; some senior members of the University still hold the hand of one of their candidates, though the custom of separate presentation has been abolished; there was an intermediate stage fifty years ago, when the number of those who could be presented at once was limited to five; each of them held a finger or a thumb of the presenter’s right hand.

  3. Proctorial Charge or Oath – A charge is delivered by one of the Proctors to the candidate(s) for each degree. At one time, a copy of the New Testament was given by the Bedel, on which the candidate(s) took their oath. The charge given to the doctorates and M.A.s is as follows:
     

     You will swear to observe the statues, privileges, customs and liberties of your University. Also when you have been admitted to Congregation and to Convocation you will behave in them loyally and faithfully to the honour and profit of the University And especially in matters concerning graces and degrees you will not oppose those who are fit or support the unfit. Also in elections you will write down and nominate one only and no more at each vote; and you will nominate no one but a man whom you know for certain or surely believe to be fit and proper.

     The candidate(s) then bow their head and say, “Do fidem,” which is Latin for “I swear.” During this portion the candidate is sometimes facilitated by a helper, particularly in modern times when many of the candidate(s) do not understand the ceremony which is mostly done in Latin.

     The oath given to the B.A.s or other degrees is shorter:

     You will swear to observe the statutes, privileges, customs and liberties of your University, as far as they concern you.

     Here Wells notes that the first part of the charge dates back to the beginning, while the rest is a modern composition. Apparently, earlier oaths were much more elaborate, including a charge for the candidate(s) to quickly obtain the dress appropriate for his/her degree.

     Degrees given to doctorates or bachelors in Divinity are given a different oath, by the senior of the candidate(s) first saying:

     I, A.B., do solemnly make the following declaration. I assent to the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion and to the Book of Common Prayer and of the ordering of biahops, priests, and deacons, and I believe the doctrine of the United Church of England and Ireland, as therein set forth, to be aggreable to the Word of God.

     The Proctor then charges the other candidate(s) that they will vicariously take upon themselves the same charge:

     The declaration which A.B. has made on his part, you will make on your part, together and severally.

     The candidate(s) always state their agreement by bowing and saying, “I swear.”

  4. Admission – The candidate(s) kneel before the Vice-Chancellor, who touches each on the head with the New Testament and repeats the formula:
     

     For the honour of our Lord Jesus Christ, and for the profit of our holy mother, the Church, and of learning, I, in virtue of my own authority and that of the whole University, give you permission to incept in the Faculty of Arts (or of Surgery, &c.), of reading, disputing, and performing all the other duties which belong to the position of a Doctor (or Master) in that same faculty, when the requirements of the statues have been complied with, in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

• Before the ceremony continues to other degrees, the candidates exit the building and completely change their gowns to the appropriate academic gown and hood according to their specific degree or authority they’ve been granted. They receive their new gown by giving a gratuity or “tip” of gold, the money prescribed by custom, to the college servants who await them outside. (As if the students haven’t already deposited fortunes of filthy lucre into the coffers of the university treasury; you can buy anything in this world for money). This gown is described as “much heavier and nicer, and had embroidery on the sleeves”.Then the new Doctors or Masters come back into the building, come before the Vice-Chancellor, bow again, and sometimes shake hands with the Vice-Chancellor. The new Doctors, the highest degree bestowed, are then admitted to take their place among the authorities on the raised stand behind and around the Vice-Chancellor. They are now initiated into and among the top brass of the university and secular world. The M.A.s and B.A.s are permitted to leave, or sit elsewhere among the congregation. They haven’t graduated as far as the Doctors degrees.
• The preceding is repeated for each of the degrees. Once this is finished, the Vice-Chancellor rises and announces, “Dissolvimus hanc Congregationem,” ending the service. The Vice-Chancellor, Proctors, and other officials leave the building in the same processional style as in the beginning.

We will continue to examine this ceremony in the next installment.

(Continued in Part 3)

The Degree Ceremonies of Oxford University – Part 2

As I mentioned in Part 1, the more interesting aspects of the Egyptian ankh are not necessarily what it means standing alone, but how the Egyptians used it in their texts and illustrations.

There are three principal ways that the Egyptians used the ankh symbol, by itself, in their drawings:

1. Probably the most common depiction of the ankh is being clutched in the hand by the gods and goddesses on the upper loop portion of the symbol.  Wikipedia notes:
   

   The ankh appears frequently in Egyptian tomb paintings and other art, often at the fingertips of a god or goddess in images that represent the deities of the afterlife conferring the gift of life on the dead person’s mummy…

   In other words, the Egyptians believed that their gods “held” eternal life in their hands, and could bestow it upon certain persons at their pleasing.  Chevalier and Gheerbrant note: 

   Gods, kinks and Isis (almost invariably) are depicted holding the ankh to show that they command the powers of life and death and that they are immortal. The dead also carry it at the time their souls are weighed  or when they are aboard the Boat of the Sun God, as a sign that they seek this same immortality from the gods. Furthermore the ankh symbolized the spring from which flowed divine virtues and the elixir of immortality. Therefore to hold the ankh was to drink from that well. It was sometimes held upside down by the loop – especially in funeral rites when it suggested the shape of a key and in reality was the key which opened the  gateway of the tomb into the Fields of Aalu, the realm of eternity. Sometimes the ankh is placed on the forehead, between the eyes, and then it symbolizes the duty of the adept to keep secret the mystery into which he has been initiated – it is the key which locks these secrets away from the uninitiated. Blessed by the supreme vision, endowed with clairvoyance to pierce the veil of the beyond, he cannot attempt to reveal the mystery without losing it for ever.

2. The act of giving the ankh to the king or pharaoh is also depicted, in two different ways.  First, it is shown in the introductory baptism or purification ritual of the king, where he receives a type of washing and anointing by the gods pouring the life-giving water over him, represented by ankh symbols.  Hugh Nibley explains:
   

   But water does more than purify--it gives life, literally, to all organisms; the water of life is a worldwide concept. “The ramifications of the subject are enormous,” Gardiner observes.  There is no mistaking the meaning of the little ankh (life) symbols which pour from the sacred vases in Egyptian baptismal scenes such as in the temple of Ramses II at Karnak, which shows the king being baptized with ankh and was (divine power) symbols as he enters the temple and which bears the inscription, “Water for his father, that life might be given to him.”

   Here is another representation of the same.

3. The second way the ankh is given to the Egyptian royalty was by the god or goddess holding the symbol to their mouth or nose.  One commenter notes:
   

   We find Anqet, Ptah,  Satet, Sobek,  Tefnut, Osiris, Ra, Isis,  Hathor,  Anibus and many other gods often holding the ankh sign, along with a scepter, and in various tomb and temple reliefs, placing it in front of the king’s face to symbolize the breath of eternal life.

   So in this sense, the god or goddess is bestowing or endowing the king, queen, or pharaoh with eternal life, or breath of life, by touching the ankh to their nose or lips.  What is interesting, as we’ve shown in part 1, is that the ankh also represents an “utterance of life” or an oath, symbolized by the binding of the knot, and as such also possibly depicts the god or initiate at the same time uttering words of eternal life, or making an oath or covenant in order to gain eternal life.

Hugh Nibley noted that the ankh symbol was also used to represent the gods or goddesses.  In describing the Egyptian House of Life he wrote:

The four houses that are the main part of the prehistoric cult-complex of Papyrus Salt 825 stand for Shu, Tefnut, Geb, and Nut--”that is to say, the four oldest gods, proceeding forth from the demiurge, who are here wind, fire, earth, and sky, the four elements of which life is comprised.” The four houses--with Osiris squarely in the middle of them, represented by the ankh-symbol--make up the House of Life, which seems to go back to an old tent or reed hut of purification.

Those that received the ankh were basically receiving the gods, and the rights, powers, and associations of the same:

There can be no doubt, Morenz insists, that the Osirianized dead receives the full status of godhood--indeed, that “to be divine (Göttlich-Sein) is the characteristic quality of the ba of the deceased.” Hence washing, anointing, censing, clothing, and nourishing are all rituals of deification, whether in the temple or the funerary services. The resurrection process is, in short, a deification process.

In the next part we will explore how the ankh was used in combination with other hieroglyphics, which gives us a glimpse of the substance of what was perhaps spoken by the god and the initiate as eternal life was bestowed.

(Continued in Part 3)

The Egyptian Ankh, “Life! Health! Strength!” – Part 2

But he said something on the program that night which resonated with me, and with LDS beliefs. He had received a letter from a listener that was having problems at home. This woman and her son were very fearful in their home. She did not believe she was raising her son right, and she also believed there was something going on in her kitchen. She said that they had been hearing unexplained sounds and noises, which continued to make them more fearful.

After reading the letter, Steve said that these so-called “demons” that many people believe exist are really lower thought patterns, and that the fear she was experiencing, a lower thought pattern itself, was attracting more lower thought patterns and “lower entities,” in the way that light attracts light or dark attracts dark (cf. D&C 88:40). Latter-day Saints know that these could very well could be evil spirits, Satan’s devils from those 1/3 spirits cast down from heaven to earth, and that they are very real and presence can be literally felt. Steve did, however, offer a way to get rid of them from their home, or “smudge” them, as he put it. While the traditional smudging method involves burning sage (which has interesting implications in incense burning), he didn’t like that method, and so he offered another method he liked better. He said something like:

You can take a white candle(s), like the kind you get at the grocery store, and put them into the rooms of your home, and light them. Make sure to be careful with the candles, as they can be dangerous. Light the candle and then you do a ritual. You say, “In the name of God, I cast out all demons or lower entities, and purify this room by the Holy Ghost,” or something like that. That’s it. Very simple and easy thing to do. You can word it how you like…

I immediately recognized a pattern in this of casting out unclean spirits, which is similar in many religious traditions and cultures. I believe that such a tradition exists throughout the world because it descended from the teachings of the temple in antiquity. LDS temple scholar Matthew Brown has offered as much:

The renunciation of Satan and everything associated with him is a common element in early Christian initiation texts (see Yarnold, The Awe-Inspiring Rites of Initiation, 17-18, 178). In some texts it appears that Satan was considered to be present when this renunciation occurred (see Riley, Christian Initiation, 42-43, 49). In one set of initiation texts, the candidate raises one hand while renouncing Satan (see Vellian, ed., Studies on Syrian Baptismal Rites, 93).

One of the clearest examples of this tradition in early Christianity’s mystagogical teachings is from Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 313-386 A.D.) in his first lecture on the mysteries. In fact, the practice of a renunciation of Satan before the real teaching begins is the focus of the entirety of Cyril’s first lecture to the newly initiated, the first thing one does before further sacred instruction occurs:

First ye entered into the vestibule of the Baptistery, and there facing towards the West ye listened to the command to stretch forth your hand, and as in the presence of Satan ye renounced him. Now ye must know that this figure is found in ancient history. For when Pharaoh, that most bitter and cruel tyrant, was oppressing the free and high-born people of the Hebrews, God sent Moses to bring them out of the evil bondage of the Egyptians. . . .

. . . here, the blood of the Lamb without blemish Jesus Christ is made the charm to scare evil spirits . . .

This is done as if Satan is actually there:

But nevertheless you are bidden to say, with arm outstretched towards him as though he were present, “I renounce you, Satan.” . . .

Indeed, this is the correct way to renounce Satan, for many other methods have been given, but to no avail:

After this you say, “and all your service.” Now the service of the devil is prayer in idol temples; things done in honour of lifeless idols; the lighting of lamps, or burning of incense by fountains or rivers, as some persons cheated by dreams or by evil spirits do [resort to this], thinking to find a cure even for their bodily ailments. Go not after such things. The watching of birds, divination, omens, or amulets, or charms written on leaves, sorceries, or other evil arts, and all such things, are services of the devil; therefore shun them.

Once renounced in this way, Cyril gives imagery of breaking with the Adversary, moving in a different direction, and perhaps even Satan leaving:

When therefore you renounce Satan, utterly breaking all your covenant with him, that ancient league with hell, there is opened to you the paradise of God, which He planted towards the East . . .

Guarded therefore by these discourses, be sober. For our adversary the devil, as was just now read, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour. . . . [1 Peter 5:8]

And these things were done in the outer chamber.

Of course, this practice is part of what is well-known as religious exorcism. We are informed that this word comes from the Latin exorcismus, from Greek exorkizein, meaning “to adjure,” or “to charge a person to do something as though on oath,” or “command solemnly.” Wikipedia does a good job of showing how ancient this practice is, and its universality. It is shown to exist in Christianity (Matthew 10:1; Matthew 10:8; Mark 6:7; Luke 9:1; Luke 10:17; Mark 16:17; Acts 16:18), Judaism, Hinduism, Scientology, Islam, and other belief systems.

Wikipedia has some interesting notes on the Christian form:

In Christianity, Exorcisms are performed using the “power of Christ” or “In the name of Jesus.” . . .

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Exorcism: Jesus cast out demons as a sign of his Messiahship and empowered his disciples to do the same.

The Jewish Encyclopedia article on Jesus stated that Jesus “was devoted especially to casting out demons” and also believed that he passed this on to his followers, however he was superior to them in the Exorcisms.

One interesting non-Christian associated example of a similar pattern that I’ve written about before comes from a Buddhist legend, and incorporates the use of a hand gesture called the Abhaya mudra, which is essentially a raised right hand:

Devadatta, a cousin of the Buddha, through jealousy caused a schism to be caused among the disciples of Buddha. As Devadatta's pride increased, he attempted to murder the Buddha. One of his schemes involved loosing a rampaging elephant into the Buddha's path. But as the elephant approached him, Buddha displayed the Abhaya mudra, which immediately calmed the animal.

I believe these things have descended from teachings given to Adam and Eve, which have spread into many cultures and traditions throughout the world, and that the Latter-day Saints today are taught the true form of casting out devils in the House of the Lord, as well as having the priesthood authority from God to do so.

Casting out Satan

Bush taking the oath of office

Since today is Presidents Day, I thought it would be appropriate to take a look at the inauguration of the President of the United States into office. It is rightly called an oath of office or presidential oath. Wikipedia defines such an oath:

An oath of office is an oath or affirmation a person takes before undertaking the duties of an office, usually a position in government or within a religious body, although such oaths are sometimes required of officers of other organizations. Such oaths are often required by the laws of the state, religious body, or other organization before the person may actually exercise the powers of the office or any religious body. It may be administered at an inauguration, coronation, enthronement, or other ceremony connected with the taking up of office itself, or it may be administered privately. In some cases may be administered privately and then repeated during a public ceremony.

Some oaths of office are a statement of loyalty to a constitution or other legal text or to a person or other office-holder (e.g., an oath to support the constitution of the state, or of loyalty to the king). Under the laws of a state it may be considered treason or a high crime to betray a sworn oath of office.

The actual formal act of taking this oath consists of the President raising their right arm to the square, following the lead of the officiator or Chief Justice of the United States who wears the formal ceremonial regalia, the President also usually extends and places their left hand on the Bible or other sacred object, and repeats the oath after the officiator as follows:

I, [insert the name of the one taking the oath], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States so help me God.

This mandatory oath is specifically delineated in the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 1, Clause 8. The words “so help me God” and the act of putting the hand on the Bible indicate a sacred witness of the action, thus sealing or making the nature of the oath binding under the witness of God Himself. Often the Bible is opened to a specific verse. Indeed, after taking this oath President Abraham Lincoln noted that his act was “registered in heaven.” The breaking of such an oath is considered an act of treason or high crime, the penalty of which is determined by a high court.

Here is a link to photos of several Presidents taking this oath. Here is a link to photos of other government leaders around the world taking similar oaths. Below is a video of the last 13 Presidents of the United States taking this singular oath of office, noting that each time it is considered a highly solemn, sacred and respected moment:

The Presidential Oath of Office