Virtual Sacrament Ordinance

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Administering to the sick, consecrating oil, Patriarchal blessings, and dedicating a home are ordinances that can be done alone. Or are those not considered priesthood ordinances?

Yep. Witnesses are generally only required for saving ordinances and sometimes not even then.

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Administering to the sick, consecrating oil, Patriarchal blessings, and dedicating a home are ordinances that can be done alone. Or are those not considered priesthood ordinances?

The bolded performances are not administering to oneself, but the sacrament can be when observed alone. And come to think of it neither is consecrating oil so I should amend that post.

Edited May 18, 2020 by CV75

[alter idem]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The only way that it would be "private" would be if the priesthood holder blessed it for himself and no one else.

Anyone there would be a witness.

They are witnessing to each other that they take upon themselves  the name of Christ etcetera.

Maybe I didn't understand the question?

 And if he was the only one?

 he would still be his own witness because the sacrament prayer itself says that the action is an action of witnessing.

How can one "witness" to oneself?

  Of course under normal circumstances that would be very unusual for a bishop to issue permission for someone to bless the sacrament for himself alone.  I can't imagine that. 

 That's exactly why we bring the sacrament to shut-ins, if they are priesthood holders or not.

I suppose theoretically someone could bless it for themselves but I don't think it would be valid.

 Ordinarily that would be a very strange anomaly, except these are very strange times, so who knows what a single Bishop in a single Ward somewhere might do.

A priesthood holder blessing sacrament for himself is not unusual at all during this isolation, and I assume it is common among military serving away from a branch, who are  given permission. 

The sacrament prayers bless the emblems for the souls of all those who partake, but then states that they are each witnessing unto God, not to the rest of the congregation. We aren’t witnessing to ourselves,  we are witnessing to God.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course not. Where is this coming from?

It was coming from kfisher's response to my questions.

[alter idem]

A Bishop needs to authorize for a worthy priesthood holder to administer sacrament for himself and/or others outside a church service.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

The magic of semantics!

With regards to the event that entails the blessing, passing and partaking of the sacrament, it is the same event in distinct settings, one public (the chapel) and the other private (the home). The essential aspects* of the event are exactly the same in both settings, and virtually the same in practice with a few practical exceptions warranted by the setting.

* Prepare, bless and pass the emblems by the priesthood authority and in the order found in scripture; pray, sing, speak, testify, etc. according to the Spirit; preside and conduct by the common consent of the attendees eligible to do so in the respective settings.

In another sense it is a private communion with the Lord in both settings, though the chapel setting is more public than the home.

Exactly! And of course while blessing and passing, hopefully one is open to the spirit as well. So there really is no great distinction between them in practice.

But dang, it is impossible to meditate as I usually do while passing and making sure the boys fan out properly, hit the stand first, etc.

It's hard for me not to feel a little resentful for losing my meditation time, frankly, gotta work a lot on that one!

That's THE one thing I miss about Catholic mass. 

But in the other hand that is where community participation comes in.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, alter idem said:

A priesthood holder blessing sacrament for himself is not unusual at all during this isolation, and I assume it is common among military serving away from a branch, who are  given permission. 

The sacrament prayers bless the emblems for the souls of all those who partake, but then states that they are each witnessing unto God, not to the rest of the congregation. We aren’t witnessing to ourselves,  we are witnessing to God.

And by extension, we are also witnessing to each other, in the spirit of D&C 20:69 which addresses the ordinance of baptism, which is renewed with the ordnance of the sacrament.

69 And the members shall manifest before the church, and also before the elders, by a ^agodly walk and conversation, that they are worthy of it, that there may be works and ^bfaith agreeable to the holy scriptures—walking in ^choliness before the Lord.

I think these principles involving ordinances and witnesses are complimentary and dovetail together in many respects, if not in letter at least in spirit.

[CV75]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

Exactly! And of course while blessing and passing, hopefully one is open to the spirit as well. So there really is no great distinction between them in practice.

But dang, it is impossible to meditate as I usually do while passing and making sure the boys fan out properly, hit the stand first, etc.

It's hard for me not to feel a little resentful for losing my meditation time, frankly, gotta work a lot on that one!

That's THE one thing I miss about Catholic mass. 

But in the other hand that is where community participation comes in.

This what we have enjoyed so much about having the sacrament at home. That's THE one thing I'll miss about this pandemic! Maybe when it is over, we will be authorized an optional, one-week-per month home sacrament!

[Rain]

7 hours ago, ksfisher said:

 

It sounds like you're trying to set up cases and rules here.  Instead I think we should concentrate on following the guidance the prophet has given us and trusting in the Lord and His wisdom.

 

6 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I think we can ask questions, but many times the answer from the Lord seems to be to be obedient and wait for the answer.

 

6 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I don't think the questions are a problem, unless the questions get in the way of receiving the answer.

Perhaps I just accustomed to some posters on this board asking endless questions and never understanding the answers.

That isn't me.  

While I have asked several questions on this thread, there really is only one question I am asking.  All of the other questions go into the asking of that question. Hopefully I can figure out how to word the question right: What is it about the sacrament that it can't be done virtually?  I don't like the idea of virtual sacrament so I'm not arguing for it.  I just want to understand it better.

I've had a LOT of replies.  If everyone had answered "I don't know" or "in my own speculation" (like a couple did) I would have been ok with that even though I would have wanted to understand it better still. It would just mean that maybe we don't have the answer for it at this time. 

Most of the answers haven't made logical sense.  And it's not like I have pronounced that without thinking about them.  I can't tell you how many times I have thought "ah ha, maybe this is getting to the answer", but then another thought would come to my mind of why that particularly ah ha moment wasn't right or quite right.  

I've been thinking a lot about this over the last week.  I've been talking to a group of friends, my husband and my daughter about it.There is something to be learned here and it is really cool!  A week is not a lot of time to really understand something like this.  I don't think that I've had enough questions and time to fall under the category of endless questions and never understanding the answers, especially when I have explained that I am  trying to understand and not just push off the answers.   

 

 

Edited May 19, 2020 by Rain

[Rain]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I apologize, I did not realize my tone was off-putting, but I should have because my sainted wife helps me understand that problem as well

I definitely tend to be an unthinking oaf, but I really am trying not to be. Sorry again

But if you are willing to carry on, I would appreciate it, I am thinking this through as well

Thank you.

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What do you see as the difference between prayers and ordinances?

Do you agree one is public and the other private?

I thought that was all I was saying, but in a more detailed way, explaining why that was an important distinction 

I think that Bluebell has pretty much covered these questions in the same way that I feel, but does it much better so I'm just going to ditto what she said.   

[JAHS]

12 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

 

That isn't me.  

While I have asked several questions on this thread, there really is only one question I am asking.  All of the other questions go into the asking of that question. Hopefully I can figure out how to word the question right: What is it about the sacrament that it can't be done virtually?  I don't like the idea of virtual sacrament so I'm not arguing for it.  I just want to understand it better.

I've had a LOT of replies.  If everyone had answered "I don't know" or "in my own speculation" (like a couple did) I would have been ok with that even though I would have wanted to understand it better still. It would just mean that maybe we don't have the answer for it at this time. 

Most of the answers haven't made logical sense.  And it's not like I have pronounced that without thinking about them.  I can't tell you how many times I have though "ah ha, maybe this is getting to the answer", but then another thought would come to my mind of why that particularly ah ha moment wasn't right or quite right.  

I've been thinking a lot about this over the last week.  I've been talking to a group of friends, my husband and my daughter about it.There is really something to be learned here and it is really cool!  A week is really not a lot of time to really understand something like this.  I don't think that I've had enough questions and time to fall under the category of endless questions and never understanding the answers, especially when I have explained that I am really trying to understand and not just push off the answers.   

 

 

There are a lot of things we don't know the why for.  There is one scripture in the Book of Mormon that seems to include the breaking of the bread as part of the ordinance:
"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." (3 Ne. 18: 1-5)

This seems to include the breaking of the bread as part of the ordinance needing the power to do it. Our current prophet has authority to approve the option of using alternate food sources as needed by some members. But even that scripture does not tell us why, it just says that is the way Jesus said it should be done.  We are like Adam when "after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me."  (Moses 5:6)

We don't have a virtual sacrament ordinance because that is what we are told by God or His servants.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

We don't have a virtual sacrament ordinance because that is what we are told by God or His servants.

I wonder why?

[JAHS]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I wonder why?

And you can just keep on wondering, because that is part of the reason we are here. 

[bluebell]

Just now, JAHS said:

And you can just keep on wondering, because that is part of the reason we are here. 

Image if Joseph Smith believed that.   

[JAHS]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Image if Joseph Smith believed that.   

He did. His wondering is what made him ask God some important questions, just as we can do. And if we don't get an answer maybe it's because we don't really need the answer just now.

[bluebell]

Just now, JAHS said:

He did. His wondering is what made him ask God some important questions, just as we can do. And if we don't get an answer maybe it's because we don't really need the answer just now.

I mean, what if JS believed that, instead of working to find the answers to His questions, he should just keep on wondering because that is part of the reason we are here?

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I mean, what if JS believed that, instead of working to find the answers to His questions, he should just keep on wondering because that is part of the reason we are here?

We can work to find the answers too, but if the answers don't come to us for some things like priesthood ordinances we have to wait for them to come to our prophet. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Thank you.

I think that Bluebell has pretty much covered these questions in the same way that I feel, but does it much better so I'm just going to ditto what she said.   

I missed where she answered this, could you please quote it?

Part of the dialectic of discussion is that you actually answer questions that are put to you, to better inform the other person.  Sometimes it takes a little repetition for the other person to get it.

That was a technique pioneered by Socrates.

One of the questions I asked you is why we needed ordinances at all, if they can be replaced by personal prayer, or in our absence. It seems you never answered that I recall, or perhaps you could quote where you did answer

Would you advocate then virtual endowments for the living and dead, sealings etc?

[Rain]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I missed where she answered this, could you please quote it?

Part of the dialectic of discussion is that you actually answer questions that are put to you, to better inform the other person.  Sometimes it takes a little repetition for the other person to get it.

That was a technique pioneered by Socrates.

One of the questions I asked you is why we needed ordinances at all, if they can be replaced by personal prayer, or in our absence. It seems you never answered that I recall, or perhaps you could quote where you did answer

I'm sorry. Given the placement of it the question I thought it was a rhetorical question given out of frustration.

I don't know why we need ordinances.  I understand that we need saving ordinances because God says we do, but I don't know the underlying reason why.  My understanding is somehow they are like a key to the door of what God wants for us in the next life. How that works 

With the sacrament not being a saving ordinance I have even less understanding.  

But I'm not one who has said the sacrament can be replaced by prayer.  I don't think anyone would even think along those lines if the church hadn't put out that single women may have a prayer if they were not able to get the sacrament.  I don't think the church is equating the 2, but when it was suggested that put the question in the minds of some.

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Would you advocate then virtual endowments for the living and dead, sealings etc?

No. I don't even advocate for virtual sacrament, which I have stated here several times. And even if I did, there is still the fact that those are saving ordinances and sacrament is not so they may or may not work differently.

[Amulek]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

We've always been told how important the sacrament is and that that is the main reason that we go to church, etc. but now single women or women without authorized male members are being told that saying a prayer is just as good as taking the sacrament.  How do we reconcile those two things?

If one of those two things happens to be false, do they need to be reconciled?

I haven't heard of anyone - male or female, married or otherwise - being told that "saying a prayer is just as good as taking the sacrament."

The admonition from church leaders was that, "In unusual circumstances when the sacrament is not available, members can be comforted by studying the sacrament prayers and recommitting to live the covenants members have made and praying for the day they will receive it in person, properly administered by the priesthood."

That doesn't sound like "prayer is just as good as taking the sacrament" to me. That distinctly sound like, 'when the sacrament is unavailable, you can seek for comfort in prayer.' 

But that doesn't mean prayer is to be considered an adequate substitute for partaking the sacrament.

It would be like telling people, when your spouse is unavailable (say, on a long trip), you can take comfort in the companionship you have with your pet.

I don't think anyone would interpret that statement to mean that pets are just as good as spouses though.

 

[Amulek]

On 5/15/2020 at 9:18 PM, Rain said:

What do you mean by this: 

Quote

I believe priesthood ordinances are formal acts which take place in a way that combine sacred time and sacred space.

Sorry for taking so long to get back - I've been swamped this week. Also, the days are kind of all bleeding together now, so I've got that going too.

Anyway, what I mean is that priesthood ordinances are designed to be sacred acts which take place in reality (i.e., in time and space). 

If you want, you can think of the temple as being the epitome of sacred space-time. It is literally consecrated and dedicated to being the House of the Lord; a place where reality / mortality intersects with the sacred / divine.

Priesthood ordinances operate the same way - they involve the intersection of space and time (the act of the ordinance itself) with the divine (the priesthood power of God). 

So, if you want to have an ordinance, it requires the conjunction of all three in one (time, space, and divine authority), which is why a physical presence is necessary to administer an ordinance.

 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

If one of those two things happens to be false, do they need to be reconciled?

I haven't heard of anyone - male or female, married or otherwise - being told that "saying a prayer is just as good as taking the sacrament."

The admonition from church leaders was that, "In unusual circumstances when the sacrament is not available, members can be comforted by studying the sacrament prayers and recommitting to live the covenants members have made and praying for the day they will receive it in person, properly administered by the priesthood."

That doesn't sound like "prayer is just as good as taking the sacrament" to me. That distinctly sound like, 'when the sacrament is unavailable, you can seek for comfort in prayer.' 

But that doesn't mean prayer is to be considered an adequate substitute for partaking the sacrament.

It would be like telling people, when your spouse is unavailable (say, on a long trip), you can take comfort in the companionship you have with your pet.

I don't think anyone would interpret that statement to mean that pets are just as good as spouses though.

 

That's a good point, thanks for bringing it up.  

You're right, the church didn't say 'saying a prayer is just as good...'  That was my implication (and also just my shorthand way of writing it) based on the idea that not taking the sacrament, but instead saying prayers and meditating on our covenants, caused no loss of blessings for those where that was the only possibility.

So if someone loses no blessings from not being able to take the sacrament, then that implies that under certain circumstances not taking the sacrament but mediating and praying is just as good as taking the sacrament as the blessings for both are the same.

But maybe I'm interpreting the statement from the church completely wrong.  

If, as you say, saying a prayer and mediating are not adequate substitutes for taking the sacrament, what are those people losing out on that partakers of the sacrament are getting?  Practically speaking, I mean.  

[mfbukowski]

Nevermind

Edited May 19, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

You're right, the church didn't say 'saying a prayer is just as good...'  That was my implication (and also just my shorthand way of writing it) based on the idea that not taking the sacrament, but instead saying prayers and meditating on our covenants, caused no loss of blessings for those where that was the only possibility.

So if someone loses no blessings from not being able to take the sacrament, then that implies that under certain circumstances not taking the sacrament but mediating and praying is just as good as taking the sacrament as the blessings for both are the same.

Gosh

Now we agree, and that is exactly what I was saying.

And what Amulek is saying for that matter, plus he mentions that it needs to be done in time and space, with which I also agree 

Kumbaya and toodle loo.

Edited May 19, 2020 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Gosh

Now we agree, and that is exactly what I was saying.

I'm not sure what we are agreeing on, can you clarify?  

This post was me trying to understand Amulek's reply. 

I'm still working on finding an answer as to how sacrament can both be 1) important and give us access to blessings but also 2) no blessings are lost when we can't partake of it through no fault of our own.  Those are the two positions that I'm trying to reconcile and understand better.