Virtual Sacrament Ordinance

[Rain]

On 5/19/2020 at 8:55 AM, Amulek said:

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.

 

Is a temple dedication only a prayer or is it an ordinance? 

Here it lists home dedications under both "ordinances and blessings" and "ordinance or blessing", but doesn't differentiate which it is. 

I'm not finding anything similar so far on temple dedications. 

You can virtually show baptisms, but both actual participants have to be there. If what you say is correct and a temple dedication is an ordinance then filming of it is ok because the only required "participants" are the temple building and the one giving the prayer right?

Edited May 20, 2020 by Rain

[Rain]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

That applies to my last post as well.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

Confusing.

This is actually a question, not sarcastic, not a debate thing etc, I am asking because I think perhaps you did not think this through?  And it appears that Rain has the same question? Hopefully we finally got it down to the "lowest common denominator". 

BUT I have been know to misunderstand questions- apparently repeatedly-    and so I apologize for being pedantic but I want to know I have gotten this right.

"How sacrament can be.... important... (while) ...No blessings are lost when we can't partake of it through no fault of our own."

I will repeat it in my words to make triply sure I have it down.  You are asking 1- if the sacrament is important AND 2- how we lose no blessings for not partaking of it through no fault of our own.

1.  It is important to take the sacrament because scripture teaches that Christ taught that we were to "Do (it) in remembrance of me", meaning his atonement and all it implies.  So clearly it is important.  But that was not your question.

2.  Your question was I presume how we do not lose blessings for ANY activity or ordinance which we cannot partake of through no fault of our own.

I think that throughout the gospel it is clear that NO ONE EVER LOSES BLESSINGS for not partaking of ordinances or blessings through no fault of their own.

If you were born in what is now known as China in 5000 BC and never heard the name of Christ, or obviously then could not have heard of Him, and of course did not receive temple blessings, through no fault of their own obviously, could one still receive all those blessings and be exalted??

Yes of course! And that is why I kept coming back to temple ordinances

So you are wondering WHY people can receive temple blessings -and ordinances/blessings-  if they missed out on the opportunity to receive them here "through no fault of their own"?

Isn't that the same question?

I think the church sees that as the justice and mercy of God in action

Even in court if a person is "not responsible through no fault of their own" for an action they are forgiven- there is no case. Those are called "accidents" and are not punishable.   Partial responsibility is another thing of course.

So the answer to 1 is scriptural

The answer to 2 is pretty much what we define as justice and mercy.

So things can be both commandments and important while, if one is not able to fulfill the obligation through no fault of their own, exempt from guilt or loss

 

Edited May 19, 2020 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Confusing.

This is actually a question, not sarcastic, not a debate thing etc, I am asking because I think perhaps you did not think this through?  And it appears that Rain has the same question? Hopefully we finally got it down to the "lowest common denominator". 

BUT I have been know to misunderstand questions- apparently repeatedly-    and so I apologize for being pedantic but I want to know I have gotten this right.

"How sacrament can be.... important... (while) ...No blessings are lost when we can't partake of it through no fault of our own."

I will repeat it in my words to make triply sure I have it down.  You are asking 1- if the sacrament is important AND 2- how we lose no blessings for not partaking of it through no fault of our own.

1.  It is important to take the sacrament because scripture teaches that Christ taught that we were to "Do (it) in remembrance of me", meaning his atonement and all it implies.  So clearly it is important.  But that was not your question.

2.  Your question was I presume how we do not lose blessings for ANY activity or ordinance which we cannot partake of through no fault of our own.

I think that throughout the gospel it is clear that NO ONE EVER LOSES BLESSINGS for not partaking of ordinances or blessings through no fault of their own.

If you were born in what is now known as China in 5000 BC and never heard the name of Christ, or obviously then could not have heard of Him, and of course did not receive temple blessings, through no fault of their own obviously, could one still receive all those blessings and be exalted??

Yes of course! And that is why I kept coming back to temple ordinances

So you are wondering WHY people can receive temple blessings -and ordinances/blessings-  if they missed out on the opportunity to receive them here "through no fault of their own"?

Isn't that the same question?

I think the church sees that as the justice and mercy of God in action

Even in court if a person is "not responsible through no fault of their own" for an action they are forgiven- there is no case. Those are called "accidents" and are not punishable.   Partial responsibility is another thing of course.

So the answer to 1 is scriptural

The answer to 2 is pretty much what we define as justice and mercy.

So things can be both commandments and important while, if one is not able to fulfill the obligation through no fault of their own, exempt from guilt or loss

 

I'm sorry if I didn't explain myself very well.  

In our doctrine, it's true that no one loses blessings for things that aren't their fault.  However, no one gets those blessings for things that aren't their fault either until they've had the opportunity to be obedient. 

We can't sin in ignorance but we can't be saved in ignorance either.  If we want the blessings associated with the ordinances, we HAVE to participate in the ordinances eventually, and we are without those blessings until we do.  This is pretty straightforward for things like baptism or temple ordinances, but for something like the sacrament, which isn't a saving ordinance and happens weekly, it's not as simple to understand. 

For example, if someone misses out on being sealed in the temple during mortality, then they are without those blessings during mortality, though they will have a chance to gain them later.  Does that mean that if someone misses out on the blessings we gain from partaking of the sacrament it works the same way?  Are they without those blessings until they can take the sacrament again?

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm sorry if I didn't explain myself very well.  

In our doctrine, it's true that no one loses blessings for things that aren't their fault.  However, no one gets those blessings for things that aren't their fault either until they've had the opportunity to be obedient. 

We can't sin in ignorance but we can't be saved in ignorance either.  If we want the blessings associated with the ordinances, we HAVE to participate in the ordinances eventually, and we are without those blessings until we do.  This is pretty straightforward for things like baptism or temple ordinances, but for something like the sacrament, which isn't a saving ordinance and happens weekly, it's not as simple to understand. 

For example, if someone misses out on being sealed in the temple during mortality, then they are without those blessings during mortality, though they will have a chance to gain them later.  Does that mean that if someone misses out on the blessings we gain from partaking of the sacrament it works the same way?  Are they without those blessings until they can take the sacrament again?

You were obedient the last time you took the sacrament, so you are still getting the blessings from the last time you did it. The blessings don't stop coming after 7 days have gone by. Because of work I have gone several weeks without taking the sacrament, yet I never considered my self disobedient. I still enjoyed the blessings of taking the sacrament when I was able to, regardless of how long ago I partook. 

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For example, if someone misses out on being sealed in the temple during mortality, then they are without those blessings during mortality, though they will have a chance to gain them later.  Does that mean that if someone misses out on the blessings we gain from partaking of the sacrament it works the same way?  Are they without those blessings until they can take the sacrament again?

I don't think God has angels following us around with spread sheets saying we are past due on a couple of sacrament meetings to get your blessing credits.

I think he blesses us continuously and even lets us keep the change.

I find it incredible that most LDS people appear to find it remarkable that God "knows my name", like that is unexpected or something.I hear that again and again! 

"He is your FATHER!  He knows your name!"

Here he is supposed to know our innermost feelings and is able to judge us for our motivations etc, and he doesn't know our names?   Go figure.  He better know a lot more about us than our names! 

"Oh yeah- Susy, right?- that was YOU-? well good for you, you've done a good job!!?"

If you really believe that, there is nothing I can say, it is quite off my conception of how God works, I guess.

I believe God hears and answers prayers and doesn't hold us responsible for what we cannot do.  Pretty much end of story.  We can discuss weird possible circumstances and imaginary balance sheets for the rest of our lives and not find the answer.

Edited May 19, 2020 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, JAHS said:

You were obedient the last time you took the sacrament, so you are still getting the blessings from the last time you did it. The blessings don't stop coming after 7 days have gone by. Because of work I have gone several weeks without taking the sacrament, yet I never considered my self disobedient. I still enjoyed the blessings of taking the sacrament when I was able to, regardless of how long ago I partook. 

So there isn't a necessity to partake of the sacrament that often, as long as you are trying to take it as much as possible, it doesn't matter if it's every week or once every few years.  Is that what you are saying?  If that's what you are saying then I can respect that answer. 

Edited May 19, 2020 by bluebell

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't think God has angels following us around with spread sheets saying we are past due on a couple of sacrament meetings to get your blessing credits.

I think he blesses us continuously and even lets us keep the change.

I find it incredible that most LDS people appear to find it remarkable that God "knows my name", like that is unexpected or something.

Here he is supposed to know our innermost feelings and is able to judge us for our motivations etc, and he doesn't know our names?   Go figure.  He better know a lot more about us than our names! 

"Oh yeah- Susy, right- that was YOU- well good for you!!?"

If you really believe that, there is nothing I can say, it is quite off my conception of how God works, I guess.

I believe God hears and answers prayers and doesn't hold us responsible for what we cannot do.  Pretty much end of story.  We can discuss weird possible circumstances and imaginary balance sheets for the rest of our lives and not find the answer.

Who said anything about not knowing our names?  I'm afraid you lost me with that rant.  And I also didn't say anything about a balance sheet or weird possible circumstances.  

Let's just agree to disagree.  You can't seem not to get snarky when people don't respond the way you want them to and I have no interest in dealing with that.

[JAHS]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So there isn't a necessity to partake of the sacrament that often, as long as you are trying to take it as much as possible, it doesn't matter if it's every week or once every few years.  Is that what you are saying?  If that's what you are saying then I can respect that answer. 

That's what I am saying. It's what's in your heart that counts and making the effort to do it when possible. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Confusing.

This is actually a question, not sarcastic, not a debate thing etc, I am asking because I think perhaps you did not think this through?  And it appears that Rain has the same question? Hopefully we finally got it down to the "lowest common denominator". 

BUT I have been know to misunderstand questions- apparently repeatedly-    and so I apologize for being pedantic but I want to know I have gotten this right.

Thank you! I love that you are trying to understand the issue.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

"How sacrament can be.... important... (while) ...No blessings are lost when we can't partake of it through no fault of our own."

I will repeat it in my words to make triply sure I have it down.  You are asking 1- if the sacrament is important AND 2- how we lose no blessings for not partaking of it through no fault of our own.

1.  It is important to take the sacrament because scripture teaches that Christ taught that we were to "Do (it) in remembrance of me", meaning his atonement and all it implies.  So clearly it is important.  But that was not your question.

Right. The sacrament is important.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

2.  Your question was I presume how we do not lose blessings for ANY activity or ordinance which we cannot partake of through no fault of our own.

I think that throughout the gospel it is clear that NO ONE EVER LOSES BLESSINGS for not partaking of ordinances or blessings through no fault of their own.

If you were born in what is now known as China in 5000 BC and never heard the name of Christ, or obviously then could not have heard of Him, and of course did not receive temple blessings, through no fault of their own obviously, could one still receive all those blessings and be exalted??

Yes of course! And that is why I kept coming back to temple ordinances

So you are wondering WHY people can receive temple blessings -and ordinances/blessings-  if they missed out on the opportunity to receive them here "through no fault of their own"?

Isn't that the same question?

I think the church sees that as the justice and mercy of God in action

Even in court if a person is "not responsible through no fault of their own" for an action they are forgiven- there is no case. Those are called "accidents" and are not punishable.   Partial responsibility is another thing of course.

So the answer to 1 is scriptural

The answer to 2 is pretty much what we define as justice and mercy.

So things can be both commandments and important while, if one is not able to fulfill the obligation through no fault of their own, exempt from guilt or loss

 

I appreciate you really trying in this post. 

On question 2 I agree with how Bluebell answered you again. 

I think part of the problem is that it seems the questions keep changing.

What I think is happening is we get explanations that don't make sense to us so we explain why they don't make sense - I may not being a good job on being clear on that. Then that morphs into a side topic and so on.  The original thoughts and questions get lost. No wonder it is confusing. I will try to be more clear on that. 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

Thank you! I love that you are trying to understand the issue.

Right. The sacrament is important.

I appreciate you really trying in this post. 

On question 2 I agree with how Bluebell answered you again. 

I think part of the problem is that it seems the questions keep changing.

What I think is happening is we get explanations that don't make sense to us so we explain why they don't make sense - I may not being a good job on being clear on that. Then that morphs into a side topic and so on.  The original thoughts and questions get lost. No wonder it is confusing. I will try to be more clear on that. 

Thanks for your response

I just cannot imagine that God would withhold blessings for not attending a sacrament meeting which one could not personally attend, and that seems to be the bottom line for all 3 of you guys.

And that includes virtual meetings by definition 

Bluebell ' answer to 2 was

"However, no one gets those blessings for things that aren't their fault either until they've had the opportunity to be obedient"

I cannot even imagine that is true. It seems like God is issuing an IOU, waiting for obedience when you have already demonstrated it in the past, but this time it is impossible for you to perform. I am shocked anyone would believe that.

I guess I need sensitivity training 

I guess I will just never understand.

Pretty frustrating 

Edited May 20, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Rain]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks for your response

I just cannot imagine that God would withhold blessings for not attending a sacrament meeting which one could not personally attend, and that seems to be the bottom line for all 3 of you guys.

Not the bottom line for me.  That's a side topic that I was talking about. 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And that includes virtual meetings by definition 

Bluebell ' answer to 2 was

"However, no one gets those blessings for things that aren't their fault either until they've had the opportunity to be obedient"

I cannot even imagine that is true. It seems like God is issuing an IOU, waiting for obedience when you have already demonstrated it in the past, but this time it is impossible for you to perform. I am shocked anyone would believe that.

I guess I need sensitivity training 

I guess I will just never understand.

Pretty frustrating 

I agree it is pretty frustrating.  I'm not sure how to explain it better.  My husband totally gets it, but he gets me well.  Might have to let this one go for awhile.

[Amulek]

On 5/19/2020 at 12:15 PM, bluebell said:

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.  

This may sound a bit circular, but one thing they are missing out on is the ability to actually participate in the ordinance itself. There is a benefit which comes in the actual doing of the thing. 

Our family was reading in the Book of Mormon last week where the people were prohibited from praying aloud. Now, what's the big deal about not being able to pray out loud? Certainly God is capable of hearing our silent prayers - I mean, he knows what we need before we even ask him, so why even pray vocally at all? Well, one of the reasons is that it provides a way for us to worship together, but another reason is that it acts as a witness that we really believe in God. Which, perhaps, is another thing that is being missed - the ability to publicly witness that one has entered into a covenant to follow the Lord. 

Plus, it's probably worth noting that we are actually commanded to meet together often to partake of the sacrament, so being able to show our obedience to God's commandments would perhaps be considered as another benefit / blessing.

Finally, (well, there may be more, but these are the one's I can think of off the top of my head), the sacrament is an ordinance which allows us to renew our covenants. You can pray and rededicate yourself to keeping your covenants on your own at any time (which is obviously a good thing), but without the ordinance of the sacrament you aren't actually renewing those covenants with God. The sacrament is the ordinance which has been designed to facilitate that renewal, and without the ordinance you aren't assured of God's participation in your renewing efforts; all you are doing is fiddling with your side of the equation, but there's no binding on the other side, because that is what the ordinance is for - to handle God's participation in the activity. 

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Amulek

[Amulek]

On 5/19/2020 at 1:51 PM, Rain said:

Is a temple dedication only a prayer or is it an ordinance? 

Here it lists home dedicatdedications both "ordinances and blessings" and "ordinance or blessing", but doesn't differentiate which it is. 

Ordinance.

 

Quote

I'm not finding anything similar so far on temple dedications. 

Similar to what?

 

Quote

You can virtually show baptisms, but both actual participants have to be there. If what you say is correct and a temple dedication is an ordinance then filming of it is ok because the only required "participants" are the temple building and the one giving the prayer right?

Correct. The only "people" who need to be physically present are the ones who are physically participating in the ordinance itself - which, in the case of a temple dedication, would be the person dedicating the temple and the physical plot of land where the temple resides. You may be able to 'participate' as an observer from a remote location, but you aren't participating in the administration of (or reception of) the ordinance itself.

The thought question here would be: Does the prophet really need to be at the temple lot in order to dedicate it? Or can he just roll out of bed, throw on a shirt/tie (still wearing his shorts, cable-news-style of course), and then broadcast the dedication from his iPhone? 

If a physical presence isn't required, then why not? It would certainly save a lot of time and be easier on the prophet.

Or, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, couldn't the same be done with the sacrament if a physical presence isn't required? Couldn't we have the prophet just live-stream the sacrament prayers - Live From SLC! - every hour on Sundays, so we all get to have the sacrament blessed by the prophet himself? 

I think our gut instinct that the answer to both questions ought to be "no," is the correct one. And it's not just because such is prevented by policy, even if it's difficult to articulate why that is the case.

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Amulek

[SouthernMo]

To me, this whole thread underlines the confusion around 'sacred' LDS ordinances that baffles me.

They NEVER change, and cannot be altered - because that led to the apostacy. Until they are changed - then it is not apostacy, but a testament of the true and living church!

The sacrament is vital, and members should come every week to partake of it - but its not that important on stake conference, general conference, or any other approved weekend.

I offer this: the crux of modern LDS belief is to follow what leaders say today, and ignore what has been taught in the past.

Edited May 20, 2020 by SouthernMo

[mfbukowski]

On 5/18/2020 at 2:25 PM, 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.

I never said it was unusual DURING THIS CRISIS for a lone priesthood holder blessing his own sacrament DURING the crisis.

Without the crisis, I have never heard of it happening.  This is the reason we take the sacrament "to shut ins"- who are also priesthood holders, but that is up to the bishop of the ward in question.  I can imagine there are some who might not be able to have visitors etc who could do that, but it would be rare and something I have not personally heard about.

Just for the record, there is nothing here with which I disagree.  I believe we are clearly witnessing both to the Father AND to others in the congregation, and that is shown in the Sacrament PRAYER.

DC 20

Quote

77 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this ^abread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and ^bwitness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his ^ccommandments which he has given them; that they may always have his ^dSpirit to be with them. Amen.

So the prayer speaks about making the bread holy to the souls of ALL THOSE WHO PARTAKE OF IT that - those who partake of the bread being blessed- not others, may:

1- Eat in remembrance of the body of Christ - ie: the atonement-  and that THEY-  Those who partake of the bread being blessed 2- Witness unto God that "THEY"- those who partake of the bread being blessed and who are part of the company- always will remember him and keep his commandments.

So the entire event is a public event for those who "PARTAKE" of the bread being blessed- that makes it a public witness to each other WHILE they are also PRIVATELY witnessing to God in their own hearts. 

We cannot KNOW someone else's heart's contents- that is private between them and God.

The public element for the community is the CREATION of the community which consists of those who are there together partaking of the bread being blessed at that time and place.

The witnessing therefore is to that community as well as God.  Hence there is a prayer element AND a community/public element.

By definition, those who might NOT be partaking of the bread broken in that time and place would not be part of the community/public/congregation because they are participating virtually.

Therefore they of course can participate in the prayer element of witnessing to God, without partaking of the bread being blessed through no fault of their own.

I believe that the blessings God has prepared for those who cannot attend through no fault of their own are the same as for those who participate under the circumstances, but they are clearly NOT among those among "the souls who partake of" the bread being blessed

I know this is repetitive and pedantic but I have been accused repeatedly of not understanding questions, and I hope I have done so this time in a clearer way, and I appreciate your new voice in the discussion.

Note also that the entire prayer is for those who "partake of the bread" when the word "them" is used.

So that applies to : (Bolding added of course).   To me it is just plain clear English - all these "theys" and "thems" modify "those who partake of it" (the bread)

that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his ^ccommandments which he has given them; that they may always have his ^dSpirit to be with them. Amen.

 

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by mfbukowski

[HappyJackWagon]

The issue of how often it is necessary to partake of the sacrament is really interesting to me. My entire life, except for those few exceptions you mentioned, I have been taught, and have taught, that the sacrament is essential on a weekly basis. That's why we go to church weekly. It's the primary reason. Yet during covid the message I've received is "it's essential to take the sacrament once a month".  Which is it? Or perhaps once a month is only appropriate during a pandemic so my ward limited people doing the sacrament in their own home even though they were capable of blessing and partaking weekly.

If it really is only essential once per month, maybe that could be a model going forward for church services to limit the number of times people are faced with exposing themselves to a virus via the sacrament. I think most of us can probably agree that the sacrament is not the most sanitary or activities. I'm curious to see how the church address the sanitation issues at building and the sacrament in particular.

[JAHS]

52 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

To me, this whole thread underlines the confusion around 'sacred' LDS ordinances that baffles me.

They NEVER change, and cannot be altered - because that led to the apostacy. Until they are changed - then it is not apostacy, but a testament of the true and living church!

The sacrament is vital, and members should come every week to partake of it - but its not that important on stake conference, general conference, or any other approved weekend.

I offer this: the crux of modern LDS belief is to follow what leaders say today, and ignore what has been taught in the past.

By George I think he's got it ! 😉  However it is not modern. This "crux" has been going on throughout the history of the Church.

[Stargazer]

On 5/13/2020 at 4:25 PM, Bernard Gui said:

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

A few months ago we were having a ward council meeting when they were discussing the provision of gluten-free bread to certain members. I suggested to them the simplest solution: use only gluten-free bread. And so that's what they did.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

The sacrament is vital, and members should come every week to partake of it - but its not that important on stake conference, general conference, or any other approved weekend.

The admonition contained in the Doctrine & Covenants is that we "meet together often" (emphasis added) to partake of the sacrament. 

I don't know about you, but 'pretty much every week with the exception of a week or two here and there for conferences or other rare occasions' seems to fit pretty well with that direction, at lest in my opinion. YMMV.

 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

A few months ago we were having a ward council meeting when they were discussing the provision of gluten-free bread to certain members. I suggested to them the simplest solution: use only gluten-free bread. And so that's what they did.

Yeah, those celiacs get all the love. I've been telling people for years that I can only eat cinnamon rolls, but I've yet to receive a single accommodation for that - even when I tell them they don't have to bother with breaking it up! 

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Amulek

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

This may sound a bit circular, but one thing they are missing out on is the ability to actually participate in the ordinance itself. There is a benefit which comes in the actual doing of the thing. 

Our family was reading in the Book of Mormon last week where the people were prohibited from praying aloud. Now, what's the big deal about not being able to pray out loud? Certainly God is capable of hearing our silent prayers - I mean, he knows what we need before we even ask him, so why even pray vocally at all? Well, one of the reasons is that it provides a way for us to worship together, but another reason is that it acts as a witness that we really believe in God. Which, perhaps, is another thing that is being missed - the ability to publicly witness that one has entered into a covenant to follow the Lord. 

Plus, it's probably worth noting that we are actually commanded to meet together often to partake of the sacrament, so being able to show our obedience to God's commandments would perhaps be considered as another benefit / blessing.

Finally, (well, there may be more, but these are the one's I can think of off the top of my head), the sacrament is an ordinance which allows us to renew our covenants. You can pray and rededicate yourself to keeping your covenants on your own at any time (which is obviously a good thing), but without the ordinance of the sacrament you aren't actually renewing those covenants with God. The sacrament is the ordinance which has been designed to facilitate that renewal, and without the ordinance you aren't assured of God's participation in your renewing efforts; all you are doing is fiddling with your side of the equation, but there's no binding on the other side, because that is what the ordinance is for - to handle God's participation in the activity. 

 

Thanks for your thoughts.  They are good and I agree with them.

And they swings us back around to the beginning, where we were discussing the contradictory issues between church leaders saying that no one is losing out on any blessings by not being able to partake of the sacrament weekly, and our teachings which teach that we are losing out on blessings by not being able to take of it weekly.  

(And to be clear, I'm not complaining about what our leaders have said, or pointing out any wrong theology on their part, or trying to be critical in any way, or doubt our doctrine.  I'm trying to sincerely understand the purposes of ordinances, and the ordinance of the sacrament specifically, better in this new space that the coronavirus has created).

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

The admonition contained in the Doctrine & Covenants is that we "meet together often" (emphasis added) to partake of the sacrament. 

I don't know about you, but 'pretty much every week with the exception of a week or two here and there for conferences or other rare occasions' seems to fit pretty well with that direction, at lest in my opinion. YMMV.

 

Oh, it seems LDS leadership selectively uses D&C teachings today, so I'm not sure I logically accept that book as a standard explanation.  Try telling your bishop that you are going to stop taking the sacrament each week, and let me know how it goes. In the end, leadership wants you to take the sacrament when THEY want to give it to you.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Amulek said:

Finally, (well, there may be more, but these are the one's I can think of off the top of my head), the sacrament is an ordinance which allows us to renew our covenants. You can pray and rededicate yourself to keeping your covenants on your own at any time (which is obviously a good thing), but without the ordinance of the sacrament you aren't actually renewing those covenants with God. The sacrament is the ordinance which has been designed to facilitate that renewal, and without the ordinance you aren't assured of God's participation in your renewing efforts; all you are doing is fiddling with your side of the equation, but there's no binding on the other side, because that is what the ordinance is for - to handle God's participation in the activity. 

So now suppose you are a woman stuck on a desert island, though no fault of your own, and it will never be possible to attend a sacrament meeting.

So God will never again allow you to renew your covenants?

Because all you are doing is fiddling with your side of the equation, and God will not participate, and not be bound to bless you ?

I agree with everything but that paragraph 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Thanks for your thoughts.  They are good and I agree with them.

And they swings us back around to the beginning, where we were discussing the contradictory issues between church leaders saying that no one is losing out on any blessings by not being able to partake of the sacrament weekly, and our teachings which teach that we are losing out on blessings by not being able to take of it weekly.  

(And to be clear, I'm not complaining about what our leaders have said, or pointing out any wrong theology on their part, or trying to be critical in any way, or doubt our doctrine.  I'm trying to sincerely understand the purposes of ordinances, and the ordinance of the sacrament specifically, better in this new space that the coronavirus has created).

So then it appears that you are saying that a virtual sacrament meeting does not allow one to renew their Covenants?