A Marvelous Work and a Wonderbread

 Some of my fondest memories of growing up Mormon revolve around Wonder Bread, that ultra-soft bread Mom would slather with yellow mustard, a slice of cheese, and some balogna, and send you off to school with. Although it was tasty and still is, Wonder Bread is no longer considered the best bread for you. But it's still a winner when it comes to bologna and cheese sandwiches, grilled Velveeta cheese sandwiches, and, of course, the Sacrament.

In the Church, what other churches called “communion” or “the Lord's Supper” was called the Sacrament. There was an entire service built around it called Sacrament Meeting, called such because it's when you took “the sacrament.”

Before I begin explaining why I have such fond memories of a simple food like Wonder Bread, I suppose I should explain how Mormonism and Christianity vary when it comes to this very important moment of faith when people partake in remembrance of the Lord's sacrifice for them.

In Christian churches, it's a fairly simple event. The “bread” is usually a small wafer or some kind of crispy, unleavened bread. While we have no indication from the Bible as to whether or not daily bread was leavened or unleavened, it's fairly safe to say that the bread used at the Last Supper was unleavened. Jesus was a good Jew. He practiced those basics required of a Jew, such as unleavened bread used during Passover, which was when the event called the Last Supper took place.

In Luke 22, Jesus said:

“I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before My suffering. For I tell you that I will not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”

Thus making it clear that this was to be part of their Passover meal. Remember also that they were not yet in hiding. These followers had no reason to hide. So obtaining the necessary elements for Passover would not have been an issue for them.

Jesus also told them:

“This is My body, given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

Jesus knew what was coming. His body wouldn't be torn like a soft piece of bread. His body would be broken like a piece of crispy Matzos as the bones broke in his wrists and feet during His hanging on the Cross. It wasn’t humans who broke his bones. It was the process of crucifixion as Jesus took on the sins of the world.

Christian churches also use either actual wine or grape juice. Most use grape juice.

It was not unusual back in Jesus’ time to use a communal cup. To this day, the Catholics still use the communal cup, but the Priest is the only one who sips from it. In every Protestant church I’ve been in or visited, the grape juice is poured into sip-size cups from a communal jug (usually the one it's sold in). The Mormons also do this, but with one variation: it's not grape juice or wine, it's water in those cups.

Does it matter? I once asked this of an LDS Missionary who insisted it didn't matter. Of course, he would say it didn't matter. Their scripture says it doesn't matter:

“It mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory” [D&C 27:2-3].

He then explained that, since the Word of Wisdom had been revealed, there was no drinking of wine allowed anyway. The Word of Wisdom is the revelation against alcohol, tobacco, etc. I recollected the story of how this happened in the first place. There was, back in the days of Joseph Smith, concern that local wine makers were poisoning the wine used in the LDS Sacrament. And so along came the revelation that it really didn't matter what was used.

But truthfully, it matters. Whether or not a symbol that's designed to remind you of something in some way, shape, or form resembles the thing you're trying to remember is important. Especially since Jesus was the one using the metaphor. Would you put a photo of a total stranger in the family photo album and say it's there to remind you of your Auntie? Of course not. You might put a photo of her, a lock of hair, or maybe some other small item in it, but not the image of a total stranger.

The blood of Jesus was shed, thus implying that others were involved in His death on the Cross. This isn’t the same thing as Hematidrosis, as is speculated to be the shedding of droplets at Gethsemane. From the moment of his capture, and on through until his final words were uttered, Jesus’ blood was shed by others, for others. When they scourged him beyond recognition, when they forced a thick crown of Judean thorns on his head, when they ripped his blood-soaked and dried rags off his body, thus ripping open the wounds all over again, when they drove nine-inch nails into his wrists and feet, and finally when they tested to make sure he was dead by thrusting a spear into his side (releasing a mixture of water and blood), the shedding of his blood-the presence of His blood- was there. All the way through the process of His laying down his life for us.

This isn’t drama, it’s reality.

In the Last Supper, Jesus referred to the “fruit of the vine” because it resembles the color of blood. It might or might not be fermented, but it came from grapes, not water buckets:

“Take this and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes” [Luke 22:17-18].

And to explain it to them a little clearer, Jesus follows with:

“This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you.”

What was meant by New Covenant? And why was it in his blood?

Under the old Mosaic covenant, man was forced to see his sinfulness through attempting to keep the law of Moses. Not the twelve basics, no, the full law, all 613 requirements. Galatians 3:24 explains this:

“Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.”

Jesus made it quite clear that it would be His blood that was poured out for them and that this was a new covenant as opposed to a blending of old and new covenants.

So when a Christian partakes of the wine, or grape juice, they see the symbolic blood of Christ. Water isn't blood. And they're also drinking from, as Christ explained, “the fruit of the vine”.

I suppose you could use Skittles and cola if you were hard up, and God would understand. But I find it impossible to believe that the LDS Church, as it is today, quite wealthy, cannot afford to do a proper Lord's Supper as prescribed by Christ. In the very beginning of the church, they did use wine. Though, in all honesty, I never questioned this as a Mormon.

It would be several years before I would come to the realization that the symbolism mattered. The first hint that the Mormon teachings and practices posed a bit of a problem was when I first partook of the Lord's Supper as a new believer in Christ.

I remember that Sunday as if it were yesterday. We were attending a small church in Florida. I had just become a Christian a few months earlier, and they were getting ready for Easter. We had been practicing a Cantata, and the Pastor decided to do the Lord's Supper on Easter Sunday, once the Cantata performance (which was Friday and Saturday nights) and all rehearsals were over. It seemed very appropriate.

That Sunday, the Pastor gave a very detailed sermon on the events leading up the the Resurrection of Christ. He spent more time on the details of the suffering than I had ever heard before. In the LDS Church, we had a kind of sanitized teaching on it. No real deep looks at what Jesus actually, physically went through.

This sermon absolutely brought tears to my eyes. Not tears of sadness, though, but rather, tears of love. To think that He loved me that much to go through so much was incredible. Nobody ever loved me like that, ever!

When it came time for the bread, the Pastor read from Mark, and then these older men (deacons) brought around these teeny tiny wafers. More like miniature oyster crackers than anything else. I had no trouble partaking of those.

But when the “wine” came around in the teeny cups, I had some issues. For you see, we had been told that alcohol was a no-no:

“That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him. And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make” [Doctrine and Covenants 89: 5, 6].

A careful reading shows that the prohibition against alcohol is only against strong drink and wine if the person is just guzzling it without a religious purpose. The passage also specifies that pure grapes of the vine that you make yourself is okay to have. And yet, they opted not to make their own. In fact, you're asked in the Worthiness Interviews conducted by your local Bishop if you “are keeping the Word of Wisdom,” which is taken to include abstinence from all alcoholic beverages, including wine. Saying that you enjoy an occasional glass of wine with dinner, at least back then, could cost you your Temple Recommend, or position, or any number of other “blessings”.

Now that you hopefully have a handle on how the LDS and Christian versions of the Lord's Supper differ, I'll go on and explain more about the Wonder Bread thing.

For as far back as I can remember, LDS Lords' Supper (aka the Sacrament) consisted of two elements: water and bread. Back when I was growing up Mormon, the bread sold on most store shelves was Wonder Bread. It was considered quite healthy because it was fortified. Anything back then that was called “fortified” was considered top-notch. And my Mom, the consummate foodie, insisted that her children have the best foods, so she, like all Moms across the country, bought Wonder Bread. We had an abundance of it in our house because there were five of us, and we all took lunch to school.

I also had three older brothers who, like all good Mormon boys, were expected to participate in the passing out of and preparation of the Sacrament at the age of twelve. They started out as Deacons and Teachers (ages twelve to sixteen) and then Priests, from ages sixteen through eighteen. The Priests, I always felt, had the most responsibility because, not only did they have to break up the slices of bread into small pieces, they also had to say a prayer over both the bread and the water.

The one for the water went like this:

"O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this water to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen."

And the prayer over the bread went like this:

"O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen."

Those two prayers seemed like a mouthful to me back then, and I wondered how the young men did it so well. The fact is, when I was growing up Mormon, the young men had to memorize it. At least, that's what I thought. The Priests were kneeling. We couldn't see what was going on, to be honest. Years later, I would find out that they were allowed to have their Doctrine and Covenants open on the bench underneath the Sacrament table and could read from the sections of it where these prayers were cited.

Even still, if a Priest bumbled or fumbled, or left out part of the prayer, or misspoke part of the prayer, or, as I witnessed one time, coughed during the prayer, he would have to go back and do it again until he either got it right or the Bishop got tired of the repetition. Which ever came first. I would guess that no boy in his right mind would want to be the kid who had to repeat the prayer. And my brothers would have been no exception.

I don't know that it was about peer pressure with all the boys, though. In the case of the two youngest of my brothers, they were a couple of precocious guys even back then, so it may have been a little peer pressure combined with not wanting to embarrass the family. But I have no doubt whatsoever that, for the oldest brother, it was a devotion to the Jesus he knew and worshiped, along with devotion to the Church. And I would guess most of the guys I grew up with fell into that category, though I don't know for certain.

What I do know is that the Sacrament and its prayers were something a fellow might want to practice. And, given that Wonder Bread was included in the process, it made practice a tasty proposition. So we kids would gather in the bathroom upstairs, and have our “Sacrament practice” times.

I have no idea who confiscated the slice of bread. We had a glass up in the bathroom that everyone used to rinse out after brushing teeth (I know, gross, but that's how it was done back then, nobody cared about germs inside the family).

Sissie and I would sit on the edge of the tub, which acted as our “pew”. The brothers would put the bread on a little plate and hold it while my oldest brother practiced the Sacrament prayer over the bread. And he had it memorized, too! No cheating from a book for my big brother, no sir! And then he would tear it into fifths and pass it around. This practice was before they were of age to actually perform these tasks publicly.

This could explain why, as a small child taking the Sacrament, I was a little disappointed. At home, our pieces were much, much larger! Then again, we didn't have to make one slice stretch as far as they did when serving an entire Ward of some 200 more people.

Over the years, we ceased our Sacrament practice in the bathroom. It was fun when we were little, but none of the boys were really old enough to have to worry about it back then. As time went by, and my brothers got old enough to actually “hold the Priesthood” offices, there really wasn't a need. The oldest brother was a real Priest now. He was actually doing it. Pretending wasn't necessary. And we were all being forced by life to outgrow those times which I now hold so dear.

But Sacrament practice in the bathroom wasn't my only memory of the Sacrament. While not exactly part of a regular passing of the Sacrament, on Fast and Testimony Sunday, they would pass the Sacrament to help us break our fast.

I should explain what a Fast and Testimony meeting is, and was like back then. Some of this may still be the case today.

We were encouraged to do many things both as children and as adults, among those were tithing, fasting, and bearing our testimonies. In terms of the fasting part, it was felt that children under the “age of accountability”, or under age eight, were not to be required to fast. They were considered too young and wouldn't understand the principle. But the rest of us were expected to fast for two meals. This usually amounted to breakfast and lunch for us because of how our services fell, time-wise. Some families I knew of went without dinner the night before and breakfast that morning. But no matter how you did it, you would always be hungry when it came time to take the Sacrament.

Fast and Testimony meetings were not like the regular Sacrament meetings. During the latter, it was mostly people giving talks (short speeches given by members on various topics), hymn singing, and the sacrament. But in Fast and Testimony meetings, babies got “a name and a blessing”, older children received the Holy Ghost, and members got to tell everyone how much they loved the Church and believed in it. And of course, you got the Sacrament, which meant breaking that fast and actually eating something!

You have no idea how good that morsel of soft, billowy Wonder Bread tasted to a child who had not been allowed to eat from dinner time the night before until whenever their Fast and Testimony meeting took place. It may have been too small for me, but as a kid, it was like eating cake! Of course, as I grew older, the actual significance changed my view of things, but for a little kid, this was a bit of heaven in your right hand.

That was another thing. Sacrament was to always be taken with the right hand, both bread and water. Which kind of left die-hard southpaws out in the cold. As the mother of a southpaw (left-handed ball player), it was a little difficult at times watching him uncomfortably passing the Sacrament with the hand he didn't normally use. But he managed to navigate the right-hand-only rule of the Mormon Church without any damage to his psyche.

It's interesting that left and right differences were so important to us back then. I was reading an article recently about the history of taking the Sacrament with the right hand, and that it wasn't a commonly insisted-on practice until the 1930s. The supposition being that the “left” has a bad connotation in the Bible, and, though insisted upon by many, was not a mandatory thing, at least not by the leadership. I found this a lot throughout my reflections as a former Mormon. Much of what we thought was doctrinally based and leadership-approved was usually either based on folk practice or just plain supposition passed down through the years.

There was never a requirement to use Wonder Bread in the Sacrament, either. I would find out many years later that this was merely the use of the most convenient bread around. In Wards throughout the world, the commonly used breads would differ. Though I doubt Irish Beer Bread is used by the Mormons in Ireland.

So many things about the Sacrament were a mystery to me until my own sons came of age. I never saw what went on behind the Sacrament table until my own child was old enough to go in there and prepare the Sacrament. When it was his turn to buy the bread for the Sacrament, he went through a door that was always hidden within the wall behind each table. I knew it was there when I was growing up, but never ventured in to see. Mostly because I believed (erroneously) that God would strike me dead for going in there without being given permission. Though there was no sign, there was an invisible “Boys Only” on the door.

We had to arrive half an hour earlier on those Sundays.

“May I go with you?” I asked.

He looked at me kind of quizzically. “You have to ask?” He came back, not in a sarcastic or disrespectful way, but in a truly curious way. He couldn't fathom Mom having to ask him permission.

He shrugged, “I guess so.”

I watched as he washed his hands in the small sink. I was glad the Church instructed boys to be hygienic! What I didn't realize was that, whether intended or not, they were being taught to imitate the laws required by the Priests of Aaron (Exodus 30:19), well, part of it. My son didn't wash his feet.

He then washed and dried the plates for the bread, making sure to place two slices of bread on each. At this point, he looked at me. “Don't worry,” I told him. “Someday you'll be breaking it as a Priest.”

It was this young man's job to also set up the table for the Sacrament, placing a white cloth over each, laying out the trays (one with the water and one with the bread), and covering each with another white cloth. This was all to be done reverently and quietly and without distraction. I guess that was pretty difficult to do with Mom hanging around. But another boy was there with us. He watched for the first part and then went on to check the microphones behind the Sacrament tables to make sure they were working properly.

I didn't go with him for the cleanup afterwards. I already knew what I wanted to know. And I don't know if he or the other boys cleaned up after services. All I knew back then was that the mystery of the hidden sacrament room was solved.

I never asked why I, as a girl or a woman, was not able to participate in the sacrament in anything more than a passive role. True, it was all men sitting around the table at the Lord’s supper. But since they only passed it to one another and no women were present, should the women of the church be allowed to sit in on it, let alone take it, too?

In the early days of the church, women actually baked the bread. I have a very vague memory of my Mom saying it was her turn to bake bread, but that she was going to buy hers at the local bakery instead. Mom could bake just about anything, but bread was not something she baked. I never knew why.

There were also times in the church history, particularly wartime, when women stepped in to fill the roles left vacant while young boys took over roles left by their fathers gone to war. Much of this was farm-related.

For decades, however, there was no leniency with women regarding the passing of the sacrament. Perhaps the priesthood system itself was part of the problem in this area. When you have teenage boys, young ones at that, acting as deacons (a position in biblical Christianity held by grown men), it's difficult to find “deaconesses” to fill in for administering the sacrament to other females. Though it shouldn’t be.

In 2018, someone finally figured this out. And though girls were never given “the priesthood,” a very smart Bishop realized a girl passing the sacrament to another female was no different from when it was passed from person to person in the pew.

Liesl Shurtliff told her husband, Scott Shurtliff, a bishop, that she missed receiving the sacrament while she nursed her infant in the mothers’ lounge, usually located in the women’s restroom. Her husband instructed the deacons (ages 12-13) to take the sacrament trays to the women’s rooms, where there would be girls standing at the doors to carry the sacrament into the mothers.

Though not universally disputed by leaders, it hasn’t been embraced by them, either. It's done on an “as needed” basis, and that’s usually determined by the Bishop.

In the ward I grew up in, we had what was called the “quiet room”. It was attached right next to the chapel, and there was a large window so the women could look into the chapel and see the services as they commenced. There were also speakers piping the service in. When a mother needed to nurse, there was a thick curtain that could be pulled for her privacy. Did the deacons ever go in to deliver the sacrament? To my understanding, only when the curtain was open. If it wasn’t open at that time, whoever was still inside missed out.

I have been involved in the preparation of the Lord's Supper in Christian churches. Yes, usually this is done by grown men called Deacons. Acts chapter 6 specifically points to deacons as the ones to distribute the Lord's Supper elements. It does not, however, omit women from its preparation.

Interestingly, some Churches have done away completely with passing around the elements and instead place them at various stations throughout the sanctuary or, sometimes, at the front entryways so as to allow all members, including those attending the nurseries and children’s churches, the opportunity to partake.

Yes, there is a single person, usually the Pastor, who leads in prayer, thus signifying the communal reception. But there is no hard and fast rule as to how this should be done. The focus of the Lord’s Supper is on the emblems and what they represent. Not how it's done by process.

I look back on those days with fondness and think about how mysterious it all was to me, except when we did our bathroom sacrament practice. Then it was no mystery. It was just a fluffy work and a Wonder Bread.