Is Sacrament That Important Right Now?

[Rain]

5 hours 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. 

So sorry.  ❤

[MustardSeed]

Who peed in my Cheerios when I posted this? Lol

I should clarify.  I think it’s great to have the option of sacrament in the home.  We have taken that opportunity. ..but we are remaining quiet about it- no social media horn tooting etc. I have seen enough of that, as have some of my single friends who are female who have let me know that they wish they had that experience.  I remind them they are doing fine without it and suggested they request to video conference in on family next Sunday. 

sorry I was so cranky.  Too much time in my garage office I suppose. Not enough time on the road. 

 

I do think weekly sacrament is important.  It’s a helpful reminder of priorities.  But these are extenuating circumstance and no ones going to be punished or unforgiving if they don’t partake for a few months over this. 

Edited March 27, 2020 by MustardSeed

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours 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

Then this would be the only priesthood ordinance that could be carried out over the airwaves. There is something crucial about the "laying on of hands" in all ordinances, including the sacrament. While we use the temple videos in instruction, they do not replace the physical actions. IMO.

Edited March 27, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Who peed in my Cheerios when I posted this? Lol

 

It wasn't me, I swear!  

You brought up a good point, IMO. But hopefully the way would be cleared for as you say, video conferencing. My state of Utah is probably going to be in lock down by this Monday, I've been told.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Amulek said:

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. 

 

Yes, that is a very good point. Approval is driven by where you happen to be at the time the ordinance is performed and the bishop who has jurisdiction in that locale. Doing it by teleconference would be an insurmountable logistical barrier. 
 

And yet, I wonder. Are temple dedications priesthood ordinances (I ask because I don’t know)? Aren’t temple dedications sometimes carried in multiple meetinghouses which, we are told, for the purpose of the dedication are to be regarded as an extension of the temple? Those gathered at the remote locations participate in the Hosanna Shout and the Hosanna Anthem as though they were physically present in the temple, though they are not. 
 

Is a puzzlement. 

Edited March 28, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

6 hours 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.

But what if you really are? 😉😇 

[2BizE]

No, sacrament should not be a priority. No effort should be made to take people the sacrament until our health officials declare it safe to do so.

[Hamba Tuhan]

23 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

No effort should be made to take people the sacrament until our health officials declare it safe to do so.

We are strictly following the declarations of our health officials in the way we are making the sacrament available to those wanting it.

[2BizE]

6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

We are strictly following the declarations of our health officials in the way we are making the sacrament available to those wanting it.

I disagree.  This places you and the people you visit at increased risk. Not worth it.  

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

I disagree.  This places you and the people you visit at increased risk. Not worth it.  

What evidence or information do you have for contradicting Hamba’s assertion that he is following the direction of his local health officials? Do you even know where he lives? Hint: It’s not in North America. 

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But what if you really are? 😉😇 

Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that everyone isn’t out to get you.

[Amulek]

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And yet, I wonder. Are temple dedications priesthood ordinances (I ask because I don’t know)? 

Yes. Just as home dedications and grave dedications are priesthood ordinances, so likewise is the dedication of a temple - though I can understand why, for pragmatic reasons, it isn't listed in the general handbook.  

 

Quote

Aren’t temple dedications sometimes carried in multiple meetinghouses which, we are told, for the purpose of the dedication are to be regarded as an extension of the temple?

When I was at BYU, I participated in my first temple dedication - the Mount Timpanogos Utah Temple. It was broadcast, closed circuit, to the Marriott Center where I attended with many in my ward. I don't recall any sort of instructions that the location we were attending was to be considered an extension of the temple - though we were expected to behave as if we were physically present.  

 

Quote

Those gathered at the remote locations participate in the Hosanna Shout and the Hosanna Anthem as though they were physically present in the temple, though they are not. 

Definitely. But I guess I consider the Hosanna Shout and Hosanna Anthem more along the lines of simultaneous participation in an act of sacred praise rather than participation in a priesthood ordinance. Sort of like when we used to attend General Conference sessions at our meetinghouse and everyone would participate in singing the congregational hymns (back in what my children now lovingly refer to as 'the olden days'). 

To me, it seems that there is a marked difference between participating as an observer or witness to an ordinance and participating as an officiant of a priesthood ordinance. I believe the latter requires a physical presence even if the former does not. 

So, going back to the Timpanogos temple dedication, the question to ponder would be: do you think that President Hinckley needed to be physically present on the temple grounds in order to dedicate the temple? Or could he have been in the Marriott Center with me and performed the ordinance remotely? I tend to think he genuinely needed to be at the temple. Perhaps there are exceptions to the physical presence requirement in some circumstances, but I would think those would be exceedingly rare. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

Yes. Just as home dedications and grave dedications are priesthood ordinances, so likewise is the dedication of a temple - though I can understand why, for pragmatic reasons, it isn't listed in the general handbook.  

 

When I was at BYU, I participated in my first temple dedication - the Mount Timpanogos Utah Temple. It was broadcast, closed circuit, to the Marriott Center where I attended with many in my ward. I don't recall any sort of instructions that the location we were attending was to be considered an extension of the temple - though we were expected to behave as if we were physically present.  

 

Definitely. But I guess I consider the Hosanna Shout and Hosanna Anthem more along the lines of simultaneous participation in an act of sacred praise rather than participation in a priesthood ordinance. Sort of like when we used to attend General Conference sessions at our meetinghouse and everyone would participate in singing the congregational hymns (back in what my children now lovingly refer to as 'the olden days'). 

To me, it seems that there is a marked difference between participating as an observer or witness to an ordinance and participating as an officiant of a priesthood ordinance. I believe the latter requires a physical presence even if the former does not. 

So, going back to the Timpanogos temple dedication, the question to ponder would be: do you think that President Hinckley needed to be physically present on the temple grounds in order to dedicate the temple? Or could he have been in the Marriott Center with me and performed the ordinance remotely? I tend to think he genuinely needed to be at the temple. Perhaps there are exceptions to the physical presence requirement in some circumstances, but I would think those would be exceedingly rare. 

 

I have attended at remote locations a number of temple dedications including Mount Timpanogas. In each and every instance we were informed that for the purpose of the dedication, the locale where we were gathered was to be considered an extension of the temple. We were issued a pass by our local priesthood leader, who ensured we were temple worthy, and the pass was checked at the door when we entered. 
 

I have always considered the Hosanna Shout and Hosanna Anthem, whether done in the temple or at a remote location, as more than just tantamount to congregational singing, that they are part and parcel of the dedicatory ceremony, led by one who is in authority, with all present expected to participate. In fact I would consider it irreverent not to take part or to do so half-heartedly. 

Edited March 29, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Amulek]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have attended at remote locations a number of temple dedications including Mount Timpanogas. In each and every instance we were informed that for the purpose of the dedication, the locale where we were gathered was to be considered an extension of the temple.

I'll trust your memory and experience as being more clear than my own. But still, I think one can consider a place to be an extension of the temple without it actually being an extension of the temple. 

 

Quote

I have always considered the Hosanna Shout and Hosanna Anthem, whether done in the temple or at a remote location, as more than just tantamount to congregational singing, that they are part and parcel of the dedicatory ceremony, led by one who is in authority, with all present expected to participate.

I agree it is an act of scared praise more rarefied than singing, but I believe that ultimately it is an act of praise - not a priesthood ordinance. 

 

[Duncan]

On 3/27/2020 at 5:34 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, that is a very good point. Approval is driven by where you happen to be at the time the ordinance is performed and the bishop who has jurisdiction in that locale. Doing it by teleconference would be an insurmountable logistical barrier. 
 

And yet, I wonder. Are temple dedications priesthood ordinances (I ask because I don’t know)? Aren’t temple dedications sometimes carried in multiple meetinghouses which, we are told, for the purpose of the dedication are to be regarded as an extension of the temple? Those gathered at the remote locations participate in the Hosanna Shout and the Hosanna Anthem as though they were physically present in the temple, though they are not. 
 

Is a puzzlement. 

Ours is speculated to be dedicated in October, not the ideal time in Canada but what do  know?! I hope to heaven above this will be all over. It's expected to have a TON of people attend, every former missionary, member , etc. who used to live here will be here if you believe everything you read on Facebook. I was thinking I hope it isn't online because of this

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

I'll trust your memory and experience as being more clear than my own. But still, I think one can consider a place to be an extension of the temple without it actually being an extension of the temple. 

 

I agree it is an act of scared praise more rarefied than singing, but I believe that ultimately it is an act of praise - not a priesthood ordinance. 

 

Not in an of itself. But I see it as a component of the ordinance. 
 

Edited to add: A temple dedication is the only occasion I’ve ever encountered when there has been instruction to regard a remote location as a temporary extension of the temple. Presumably, on each such occasion, the directive came down from the First Presidency. I wouldn’t be inclined to take it seriously otherwise. 

Edited March 29, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Ours is speculated to be dedicated in October, not the ideal time in Canada but what do  know?! I hope to heaven above this will be all over. It's expected to have a TON of people attend, every former missionary, member , etc. who used to live here will be here if you believe everything you read on Facebook. I was thinking I hope it isn't online because of this

Been a long time in coming, hasn’t it?

I guess I won’t be there for it after all now, nor will you and I be having lunch. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

 

I agree it is an act of scared praise more rarefied than singing, but I believe that ultimately it is an act of praise - not a priesthood ordinance. 

 

No mention of it as an ordinance:  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1973/09/q-and-a-questions-and-answers/what-is-the-hosanna-shout?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/viewpoint-why-we-shout-hosanna-for-holy-temples?lang=eng

Edited March 29, 2020 by Calm

[Duncan]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Been a long time in coming, hasn’t it?

I guess I won’t be there for it after all now, nor will you and I be having lunch. 

yes, it has! Announced April 2011, 9 years now! oh well, I think we are on the home stretch now. They announced the first Temple President and Matron, he used to be our Stake President here over 15 years ago now. Amazing,amazing couple! Just as an aside they put a note on their facebook page, "This is not something we sought for" and knowing them I believe and I love that, they would be happy to serve and just as happy not be called, it's humility in action. Ah, we'll get together sometime!!!

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, Duncan said:

yes, it has! Announced April 2011, 9 years now! oh well, I think we are on the home stretch now. They announced the first Temple President and Matron, he used to be our Stake President here over 15 years ago now. Amazing,amazing couple! Just as an aside they put a note on their facebook page, "This is not something we sought for" and knowing them I believe and I love that, they would be happy to serve and just as happy not be called, it's humility in action. Ah, we'll get together sometime!!!

“But we’ll get together then, son. You know we’ll have a good time then.”  — Harry Chapin, “Cat’s in the Cradle”

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎3‎/‎26‎/‎2020 at 2:13 PM, 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. 

It doesn't matter who prepares the sacrament. It doesn't matter who passes the sacrament. So really, the only thing an old lady can't do is bless the sacrament.

If the bread and water are prepared, couldn't a priesthood holder bless the emblems for the specific person via phone/skype/zoom or even through a glass screen door? Does the person blessing need to be present to bless the emblems, or is it the act of blessing specific emblems that matters, not the location of the person doing the blessing?

I acknowledge that it may sound strange to bless the sacrament over the phone, but why couldn't it be? Serious question.

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

... or even through a glass screen door?

This is precisely what I'll be doing for a family in our ward this Sunday. I cleared it with our bishop and arranged it with the family. They'll set up a tray table outside their back security (screen) door. I'll show up to bless the emblems, cover them again, and leave. Then the son will bring everything in. Easy.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This is precisely what I'll be doing for a family in our ward this Sunday. I cleared it with our bishop and arranged it with the family. They'll set up a tray table outside their back security (screen) door. I'll show up to bless the emblems, cover them again, and leave. Then the son will bring everything in. Easy.

Nice

Would they even need to bring it outside? Couldn't they leave it inside, on their side of the glass so the emblems aren't exposed to someone outside their home?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Nice

Would they even need to bring it outside? Couldn't they leave it inside, on their side of the glass so the emblems aren't exposed to someone outside their home?

Then why bother coming at all? Just say the prayers at home, then call them and tell them you did so. 

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then why bother coming at all? Just say the prayers at home, then call them and tell them you did so. 

OK- why not?

Why couldn't it be blessed over the phone, or video? Serious question.

If Pres. Nelson stood up in conference and told everyone watching from home to prepare bread and water, and then he blessed it for the entire church from the pulpit, would that be inappropriate? I don't see why it would be.

It's blessing the emblems. Why would a person have to be in direct contact with those emblems. It's not like laying hands when the hands must be touching the person receiving the blessing. I'm serious about this. I know it would be a massive shift from how we've thought about the sacrament, but I don't see why it couldn't or shouldn't be done. I think it's just a matter of the proper authority giving the go ahead. I don't see why God wouldn't accept it.

In the era of a pandemic it would seem best not to have someone else touching the bread or breathing/speaking over bread and water that is going to be consumed.