Redaction: Moroni breaks with his formula for the presentation of the liturgy. We still have the introduction, but we are missing the concluding recapitulation.
[their elders and priests]: In the Book of Mormon usage, the term “elders” in this instance would seem to be related to the quorum of the twelve. Moroni specifically equates the two in chapter 3:
Moroni 3:1
1 The manner which the disciples, who were called the elders of the church, ordained priests and teachers—
It would be very unusual for Moroni to make the identification of the twelve and “elders” in one chapter, and then shift his meaning in the very next chapter. The modern designation of Elder is a more modern division in the priesthood. It has textual relationship to Elders in the Bible (such as in Acts 15:2-6). However, the New Testament usage also includes the more generic “elders of the people,” which is a title of respect, but not specific church authority (see, for instance, Matthew 21:23).
In the administration of the sacrament, we are told that there were two types of officiators. Both the disciples/elders and the priests could administer the sacrament. The absence of the teacher as an administrator suggests that there was a division in function that would be as implied by their titles. The function of the teacher was to teach. The function of a priest was to administer the rites of the church.
The sacrament was instituted by Christ himself during his visit to the Nephites in Bountiful:
3 Nephi 18:6-7
6 And this shall ye always observe to do, even as I have done, even as I have broken bread and blessed it and given it unto you.
7 And this shall ye do in remembrance of my body, which I have shown unto you. And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you.
This instance of eating bread was followed by a public ritual of drinking that was similarly given ritual significance. Similarly, Moroni’s sacramental prayers represent two separate ritual acts that are to be performed consecutively. The model for these sacramental prayers is the original instance performed by the Savior himself. However, it is important to note that what Moroni is telling us is the shape of the eventual liturgical performance, and that it differs slightly from the recorded form of the original example. When the Savior instituted this remembrance it was in the context of a public distribution of food. At the time of the distribution it was certainly seen as a meal-event, not a sacramental event. That is, when Jesus breaks bread and gives it to the people, they do not learn of the ritual significance until after they have eaten. In the liturgical form, the prayer precedes the distribution of the bread.
In the Old World this distinction between meal and eucharist is at times difficult to sort out. The earliest Christians celebrated the meal as well as the symbolic meal of the sacrament. Scholars have had a difficult time extracting the ritual symbolic meal from the rest of the context of the full meal. Indeed, if the early Christians were attempting to follow the form of the meal in the upper room where Christ introduced the sacrament to his apostles, one might expect a bread-blessing at the beginning, and a cup-blessing at the end of the central communal meal. Regardless of the order, it would appear that the combination ritual/communal sacrament-meal later became shortened to the sacramental rite alone:
“It would therefore not necessarily have appeared unusual if first-century Jewish-Christian communal meals had involved blessings being said over wine and bread at the same time, at the very beginning of the meal. And while we have no evidence for Christian meals where the cup blessing came at the end, we do have at least some evidence of a Christian practice where the cup blessing seems to have come at the beginning, along with the blessing over the bread, as we have already seen. And that pattern is very close to the one that we find in Justin Martyr in the second century (and also the later tradition), where bread and cup are brought together to the one presiding, who then gives thanks over them, although the meal has now apparently disappeared. It is true that this displays a bread-cup sequence rather than a cup-bread one, but that there might have been a difference in their order in different communities should not surprise us, especially as similar variations in the order of blessings and disputes between different schools as to which one was correct characterize a great deal of the later rabbinic literature. What both sequences have in common is that the two blessings/thanksgivings take place in close proximity to one another at the beginning of a meal, and this ’’ would have continued unchanged even when the meal was no longer included.” (Paul F. Bradshaw. The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship. Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 71-2).
[they administered it according to the commandments of Christ]: This is a direct reference to the Lord’s commandment that the people perform this act as a memory of him (see 3 Nephi 18:6-7, cited above).
[wherefore we know the manner to be true]: In spite of the variation from the model that Mormon records for the 3 Nephi event, Moroni declares that this form is “true.” This method of celebrating the sacrament was traditional, and therefore true to tradition. No doubt there was a tradition that these words were dictated by Christ. They certainly could have been. Moroni would have believed them to have come from Christ through the lineage of the office of the disciples/elders.