Virtual Sacrament Ordinance

[JAHS]

Janna Riess is suggesting that those without priesthood in the home to administer the sacrament, should be able to partake the sacrament through an online ordinance.

When Mormon women can't have the sacrament

"But the wonder of modern technology means that sharing communion together at the same time does not require us to be in the same room. If we are a people who can administer vicarious ordinances to the dead so that the deceased can have what’s necessary for eternal exaltation, we can surely administer a virtual ordinance that is intended as a remembrance of Jesus’ death but does not impart anything necessary for our eternal life. Our words of institution in the sacrament prayer say that we eat and drink “in remembrance” of the body and blood of Jesus. We’re enacting a sacred holy memory.

If death cannot separate us or invalidate our most sacred ordinances, we should also be able to conduct a sacrament meeting without being in each other’s physical presence. There is no theological reason why I should not be able to see and hear a priesthood holder blessing the sacrament in an online service and then consume the elements privately in my own home, knowing as I do that many other Saints around the world are doing so alongside me."

So, is there any theological reason for not participating in such an online sacrament ordinance? Do those holding the priesthood need to physically be in the presence of the partakers as they administer the sacrament?

 

[rpn]

In the specific instructions recently given by Pres. Nelson, it forbids virtual sacrament.    It also counsels that when member is without priesthood, their reviewing the prayers and recommitting to the promises is enough.  

[bluebell]

42 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Janna Riess is suggesting that those without priesthood in the home to administer the sacrament, should be able to partake the sacrament through an online ordinance.

When Mormon women can't have the sacrament

"But the wonder of modern technology means that sharing communion together at the same time does not require us to be in the same room. If we are a people who can administer vicarious ordinances to the dead so that the deceased can have what’s necessary for eternal exaltation, we can surely administer a virtual ordinance that is intended as a remembrance of Jesus’ death but does not impart anything necessary for our eternal life. Our words of institution in the sacrament prayer say that we eat and drink “in remembrance” of the body and blood of Jesus. We’re enacting a sacred holy memory.

If death cannot separate us or invalidate our most sacred ordinances, we should also be able to conduct a sacrament meeting without being in each other’s physical presence. There is no theological reason why I should not be able to see and hear a priesthood holder blessing the sacrament in an online service and then consume the elements privately in my own home, knowing as I do that many other Saints around the world are doing so alongside me."

So, is there any theological reason for not participating in such an online sacrament ordinance? Do those holding the priesthood need to physically be in the presence of the partakers as they administer the sacrament?

 

There is scriptural evidence in 3Nephi which suggests that the breaking the bread is a part of the ordinance. If that is true then there is no way to provide a virtual sacrament meeting. If that evidence is being interpreted incorrectly, then I think there is room theologically for a virtual ordinance. 

It seems clear that Pres. Nelson believes that breaking the bread is part of the ordinance and must be performed by a priesthood holder. 

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

There is scriptural evidence in 3Nephi which suggests that the breaking the bread is a part of the ordinance. If that is true then there is no way to provide a virtual sacrament meeting. If that evidence is being interpreted incorrectly, then I think there is room theologically for a virtual ordinance. 

It seems clear that Pres. Nelson believes that breaking the bread is part of the ordinance and must be performed by a priesthood holder. 

Is breaking the bread really an official part of the ordinance or is it just a physical necessity so that everyone can have a piece?
I would say that the ordinance really starts with the first prayer on the bread. But that just my opinion.

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Is breaking the bread really an official part of the ordinance or is it just a physical necessity so that everyone can have a piece?
I would say that the ordinance really starts with the first prayer on the bread. But that just my opinion.

I'm thinking of the admonition by Christ in 3 Ne. 18: 1-5:

1 And it came to pass that Jesus commanded his disciples that they should bring forth some bread and wine unto him.  2 And while they were gone for bread and wine, he commanded the multitude that they should sit themselves down upon the earth.  3 And when the disciples had come with bread and wine, he took of the bread and brake and blessed it; and he gave unto the disciples and commanded that they should eat.  4 And when they had eaten and were filled, he commanded that they should give unto the multitude.  5 And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto the disciples: Behold there shall one be ordained among you, and to him will I give power that he shall break bread and bless it and give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name.

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Is breaking the bread really an official part of the ordinance or is it just a physical necessity so that everyone can have a piece?
I would say that the ordinance really starts with the first prayer on the bread. But that just my opinion.

I think it is part of it due to the symbolism.  It is not just about having enough pieces for everyone.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

Is breaking the bread really an official part of the ordinance or is it just a physical necessity so that everyone can have a piece?
I would say that the ordinance really starts with the first prayer on the bread. But that just my opinion.

If it were not part of the ordinance it would make more sense to break it when you set up instead of just before the prayer.

[JAHS]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If it were not part of the ordinance it would make more sense to break it when you set up instead of just before the prayer.

I don't think I could trust the Teachers preparing the sacrament that they would break the bread with clean hands. 😕 

[Hamba Tuhan]

In my opinion, there's a specific reason why we break bread instead of, for example, cut it.

I know that I have felt deeply on many occasions that it has been, quite literally in some cases, my hands that have done violence to the body of my Saviour.

[Rain]

If we can give crackers or rice chex without breaking them to those who are gluten-free it seems like you could do virtual sacrament without "breaking" the bread as well for basically the same reason (health reasons) so it seems to me there must be something more to not doing it virtually.

Edited May 13, 2020 by Rain

[JAHS]

53 minutes ago, Rain said:

If we can give crackers or rice without breaking them checks to those who are gluten-free it seems like you could do virtual sacrament without "breaking" the bread as well for basically the same reason (health reasons) so it seems to me there must be something more to not doing it virtually.

"Members may provide allergen-free bread or another broken bread-like substitute in a sealed plastic bag or cup. They give this to a priesthood holder to place on a separate tray. The bishopric helps those who pass the sacrament know which members to whom the allergen-free item should be passed. The bishopric may modify the procedure as necessary."  (Church Handbook 18.9.3)

So it sounds like the gluten free substitute does not have to be broken by the Priest.

[Rain]

16 hours ago, JAHS said:

"Members may provide allergen-free bread or another broken bread-like substitute in a sealed plastic bag or cup. They give this to a priesthood holder to place on a separate tray. The bishopric helps those who pass the sacrament know which members to whom the allergen-free item should be passed. The bishopric may modify the procedure as necessary."  (Church Handbook 18.9.3)

So it sounds like the gluten free substitute does not have to be broken by the Priest.

I agree.  

I didn't know it specified "broken bread-like substitute" though.  Nearly everyone I have heard of was doing the cracker or rice chex which would be a little messy if you broke it and may be hard to pick up.

Edited May 13, 2020 by Rain

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, JAHS said:

I don't think I could trust the Teachers preparing the sacrament that they would break the bread with clean hands. 😕 

But you trust the priests?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Rain said:

If we can give crackers or rice chex without breaking them to those who are gluten-free it seems like you could do virtual sacrament without "breaking" the bread as well for basically the same reason (health reasons) so it seems to me there must be something more to not doing it virtually.

I think that amounts to a circumstantial accommodation.

One analogy that comes to mind is priesthood blessing of the sick and afflicted. If, in an emergency, no consecrated oil is present, the ordinance can be done without it. However, we are to try to perform the ordinance as instructed when we can.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I think it is part of it due to the symbolism.  It is not just about having enough pieces for everyone.

The symbolism is taught in one of the verses of the hymn "How Great the Wisdom and the Love" (a verse we seldom sing):

Quote

 

In memory of the broken flesh

We eat the broken bread

And witness with the cup afresh

Our faith in Christ, our Head.

 

 

[JamesBYoung]

President Nelson says, 'no', to virtual sacrament.

I disagree, but since I am not regent of God's church on earth, I need to pray and get my soul in line.

Before my brethren here begin the early morning priesthood pontification and counsel, I do understand 'why' President has made his decision.

Edited May 13, 2020 by JamesBYoung

[JAHS]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

But you trust the priests?

They have hand sanitizer at the sacrament table and the Bishop watches them to make sure they use it.

[Amulek]

17 hours ago, JAHS said:

So, is there any theological reason for not participating in such an online sacrament ordinance? Do those holding the priesthood need to physically be in the presence of the partakers as they administer the sacrament?

Ours is very much a physical religion. Our entire 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.

Plus, and I'm not really sure that this is a theological reason per se, but I believe God intends for ordinances to be more personal, intimate affairs - limited to those who are actually present, participating in them together. 

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think that amounts to a circumstantial accommodation.

One analogy that comes to mind is priesthood blessing of the sick and afflicted. If, in an emergency, no consecrated oil is present, the ordinance can be done without it. However, we are to try to perform the ordinance as instructed when we can.

 

Or bringing one's hand to the square is not insisted upon if for some reason a person isn't able to (arthritis, broken, missing).

[mgy401]

Trying to extrapolate “well, if we can do it this way, we should also be able to do it that way”, is how the primitive church wound up with baptism by sprinkling, and baptism of infants, and a bunch of other liturgical innovations that we now consider “apostasy”.

Fundamentally, we have no right to officiate in a priesthood ordinance at all unless the one holding the keys of that ordinance authorized it—and therefore, no right to buck the keyholder’s instructions as to the time/place/manner of the ordinance.  If we acknowledge that President Nelson has authority to, without an explicit theological basis, overrule an over-zealous local bishop’s attempt to have all the deacons wear white shirts and bow ties; then we also have to acknowledge President Nelson’s authority to prohibit sacrament-by-videoconference—even if he does so, again, without an explicit theological foundation.

Edited May 13, 2020 by mgy401

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Ours is very much a physical religion. Our entire 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.

Plus, and I'm not really sure that this is a theological reason per se, but I believe God intends for ordinances to be more personal, intimate affairs - limited to those who are actually present, participating in them together. 

 

Except of course in the temple ordinances for the dead where the recipient is not physically present. But I guess there's nothing that can be done about that.
Perhaps they are present in spirit and are aware of it happening.

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, JAHS said:

I don't think I could trust the Teachers preparing the sacrament that they would break the bread with clean hands. 😕 

That’s why we don’t use wine nowadays. 😉

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, Rain said:

If we can give crackers or rice chex without breaking them to those who are gluten-free it seems like you could do virtual sacrament without "breaking" the bread as well for basically the same reason (health reasons) so it seems to me there must be something more to not doing it virtually.

Perhaps the appropriate thing would be also to break the alternative materials.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Quote

Ours is very much a physical religion. Our entire 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.

Plus, and I'm not really sure that this is a theological reason per se, but I believe God intends for ordinances to be more personal, intimate affairs - limited to those who are actually present, participating in them together. 

Except of course in the temple ordinances for the dead where the recipient is not physically present. But I guess there's nothing that can be done about that.

I don't think the "except of course" component is warranted.  The prospective recipient is not physically present, but the proxy is.  This buttresses Amulek's point. 

The necessity of saving ordinances being physically performed on earth is a central component of Latter-day Saint temple worship.  We officiate in ordinances on the earth because those ordinances must be performed here.  

2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Perhaps they are present in spirit and are aware of it happening.

A wonderful sentiment.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bernard Gui]

17 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Except of course in the temple ordinances for the dead where the recipient is not physically present. But I guess there's nothing that can be done about that.
Perhaps they are present in spirit and are aware of it happening.

On my mission in Central America, there were rumors spread that Mormon missionaries took photos of people so they could secretly baptize them (the photos). That’s vicarious to the extreme. 😉 On the other hand, it would save a lot of time, effort, and money,  if we didn’t have to have to perform individual proxy ordinances for every individual. 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Bernard Gui