Introduction
The Lord’s Supper, Eucharist, or communion stands as one of Christianity’s most sacred and defining ordinances, instituted by Jesus Christ on the night of His betrayal. Across nearly two millennia of Christian practice, the elements of this ceremony—bread and wine—have carried profound theological weight, symbolizing the body and blood of Christ given for the redemption of humanity. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, however, departs from this ancient pattern by employing bread and water in its weekly sacrament service. This substitution raises significant questions worthy of careful theological analysis: What justification does the LDS community offer for this departure? Does Scripture provide a warrant for such a change? And what implications does this modification carry when examined through the lens of traditional orthodox Christian theology?
This examination will proceed with scholarly rigor while maintaining appropriate respect for sincere religious conviction, recognizing that questions surrounding the Lord’s Supper have generated substantial disagreement even among orthodox Christian traditions themselves. Nevertheless, the fundamental question of whether the elements themselves may be legitimately altered touches upon core principles of biblical authority, dominical institution, and sacramental theology that warrant scrutiny.
The LDS Perspective: Historical Development and Doctrinal Justification
The Transition from Wine to Water
The shift from wine to water in LDS practice did not occur at the movement’s founding but developed gradually during the nineteenth century. Early Mormon practice, following Joseph Smith’s initial teachings, employed wine in the sacrament ceremony. The Book of Mormon itself, in 3 Nephi 18, describes Jesus instituting the sacrament with wine among the Nephites. Similarly, the Doctrine and Covenants, in section 20, originally prescribed wine for the ordinance.
The primary LDS justification for the subsequent transition to water derives from Doctrine and Covenants 27:1-4, a revelation reportedly received by Joseph Smith in August 1830. This passage states:
Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Lord, your God, and your Redeemer, whose word is quick and powerful. For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.
The revelation continues with a specific warning about wine purchased from enemies, counseling that the Saints should not partake of wine “except it is made new among you” and that “in this, your Father’s kingdom… I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth.”
LDS scholars and church authorities interpret this passage as divine permission—indeed, divine instruction—to use alternative elements when circumstances warrant. The historical context often cited involves concerns about potential poisoning or adulteration of wine by hostile parties during the early period of Mormon persecution. By the late nineteenth century, coinciding with the broader temperance movement in American society and the Word of Wisdom’s increasing prominence within LDS practice (which counsels against alcohol consumption), water became standardized as the preferred liquid element.
Philosophical Analysis of the LDS Sacrament
Typically two young men who hold the priesthood (at the level of priests) bless the bread and water in front of the congregation. Before they bless the bread and water they break the bread into small pieces and pour water into small plastic or paper cups. At the appropriate time, one of them blesses the bread by saying the following prayer:
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.
After they bless the bread, several other young men who hold the priesthood (at the level of deacons) pass the bread to each member of the congregation. When everyone in the congregation has eaten a piece of bread, one of the two young men then bless the water by saying the following prayer:
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.
Then the water is then passed to the congregation and the sacrament ends.
Theological Framework Within LDS Sacramental Understanding
The LDS position rests upon a particular understanding of the sacrament’s purpose and efficacy that, while sharing surface-level terminology with traditional Christianity, differs in significant ways from the historic understanding of communion.
In traditional orthodox Christianity, the Lord’s Supper serves multiple interconnected purposes rooted in Scripture. First and foremost, it functions as a remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice—Jesus Himself commanded, “This do in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25). This remembrance is not mere mental recollection but a vivid, participatory re-presentation of the Gospel, bringing the reality of Christ’s atoning work into the present experience of believers. Second, communion proclaims the Lord’s death until He comes (1 Corinthians 11:26), serving as a perpetual declaration of the Gospel to the world and a statement of eschatological hope. Third, the Supper celebrates and enacts unity—both vertical union with Christ (“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” 1 Corinthians 10:16) and horizontal fellowship with other believers (“For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread,” 1 Corinthians 10:17). Fourth, it serves as a tangible reminder of God’s grace, forgiveness, and the promise of eternal life through the new covenant established by Christ’s death and resurrection—“This cup is the new testament in my blood” (1 Corinthians 11:25). Finally, the ordinance calls believers to self-examination and renewed commitment: “But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup” (1 Corinthians 11:28).
Mormon theology, by contrast, narrows the sacrament’s purpose primarily to a renewal of baptismal covenants and a weekly opportunity for members to remember Christ’s sacrifice. While the language of “remembrance” and “covenant renewal” superficially resembles traditional Christian terminology, the theological content differs substantially. In LDS understanding, baptismal covenants include commitments to take upon oneself the name of Christ, always remember Him, and keep His commandments—with the promised blessing that participants “may always have his Spirit to be with them” (Moroni 4:3; D&C 20:77). This covenantal framework emphasizes human obligation and conditional blessing in ways that shift the focus from what Christ has accomplished to what the believer commits to do.
The ordinance in LDS theology is understood neither as transubstantiation (the Catholic position that the elements become Christ’s literal body and blood) nor as the means of grace conveying salvific benefit in the manner understood by many Protestant traditions. Most significantly, the rich biblical theology of union with Christ—participating in His body and blood, being incorporated into His death and resurrection—receives comparatively little emphasis. The corporate dimension of the one body sharing one bread, the eschatological proclamation until He comes, and the new covenant’s fulfillment of Old Testament promises recede in favor of individual covenant renewal.
Bruce R. McConkie articulated the standard LDS position: “The emblems used in the sacramental ordinance are bread and water. Anciently, wine was used, but by latter-day revelation, water is approved, ‘it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament’ (D&C 27:2).”
This perspective emphasizes the symbolic and memorial character of the ordinance while de-emphasizing both the elements themselves and the deeper sacramental realities that traditional Christianity has understood those elements to convey. The participant’s internal disposition—partaking “with an eye single to my glory”—takes precedence over the specific physical substances employed. Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained that “the ordinance of the sacrament makes the sacrament meeting the most sacred and important meeting in the Church.”
The LDS Church thus maintains that its practice preserves the essential meaning and purpose of the sacrament while exercising legitimate liberty regarding the accidental features of its administration. Traditional Christianity would respond that the very definition of “essential meaning and purpose” has been truncated, and that altering the elements both reflects and reinforces this diminished understanding of what Christ intended His Supper to accomplish in the life of the church.
Biblical and Historical Analysis
The Scriptural Foundation: Examining the Biblical Evidence
A thorough examination of the biblical witness reveals significant challenges to the LDS position that the elements are matters of indifference.
The synoptic Gospels uniformly record Jesus instituting the supper with bread and wine during the Passover meal. Matthew 26:27-29 records: “And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
The phrase “fruit of the vine” (γεννήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου, gennēmatos tēs ampelou) specifically denotes the product of the grape vine. This terminology was the standard Jewish expression for wine used in religious ceremonies, including the Passover, and carries no ambiguity in its referent. Mark 14:23-25 and Luke 22:17-20 provide parallel accounts with identical terminology.
Paul’s extended treatment in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 further solidifies the apostolic understanding:
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
Paul claims direct dominical authority for this pattern—“received of the Lord”—and his admonitions to the Corinthians regarding proper observance (vv. 27-34) assume the continuation of the elements as instituted. Notably, Paul’s rebuke of the Corinthians includes criticism that some become “drunken” (v. 21, μεθύει), which would be impossible if water were being employed.
The theological significance of wine in the Lord’s Supper extends beyond mere convention. Jesus explicitly connected the cup to His blood—“this is my blood of the covenant” (Mark 14:24). The correspondence between the deep red of wine and the blood it represents serves a pedagogical and symbolic function that water cannot replicate. Genesis 49:11 associates wine with blood metaphorically (“he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes”), and this connection runs throughout biblical imagery.
Furthermore, the Passover context cannot be divorced from the institution narrative. The Passover meal required wine; it was not optional. Jesus chose this specific occasion and these specific elements with intentionality. The bread corresponded to the unleavened bread of the Exodus, pointing to the haste of deliverance and freedom from the “leaven” of sin. The wine corresponded to the blood of the Passover lamb painted on the doorposts, which caused the angel of death to pass over the houses of Israel. Jesus thus invested existing elements with new and fuller meaning rather than creating an arbitrary ceremony.
The Witness of Church History
The uniform testimony of the early church confirms that wine remained the consistent practice across geographical and cultural boundaries. The Didache, typically dated to the late first or early second century, instructs regarding the Eucharist: “But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give ye thanks. First, concerning the cup: We give thee thanks, O our Father, for the holy vine of David thy servant, which thou hast made known to us through Jesus thy servant.”
Justin Martyr, writing around 150 AD, describes the Roman Christian practice: “Then there is brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe… and when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen.”
Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and the broader patristic consensus uniformly attest to bread and wine as the proper elements. The practice remained unchallenged until certain Protestant groups in the nineteenth century began substituting grape juice, and even then, the liquid remained the fruit of the vine rather than an entirely different substance.
The significance of this historical consensus should not be underestimated. When examining any practice that claims to represent authentic Christianity, the question “Was this practiced by the early church?” carries considerable weight. A novel practice introduced eighteen centuries after Christ, with no attestation in Scripture, patristic literature, or historical record, bears a substantial burden of proof.
Comparative Theological Analysis
Orthodox Christian Sacramental Theology
Traditional Christian understanding—whether Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or magisterial Protestant—has consistently maintained that the Lord’s Supper involves essential elements that may not be legitimately altered. While disagreements exist regarding the precise nature of Christ’s presence in the elements (transubstantiation, consubstantiation, spiritual presence, or memorial presence), agreement has prevailed that the elements themselves were dominically instituted and thus not subject to human modification.
The Orthodox theologian Alexander Schmemann articulated the sacramental principle: “The sacrament is the manifestation and fulfillment by the Church of her essential nature… The form of the sacrament is not merely a sign or symbol, but the very means by which the divine reality is communicated.”
From this perspective, the elements are not incidental containers but integral to the sacramental economy. To change the elements is to change the sacrament itself. John Calvin, while rejecting Catholic transubstantiation, nevertheless maintained regarding the Lord’s Supper: “The Lord intended the bread and wine to be symbols representing his body and blood… We must therefore acknowledge that if the representation which God gives us in the Supper is true, the internal substance of the sacrament is connected with the visible signs.”
Even traditions that emphasize the memorial character of the ordinance have generally maintained fidelity to the instituted elements. The Baptist Faith and Message states that the Lord’s Supper is “a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church… memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming” while maintaining bread and the fruit of the vine as proper elements.
The Question of Dominical Authority
The crux of the theological disagreement concerns the source and limits of authority regarding ecclesiastical practice. Traditional Christianity, in its various expressions, has maintained that Christ Himself established the pattern for the Lord’s Supper, and this dominical institution places the essential elements beyond the modification of human authority—whether individual, ecclesiastical, or claimed prophetic.
The LDS position, by contrast, rests upon the premise that continuing revelation through living prophets may modify, supplement, or supersede previous patterns, including those established in Scripture. Doctrine and Covenants 27 is presented not as human innovation but as divine revelation providing updated instruction.
This represents a fundamental difference in epistemology and authority structures. Orthodox Christianity maintains that public revelation closed with the apostolic age and that Scripture provides the sufficient and final rule of faith and practice. The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone as the ultimate authority) and the broader Christian affirmation of the sufficiency of Scripture preclude later revelatory claims that contradict or substantially modify biblical patterns.
From this framework, the assertion that Jesus Himself authorized the substitution of water for wine is evaluated against the criterion of scriptural consistency. When the proposed later revelation stands in tension with the clear biblical pattern, traditional Christianity maintains that the claimed revelation cannot be genuinely divine. As Paul warned the Galatians: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8).
Symbolic Coherence and Theological Implications
Beyond questions of authority, the substitution of water for wine raises concerns regarding the symbolic integrity of the ordinance. Wine in Scripture carries theological freight that water does not. The blood of Christ—His violent, sacrificial death—is represented by wine, which must undergo a process analogous to death (the crushing of grapes) to come into existence. Water, by contrast, carries associations of purification and baptism rather than sacrificial death.
The Passover wine, which provided the immediate context for Jesus’ institution, represented the blood of the lamb that protected Israel from judgment. The prophetic tradition connects wine with eschatological blessing and the messianic banquet (Isaiah 25:6; Amos 9:13-14). Jesus’ first miracle transformed water into wine at Cana (John 2:1-11), itself a sign of His identity and mission. The symbolism is not arbitrary but deeply embedded in the biblical narrative.
When water replaces wine, the symbolic coherence fractures. The element no longer visually represents blood, no longer connects to the Passover context, and no longer points to the eschatological banquet where Christ promised to drink the fruit of the vine with His disciples. The ordinance loses its rootedness in the biblical story.
Addressing LDS Arguments
The “It Mattereth Not” Claim
The pivotal LDS proof-text—“it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament”—warrants careful analysis. Several observations are pertinent.
First, this statement appears in no biblical text. It originates solely from a nineteenth-century document claimed as a revelation but unattested in ancient Scripture. Traditional Christianity would argue that novel doctrines lacking biblical support cannot constitute legitimate divine revelation, particularly when they contradict established biblical patterns.
Second, even taken on its own terms, the Doctrine and Covenants passage speaks specifically to a context of potential danger from enemies—“you shall not purchase wine neither strong drink of your enemies.” This situational counsel differs substantially from a wholesale and permanent change in elemental practice. The logical move from “be cautious about wine from enemies in this dangerous time” to “water is equally appropriate in perpetuity” involves interpretive expansion that the text itself does not obviously support.
Third, if it truly “mattereth not” what elements are used, consistency would require accepting any substance whatsoever—coffee, juice, milk, or nothing at all. Yet LDS practice has standardized on bread and water, suggesting that the elements do in fact matter to some degree. The principle cannot be infinite in scope without collapsing into absurdity.
The Argument from Changed Circumstances
Some LDS apologists argue that changing circumstances legitimately permit changing practices—pointing to the end of animal sacrifice, changes in dietary law, and other biblical examples of modified ordinances. However, this argument conflates distinct categories.
The cessation of animal sacrifice resulted from Christ’s fulfillment of the sacrificial system—the antitype replacing the type. This was not a human decision but the working out of God’s redemptive plan as explained extensively in Hebrews. Similarly, the Jerusalem Council’s decision regarding Gentile obligation to the Mosaic law (Acts 15) addressed the application of temporary ceremonial regulations, not the modification of ordinances Christ Himself instituted.
The Lord’s Supper stands in a different category. Christ instituted it as a perpetual ordinance (“this do in remembrance of me… till he come”) with specific elements. No biblical text suggests that these elements were temporary, situational, or subject to later modification. The burden of proof rests heavily on those who claim authority to change what Christ established.
The Appeal to the Spirit of the Ordinance
The argument that the spiritual disposition of the participant matters more than the physical elements reflects a common tendency to dichotomize material and spiritual realities. Traditional Christianity, by contrast, has maintained a sacramental theology in which physical elements serve as genuine means of grace—not replacing spiritual reality but serving as vehicles for it.
This is not mere “externalism” or ritualism. The physical creation is God’s good work, and He has chosen to work through material means throughout redemptive history—water in baptism, bread and wine in the Supper, the written word in Scripture, and supremely, human flesh in the Incarnation. To diminish the significance of the physical elements is to move toward a Gnostic devaluation of the material world that historic Christianity has consistently rejected.
Furthermore, spiritual disposition and proper elements are not mutually exclusive. The biblical call is to partake with a right heart and with proper elements. Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians addressed both improper conduct (divisions, drunkenness, failing to wait for one another) and the continuing use of proper elements. The solution to irreverent practice was not to change the elements but to reform the heart and conduct of the participants.
Conclusion: Implications for Traditional Orthodox Christianity
This examination reveals that the LDS practice of using water instead of wine in the sacrament represents a significant departure from both biblical instruction and the uniform practice of the Christian church across two millennia. The LDS justification rests primarily upon a claimed nineteenth-century revelation that lacks any attestation in ancient Scripture and stands in tension with the clear New Testament pattern.
From the perspective of traditional orthodox Christianity, several conclusions follow.
First, the elements of the Lord’s Supper were dominically instituted—established by Christ Himself with particular intentionality rooted in the Passover context and invested with profound theological symbolism. The bread represents His body given for us; the wine represents His blood shed for the remission of sins. These were not arbitrary choices but deliberate acts laden with redemptive-historical significance.
Second, the authority to modify what Christ instituted does not reside with any human institution or claimed prophet. The principle of sola Scriptura maintains that Scripture serves as the ultimate authority for faith and practice. Claimed revelations that contradict or substantially modify biblical patterns cannot be accepted as genuinely divine, regardless of their origin.
Third, the historical consensus of the church—East and West, ancient and modern—provides corroborating testimony to the biblical pattern. The absence of any ancient attestation to water as a legitimate element should weigh heavily in evaluating novel practices.
Fourth, the symbolic integrity of the ordinance is compromised when the elements are changed. Wine visually and metaphorically represents blood in a way that water cannot. The connection to the Passover lamb, to the prophetic tradition, and to the eschatological banquet is severed when the fruit of the vine is replaced.
These conclusions do not require animosity toward LDS believers, many of whom participate in their sacrament services with apparent, sincere faith and reverent hearts. The evaluation offered here addresses theological claims and liturgical practices, not the personal piety of individuals. Nevertheless, theological precision matters, and the question of whether claimed revelations align with Scripture is one that every believer must ultimately face.
The Lord’s Supper remains, in the words of Paul, a proclamation of “the Lord’s death till he come.” The church is called to receive this gift as it was given, neither adding to nor subtracting from what Christ Himself established on that night before His passion. In this sacred meal, the church encounters afresh the reality of the Gospel—Christ’s body broken, His blood shed, for sinners. The elements themselves bear witness to this costly grace, and their preservation honors the One who instituted this feast of remembrance and anticipation.
This analysis has been prepared with attention to scholarly standards while maintaining appropriate respect for differing religious convictions. Citations reflect representative sources from both LDS and traditional Christian perspectives. Readers are encouraged to examine primary sources and engage with charitable dialogue across theological differences.