Is Sacrament That Important Right Now?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

This is why I was disappointed that some bishops were requiring temple recommends for those providing the sacrament. You are making perfect sense to me. What a beautiful and sweet opportunity.

Ours just said that one must be "worthy"

But I suppose they could be play acting.  If you have a recommend you are automatically NOT play acting, of course.  As long as you meet the external requirements and look good, then everything is fine.  I mean it takes a white shirt and tie to make it an "ordinance" right- and not just a silly little prayer.  It doesn't matter what you are thinking as long as you have the Priesthood after all. 

Edit:  And no, for the creative misunderstanders and misquoters, I am not saying that it is ok to NOT wear a tie in church while blessing the sacrament.   I just felt that one lurking out there.  It is a sign of respect and the importance of the ordinance.

 

Edited March 27, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Play-acting the sacrament ordinance would be eating and drinking damnation to ones self. One would then be taking unworthily. Who is play-acting and how would you know anyone's heart so as to accuse them of play-acting? 

I’ve not accused anyone of taking the sacrament unworthily. I don’t accept your application of that scriptural passage, and I reject your accusation. 
 

I think you were trying to inject conflict and hostility into the exchange that was never there to begin with. Not cool. 

Edited March 27, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Old ladies especially don’t need to be feeling any pressure to invite priesthood over for sacrament yet.

Do you actually know old ladies who are being pressured? My experience here has been the opposite: it's the old ladies ringing me, setting up times, etc.

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve not accused anyone of taking the sacrament unworthily. I don’t accept your application of that scriptural passage, and I reject your accusation. 
 

I think you were trying to inject conflict and hostility into the exchange that was never there to begin with. Not cool. 

I am usually pretty good at reading English; not always so good in Spanish. Here is what I read: "Why not simply do it through an earnest personal prayer instead of play-acting, as it were, an ordinance performance you admit would not be valid anyway?" You did imply that folks are play-acting the sacrament when they do so as an ordinance performance, a manner you don't consider valid. At least that is what I read. When I take the sacrament I believe it is valid with God and in my heart. You don't. That really is ok with me, except when you take it to the next level and relegated it to "play-acting, as it were." That is unkind and judgmental, the very thing we are not to do in a sacrament service regardless of our worthiness. I strongly believe if we come to the table worthily, we come depending on the worthiness and authority of Christ. We will certainly disagree on the application of many passages. That is ok with me. 

Having said all of that, I don't disagree that I am probably on edge and may be injecting something. My sister died yesterday in Pennsylvania. I apologize if I was unkind to you. 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oddly, I suppose to you, I believe in a God who hears all prayers, and that none are "invalid"

I said it would be a "prayer", not an ordinance.

I am no one's judge of which ordinances or prayers are valid or not. I can't conceive of prayers being invalid.

It appears we are not communicating on several levels. 

I repeatedly have made a distinction between ordinances and prayers and you don't seem willing to address that.

I think it's time agree to disagree although I don't even know precisely what we are disagreeing about. It has not been defined. From my side it appears you are not listening. I just don't want to waste time with this.

Mark, upon reflection I realize we have no quarrel of any consequence. I regret making an issue over what amounts to dross. 
 

Peace, brother. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I am usually pretty good at reading English; not always so good in Spanish. Here is what I read: "Why not simply do it through an earnest personal prayer instead of play-acting, as it were, an ordinance performance you admit would not be valid anyway?" You did imply that folks are play-acting the sacrament when they do so as an ordinance performance, a manner you don't consider valid. At least that is what I read. When I take the sacrament I believe it is valid with God and in my heart. You don't. That really is ok with me, except when you take it to the next level and relegated it to "play-acting, as it were." That is unkind and judgmental, the very thing we are not to do in a sacrament service regardless of our worthiness. I strongly believe if we come to the table worthily, we come depending on the worthiness and authority of Christ. We will certainly disagree on the application of many passages. That is ok with me. 

Having said all of that, I don't disagree that I am probably on edge and may be injecting something. My sister died yesterday in Pennsylvania. I apologize if I was unkind to you. 

My sincere condolences for your loss. 

[Avatar4321]

Is there any reason we are told not to bless the sacrament over a video conference?

and yes taking the sacrament is important or we wouldn’t be encouraged to do it weekly

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

My sister died yesterday in Pennsylvania.

Sympathies, Navidad. Was it expected?  I guess you are not able to travel at this time.

Edited March 27, 2020 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Is there any reason we are told not to bless the sacrament over a video conference?

 

I can only guess, but I suppose it has to do with maintaining dignity, intimacy, reverence and orderliness. 
 

I heard once that in the early days of the Church in Utah, the sacrament would be administered at large, general gatherings of the Church in the Salt Lake Tabernacle. The emblems would be blessed and then passed among the huge congregation throughout the duration of the meeting while it proceeded with the sermons, etc. This was necessary to have time to get the emblems to everybody. 
 

Seems bizarre today.  I’m glad the Church ceased doing that at large gatherings. Can you imagine the logistical nightmare of passing the sacrament at stake conference? 

Edited March 27, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Duncan]

I am stealing a phrase I read online, "The atonement is always available even if the bread and water are not", granted the bread and water are symbols of the atonement but still

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I am stealing a phrase I read online, "The atonement is always available even if the bread and water are not", granted the bread and water are symbols of the atonement but still

Yeah. We do it when they ARE available to fulfill the commandment. 

Edited March 27, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Is there any reason we are told not to bless the sacrament over a video conference?

and yes taking the sacrament is important or we wouldn’t be encouraged to do it weekly

We are taught we must hear the full blessing and not just part of it. But adaptation is allowed since my deaf friend never was restricted and neither my blind friend not allowed to bless the sacrament. So hearing isn’t essential nor is sight as long as it seems there is awareness and understanding of the prayers and who they are given to and by. 

I can see a physical presence as being essential though in some sense (at least in the building).  You can’t be present for just part of it.  Presence is important for our ordinances, we even need to physically move including from one location to another in some of them to complete them.

 In time if the meaning of presence changes for us, if videoing becomes “face to face” in our experience, possibly due to holographic communication, it seems like it would be reasonable then to have ordinances when not in actual presence even if it only feels we are in each other’s presence.  On the other hand, there is something important to humanity to have physical interaction with others. Those who lack it as children grow up with emotional and social dysfunctions.  So perhaps it is too fundamental of a need for the symbolism of the ordinance to ever change from being a “you need to be there” ceremony. 

Still, there is the accommodating of mothers who only hear the blessings when feeding their children, but are still brought the emblems... maybe that has implications for video conferencing the sacrament in the future. That might depend on if the leadership interprets the bread or what replaces as it must be broken by the priest who is representing Christ if it is to follow the pattern given to us by Christ.

Speaking of Christ, the Sacrament was the last thing before his death that he taught all his apostles together at a specially prepared time and place.  Seems like that indicates it is of extreme importance. But importance doesn’t always means it must be strictly repeated.  Repetition in and of itself can detract from spirituality as well as contribute to it. 

Edited March 27, 2020 by Calm

[Amulek]

52 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Is there any reason we are told not to bless the sacrament over a video conference?

Our cosmology centers around the receipt and glorification of a physical body. As such, I think it makes perfect sense that our ordinances - especially those pertaining to salvation - require a physical body to be present (as is the case with proxy baptisms). 

I also think there are some pragmatic reasons for not having remote sacrament administration though. For starters, how do you determine who presides when the video conference spans multiple wards? And how does the presiding authority ensure only those worthy to partake of the sacrament are doing so if he doesn't have any clue how the people on the other end of the screen live their lives? Could probably go on, but you get the idea.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Our cosmology centers around the receipt and glorification of a physical body. As such, I think it makes perfect sense that our ordinances - especially those pertaining to salvation - require a physical body to be present (as is the case with proxy baptisms). 

I also think there are some pragmatic reasons for not having remote sacrament administration though. For starters, how do you determine who presides when the video conference spans multiple wards? And how does the presiding authority ensure only those worthy to partake of the sacrament are doing so if he doesn't have any clue how the people on the other end of the screen live their lives? Could probably go on, but you get the idea.

 

Good points, these. 
 

I would point out, though, that there is no confusion over who presides at general conference, even though it is widely televised. 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Sympathies, Navidad. Was it expected?  I guess you are not able to travel at this time.

She had dementia and a form of Parkinsons for some time. With those two illnesses some live for years and others pass away quickly. They are not having a funeral. There will be a life celebration later on. She was my big sister and always took great care of me. I will miss her. She and my brother-in-law were married 65 years. God blessed them with a great life together. Thanks so much for your kindness.

It is interesting, we never know what is going on in someone else's life. I got testy with Scott and I should not have. I regret it. 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Our cosmology centers around the receipt and glorification of a physical body. As such, I think it makes perfect sense that our ordinances - especially those pertaining to salvation - require a physical body to be present (as is the case with proxy baptisms). 

I also think there are some pragmatic reasons for not having remote sacrament administration though. For starters, how do you determine who presides when the video conference spans multiple wards? And how does the presiding authority ensure only those worthy to partake of the sacrament are doing so if he doesn't have any clue how the people on the other end of the screen live their lives? Could probably go on, but you get the idea.

 

Quick question . . . I once attended an Arabic Orthodox service in which the priest refused to serve the element to a man because he apparently was cheating on his wife and the priest knew it. There was a long line to receive the element and the priest stopped the whole service, speaking in Arabic to the man and apparently quite embarrassed him. The man was furious and stomped out with his less-than-happy wife. You mention that the presiding authority ensures only those worthy to partake do so. Have any of you ever seen a presiding authority stop someone from taking? If so, how would he do that when there are large sanctuaries, pews, etc. and the bishop or whoever is sitting way up on the stand? I don't remember reading anything about that in the new handbook. Maybe I missed it. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Mark, upon reflection I realize we have no quarrel of any consequence. I regret making an issue over what amounts to dross. 
 

Peace, brother. 

No problem.  I do that myself and was at least as guilty as you!!  😁

 

[Ahab]

21 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Seriously, can we just let go of the need to promote sacrament at home? Old ladies especially don’t need to be feeling any pressure to invite priesthood over for sacrament yet. 
 

We should give it a rest already. Imo. 

A need to promote sacrament at home?  Or a need to promote sacrament at home?  Or a need to promote sacrament at home?  I'm not sure what your point is or what you are focusing on.

As far as I understand the sacrament, it is an observance of our Lord's sacrifice, his moral body and blood, and the  reason why he sacrificed himself or his mortal life to help all of us in some way, so I don't see a problem with observing the sacrament on a regular basis. We're told the first saints, back in the days soon after our Lord's sacrifice, observed his sacrifice on the first day of the week on a regular basis, and I believe our Lord told us in these latter days that we should do it on Sundays, too, which is why we usually do it on Sundays on a regular basis.  So if we're going to start changing that, which for a while now we have and who knows how long this change will go on, we should at least notify people that we are making a change and what the change is going to be so they will at least know what is going on.

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Quick question . . . I once attended an Arabic Orthodox service in which the priest refused to serve the element to a man because he apparently was cheating on his wife and the priest knew it. There was a long line to receive the element and the priest stopped the whole service, speaking in Arabic to the man and apparently quite embarrassed him. The man was furious and stomped out with his less-than-happy wife. You mention that the presiding authority ensures only those worthy to partake do so. Have any of you ever seen a presiding authority stop someone from taking? If so, how would he do that when there are large sanctuaries, pews, etc. and the bishop or whoever is sitting way up on the stand? I don't remember reading anything about that in the new handbook. Maybe I missed it. 

Let me stick my nose in here for a second. In our church if someone wants to take the sacrament unworthily that is on them.  No one is going to grab them by the arm or berate them in church for doing so.

On the other hand we have a mechanism for deciding who is worthy and who is not. If someone confesses a serious sin to a bishop for example the bishop has the power to tell that person not to partake of the sacrament for a period of time or whatever is decided.

So in fact the bishop could observe the person taking the sacrament well knowing that he has been barred from doing so, and the person would clearly know ahead of time that he is not to  partake of the sacrament

After the meeting a good bishop would take that person aside and have a chat with him. 

No public announcements, no embarrassment.

[Amulek]

28 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You mention that the presiding authority ensures only those worthy to partake do so. Have any of you ever seen a presiding authority stop someone from taking? If so, how would he do that when there are large sanctuaries, pews, etc. and the bishop or whoever is sitting way up on the stand? I don't remember reading anything about that in the new handbook. Maybe I missed it. 

See @mfbukowski's comment. It's spot on (as usual).

 

[Ahab]

34 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Quick question . . . I once attended an Arabic Orthodox service in which the priest refused to serve the element to a man because he apparently was cheating on his wife and the priest knew it. There was a long line to receive the element and the priest stopped the whole service, speaking in Arabic to the man and apparently quite embarrassed him. The man was furious and stomped out with his less-than-happy wife. You mention that the presiding authority ensures only those worthy to partake do so. Have any of you ever seen a presiding authority stop someone from taking? If so, how would he do that when there are large sanctuaries, pews, etc. and the bishop or whoever is sitting way up on the stand? I don't remember reading anything about that in the new handbook. Maybe I missed it. 

A presiding authority is always watching anyone taking the sacrament emblems and whenever noticing someone unworthily taking the sacrament emblems they immediately jump up and run down to the person to knock those emblems out of their hands before they take them into their mouth.  Works every time.  Nobody gets away with unworthily taking the sacrament emblems in our Church, which is our Lord's Church.  How do they stop it in your church?  Or do you just let other people take the sacrament emblems unworthily without doing anything at all to stop them?

[Tacenda]

I agree with MustardSeed. I do understand those that need the interaction and the ordinance/symbolism, but I don't know that it's safe. My mother in law is in a retirement community now, and my husband and his brother are mad that his nephew picked her up and brought her to their house last Sunday. No doubt they had Sacrament..but not a good idea IMO. She can now take a possible virus back to the facility with older people. I'm surprised he was able to take her out! If the church would just say no more Sacrament unless it's with your family that live at home, it would be better. Maybe those like Maidservant or Raingirl or ? could somehow get a skype? It would be awesome for those that are alone or unable to prepare the Sacrament because of lack of authority.

Edited March 27, 2020 by Tacenda

[Bernard Gui]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I agree with Mustard Seed. I do understand those that need the interaction and the symbolism, but I don't know that it's safe. My mother in law is in a retirement community now, and my husband and his brother are mad that his nephew picked her up and brought her to their house last Sunday. No doubt they had Sacrament..but not a good idea IMO. She can now take it back to the facility with older people. I'm surprised he was able to take her out!

This was very risky. Now is not the time, but it's human nature to think the rules apply to everyone else, but not to me because I am smarter than them.

Edited March 27, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would point out, though, that there is no confusion over who presides at general conference, even though it is widely televised. 

Quite so.

I'm thinking more along the lines of all the practical, logistical issues that would pop up when you've got no one greater than a bishop involved. 

Say, for example, that you have got a niece in Colorado who wants to join in with your family via Skype this Sunday to take the sacrament. You've already received authorization from your bishop to perform the ordinance, but your bishop doesn't have keys over your niece - she'll need to get permission from her bishop, who in turn will (at a minimum) need to ensure that you are worthy to officiate a priesthood ordinance in the first place. Multiply that by every bishop in every area with a member who plans on attending the meeting and things can start to be a hassle fairly quickly. 

And that is all ignoring the original meta problem of whether you can even perform an ordinance across two locations simultaneously to begin with. The more I think about it the more convinced I am that priesthood ordinances ought to require a physical presence. Once you remove that as a requirement I think you will find that you have opened the door to all kinds of strange, unintended consequences. 

 

Edited March 27, 2020 by Amulek

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

This was very risky. Now is not the time, but it's human nature to think the rules apply to everyone else, but not to me because I am smarter than them.

They have disallowed visiting outside at my mother’s place as they could see people were giving hugs and such. They have set up window visits with a phone. Deliveries are left on tables in the front and everything is supposed to be sanitized before it is delivered.  Just getting tighter and tighter rules because people keep breaking them. Sigh.