Virtual Sacrament Ordinance

[JAHS]

3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

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.

Why would any active faithful church member actually want to say that to their Bishop?   THEY always want to give it to you. Everyone is an agent to himself.  We do what we can when we can do it. God knows our hearts and will judge us accordingly.  

"Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;
For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward." (D&C 58: 27-28)

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours 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.

Excellent idea!

[mfbukowski]

45 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Excellent idea!

We put a few gluten free "Chex" cereal squares on every tray.

[Rain]

I know the concern for some on the gluten-free bread is the cost.  

[SouthernMo]

11 hours ago, JAHS said:

Why would any active faithful church member actually want to say that to their Bishop?   THEY always want to give it to you. Everyone is an agent to himself.  We do what we can when we can do it. God knows our hearts and will judge us accordingly.  

"Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;
For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward." (D&C 58: 27-28)

THEY always want to give it to you?

Can you take the sacrament twice a week? What about those whom the bishop deems unworthy to take the sacrament?

[JAHS]

22 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

THEY always want to give it to you?

Can you take the sacrament twice a week? What about those whom the bishop deems unworthy to take the sacrament?

No reason to take it twice per week, but if there is a good enough reason the Bishop would allow it. Those who are deemed unworthy brought that upon themselves through sin and the Bishop is simply following Gods command about that:

"And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;
For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him."

So the Bishop is doing the member a favor by not letting them partake the sacrament. Its actually quite rare when a member is told not to partake and is usually reserved for the worst sins.
The Bishop has been designated as a judge in Israel and all member recognize that and gladly make themselves subject to his inspiration and decisions on when to take the sacrament and who cannot take the sacrament. It's something we agree to when we are baptized.
"And whoso standeth in this mission (Bishop) is appointed to be a judge in Israel, like as it was in ancient days, to divide the lands of the heritage of God unto his children; (D&C 58: 17)

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We put a few gluten free "Chex" cereal squares on every tray.

Don’t they get gluten crumbs on them? We have a family with a couple of kids that hav a reaction to even crumbs so they put gluten-free bread in a sealed baggie.

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Don’t they get gluten crumbs on them? We have a family with a couple of kids that hav a reaction to even crumbs so they put gluten-free bread in a sealed baggie.

Gosh, maybe these folks are less sensitive. Haven't seen any baggies

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

I really don't have an opinion on virtual sacrament meetings. Like I said before, if breaking the bread is a part of the ordinance, then that would seem to mean that virtual sacrament meetings are not possible.  If it's not, then it seems there is room, scripturally at least, for virtual meetings to be valid. 

But I'm fine with the prophet's announcement on the matter.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I really don't have an opinion on virtual sacrament meetings. Like I said before, if breaking the bread is a part of the ordinance, then that would seem to mean that virtual sacrament meetings are not possible.  If it's not, then it seems there is room, scripturally at least, for virtual meetings to be valid. 

But I'm fine with the prophet's announcement on the matter.

Well I have asked a ton of unanswered questions trying to get to the bottom line here, but if that's it, the answer is pretty easy.  I am not sure why the issue is breaking of the bread because that can be done virtually as well.  It seems then that the issue is actually BEING THERE while the breaking of the bread is happening.  But anyway,

Underlining added

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/family-guidebook/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings?lang=eng

Quote

 

Brethren who prepare the sacrament should do so before the meeting begins. They place unbroken bread in clean bread trays and place trays of sacrament cups containing fresh water on the sacrament table. They cover the bread and water with a clean, white cloth.

During the sacrament hymn, those at the sacrament table remove the cloth from the bread trays and break the bread into small pieces. After the hymn, the person who blesses the bread kneels and offers the sacrament prayer for the bread. Brethren then pass the bread to those present in a reverent and orderly manner. The presiding authority at the meeting receives the sacrament first. When everyone present has had an opportunity to partake of the bread, those passing it return their trays to the sacrament table. Those blessing the sacrament cover the trays again as soon as the bread has been passed.

I still don't get the logic, but hopefully the question is now resolved, especially since it appears that Rain has given you a rep point, showing agreement. (?) 

 

[Amulek]

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

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. 

I think maybe it's a matter of emphasis. For example, I don't think i would personally characterize someone who - through some external circumstance beyond her control - was prevented from taking the sacrament as 'losing out on blessings.' 

Clearly, partaking in the sacrament is beneficial, so (logically) not being able to take it would forestall ones ability to participate in that beneficial activity. 

But there are tons of beneficial activities that one can be prevented from participating in and the world won't end - especially when we're only talking (as we are with this particular situation) about being deprived of participating for a very short period of time.

One shouldn't feel guilty about not doing some specific good thing when circumstances beyond your control prevent you from doing it. And I think that's what the church was trying to emphasize. This is only a minor inconvenience; it won't last forever. The Lord understands, and he knows your heart. So don't feel like you aren't doing everything you are supposed to be doing just because you can't partake of the sacrament at this very moment. 

 

[Amulek]

23 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

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. 

Okay. What do you accept as justification for your claim that "members should come every week to partake of [the sacrament]?"

If the plain language of canonized scripture won't suffice as a rebuttal, I'm guessing you've got to have an iron-clad source to justify your mandatory-ever-week-without-exception rule in the first place.

 

Quote

Try telling your bishop that you are going to stop taking the sacrament each week, and let me know how it goes.

Well, I wouldn't have to tell him. I sit next to him, so he would be able to see for himself. 

That being said, why on earth would I voluntarily elect not to take the sacrament worthily?

Skipping out on the sacrament just to try and make some sort of statement about how it isn't really mandatory every week seems like a pretty juvenile endeavor to me. 

 

[Amulek]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

A most unfortunate state of affairs indeed.

 

Quote

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

You are obviously free to do anything you want. What God is obligated to recognize, however, is a different matter.

The institutional church exists for a reason. Same with priesthood authority and priesthood ordinances. 

How does one go about participating in priesthood ordinances without the priesthood?

If the woman on the desert island happened to be pregnant when she arrived, would she be able to baptize her child at the age of eight? 

I suppose she could, but would God be obligated recognize that ordinance as binding? By what authority?

Or if a shipwreck were to wash a sailor to shore, would she be able to seal the two of them together for time and all eternity? 

I tend to think the answer to all of these questions is 'no.'

 

Quote

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 ?

Isn't that why we have covenants in the first place? As a way for God to bind himself to us (and we to him)?

We often talk about covenants as being akin to contracts. Well, a signed contract is only binding on both parties if it was signed / agreed upon by both parties. 

And when it comes to priesthood ordinances, it's priesthood authority that ensures God enters into the endeavor. 

In the absence of the priesthood, you can prepare yourself as though you were to receive the ordinance (and I don't want to minimize how important / beneficial that component is), but the actual ordinance itself cannot actually be performed without the priesthood being present.

 

Quote

I agree with everything but that paragraph 

I'll take what I can get.

 

[mfbukowski]

29 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I think maybe it's a matter of emphasis. For example, I don't think i would personally characterize someone who - through some external circumstance beyond her control - was prevented from taking the sacrament as 'losing out on blessings.' 

Clearly, partaking in the sacrament is beneficial, so (logically) not being able to take it would forestall ones ability to participate in that beneficial activity. 

But there are tons of beneficial activities that one can be prevented from participating in and the world won't end - especially when we're only talking (as we are with this particular situation) about being deprived of participating for a very short period of time.

One shouldn't feel guilty about not doing some specific good thing when circumstances beyond your control prevent you from doing it. And I think that's what the church was trying to emphasize. This is only a minor inconvenience; it won't last forever. The Lord understands, and he knows your heart. So don't feel like you aren't doing everything you are supposed to be doing just because you can't partake of the sacrament at this very moment. 

 

But that doesn't answer the question.

The question is, would God penalize you for something you cannot do.

It doesn't matter if there are other things that could have been done, it's not about feeling guilty for not being able to do the impossible, which would be neurotic at best.

It's ok. It's obviously a communication problem 

 

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, Amulek said:

A most unfortunate state of affairs indeed.

 

You are obviously free to do anything you want. What God is obligated to recognize, however, is a different matter.

The institutional church exists for a reason. Same with priesthood authority and priesthood ordinances. 

How does one go about participating in priesthood ordinances without the priesthood?

If the woman on the desert island happened to be pregnant when she arrived, would she be able to baptize her child at the age of eight? 

I suppose she could, but would God be obligated recognize that ordinance as binding? By what authority?

Or if a shipwreck were to wash a sailor to shore, would she be able to seal the two of them together for time and all eternity? 

I tend to think the answer to all of these questions is 'no.'

 

Isn't that why we have covenants in the first place? As a way for God to bind himself to us (and we to him)?

We often talk about covenants as being akin to contracts. Well, a signed contract is only binding on both parties if it was signed / agreed upon by both parties. 

And when it comes to priesthood ordinances, it's priesthood authority that ensures God enters into the endeavor. 

In the absence of the priesthood, you can prepare yourself as though you were to receive the ordinance (and I don't want to minimize how important / beneficial that component is), but the actual ordinance itself cannot actually be performed without the priesthood being present.

 

I'll take what I can get.

 

We LDS folks believe that if we are unable through no fault of our own, to obtain our ordinances and blessings here in life, we will not be penalized but have an opportunity in the afterlife to receive those ordinances and blessings through temple work.

The underlying reason for that belief is the understanding that God would cease to be God if he penalized us for not doing what was impossible for us to do.

It would not be just.

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But that doesn't answer the question.

The question is, would God penalize you for something you cannot do.

It doesn't matter if there are other things that could have been done, it's not about feeling guilty for not being able to do the impossible, which would be neurotic at best.

It's ok. It's obviously a communication problem 

 

Reminds me of what I think it means to "do my best" when I do something.  Which I equate to what I actually did. 

If I could have done better than I did when I did something then I would have done it, if I was doing my best to do what I did.  But, alas, I only was able to do what I did, so that must have been the best I could do, then.

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Reminds me of what I think it means to "do my best" when I do something.  Which I equate to what I actually did. 

If I could have done better than I did when I did something then I would have done it, if I was doing my best to do what I did.  But, alas, I only was able to do what I did, so that must have been the best I could do, then.

True, but that's not the issue.

The issue is doing the BEST you can and God still withholding blessings through no fault of your own.

This applies to virtual Sacrament meetings because the question is whether or not we will be deprived of blessings because some can only (supposedly) attend virtual sacrament meetings which are not "real".

The church says that we will not be penalized for that, but folks here appear to think that the blessings will be deferred, or something else, until we can attend a "real" meeting and then I guess supposedly the dam on the blessings breaks and we get our full share of good ness points or whatever they are imagining.

God is not a spreadsheet.

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

True, but that's not the issue.

The issue is doing the BEST you can and God still withholding blessings through no fault of your own.

This applies to virtual Sacrament meetings because the question is whether or not we will be deprived of blessings because some can only (supposedly) attend virtual sacrament meetings which are not "real".

The church says that we will not be penalized for that, but folks here appear to think that the blessings will be deferred, or something else, until we can attend a "real" meeting and then I guess supposedly the dam on the blessings breaks and we get our full share of good ness points or whatever they are imagining.

God is not a spreadsheet.

I agree with you on your point.  I was just moving on and adding another point.

[bluebell]

58 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We LDS folks believe that if we are unable through no fault of our own, to obtain our ordinances and blessings here in life, we will not be penalized but have an opportunity in the afterlife to receive those ordinances and blessings through temple work.

The underlying reason for that belief is the understanding that God would cease to be God if he penalized us for not doing what was impossible for us to do.

It would not be just.

Amulek is a member of the church, so he knows what we teach (just in case you weren't aware of his background).

But like I said before, we are not penalized through no fault of our own, but we don't get the specific blessings connected to those ordinances through no fault of our own either.  We are neither cursed, nor blessed.  

This is why our leaders often remind us that our ancestors have been waiting for decades or centuries to receive the blessing of baptism and the temple.  If God had already given them the blessings, they wouldn't be waiting for us to provide access.

Edited May 22, 2020 by bluebell

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Amulek is a member of the church, so he knows what we teach (just in case you weren't aware of his background).

But like I said before, we are not penalized through no fault of our own, but we don't get the specific blessings connected to those ordinances through no fault of our own either.  We are neither cursed, nor blessed.  

This is why our leaders often remind us that our ancestors have been waiting for decades or centuries to receive the blessing of baptism and the temple.  If God had already given them the blessings, they wouldn't be waiting for us to provide access.

It is not a question of WHEN we will receive blessings- but THAT we WILL receive them and not be penalized. If one is not sealed in life, one still CAN be in the afterlife, if they have to wait until the millenium.  

The entire alleged problem here is that in some way the blessings will be lessened by our circumstances through no fault of our own.

That goes against justice

God lives in an eternal present.  Time does not exist to him.  If our leaders want to tell us they have been waiting hundreds of years, and we should be sorry for that, then that denies that God lives in an eternal present.  They are already beyond time into their eternal progression even if in the spirit world.  That is projecting our time-limited perception on eternal beings!! 

They are beyond the Kantian categories of human perception like space and time. 

If all things are PRESENT to God, there is no time to Him!  He can be in any space or time He desires!

But it is not the WHEN but the fact that they will not be penalized for simply praying to renew their covenants, precisely as the church says is the case.

I can't imagine that any faithful member would be fighting against what the church has taught about this principle.

It goes against doctrine and logic both.  I think that folks are just not thinking it through.

Edited May 22, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Rain]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

It is not a question of WHEN we will receive blessings- but THAT we WILL receive them and not be penalized. If one is not sealed in life, one still CAN be in the afterlife, if they have to wait until the millenium.  

If one does not partake of the sacrament in this life there is no sacrament for the dead. So how is it that the person gets the blessings for it in the next life? 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The entire alleged problem here is that in some way the blessings will be lessened by our circumstances through no fault of our own.

If you don't get the blessings for the sacrament through no fault of your own and you don't get them in the next life through proxy then how does it work that you get the blessings?

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

That goes against justice

 

 

Yes.  So we have mercy to cover that. 

But the Lord's house is a house of order.  Which is why we have proxy ordinances.

But not for sacrament.

So either sacrament works differently than the other ordinances or people do miss out on blessings. I'm not concerned about that, but I would like to know how it works.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

 

God lives in an eternal present.  Time does not exist to him.  If our leaders want to tell us they have been waiting hundreds of years, and we should be sorry for that, then that denies that God lives in an eternal present.  They are already beyond time into their eternal progression even if in the spirit world.  That is projecting our time-limited perception on eternal beings!! 

They are beyond the Kantian categories of human perception like space and time. 

If all things are PRESENT to God, there is no time to Him!  He can be in any space or time He desires!

But it is not the WHEN but the fact that they will not be penalized for simply praying to renew their covenants, precisely as the church says is the case.

I can't imagine that any faithful member would be fighting against what the church has taught about this principle.

It goes against doctrine and logic both.  I think that folks are just not thinking it through.

That could be, but which of us is it?  

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I have asked a ton of unanswered questions trying to get to the bottom line here, but if that's it, the answer is pretty easy.  I am not sure why the issue is breaking of the bread because that can be done virtually as well.  It seems then that the issue is actually BEING THERE while the breaking of the bread is happening.  But anyway,

Underlining added

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/family-guidebook/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings?lang=eng

I still don't get the logic, but hopefully the question is now resolved, especially since it appears that Rain has given you a rep point, showing agreement. (?) 

 

This is pretty plain to me, but not many seem to agree that this is the pattern set by  Jesus and the one that we are to follow. Three steps to the ordinance...break, bless, give bread, and it’s important enough to repeat the instructions the next day. Like the two steps to anointing and sealing with oil. The steps of baptism...enter the water, raise the hand, say the prayer, immerse, and come out of the water. And the many steps in the temple covenant.

Quote

3 Nephi 18:5 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. 6 And this shall ye always observe to do, even as I have done, even as I have broken bread and blessed it and given it unto you. 

Quote

3 Nephi 20:3 And it came to pass that he brake bread again and blessed it, and gave to the disciples to eat. 4 And when they had eaten he commanded them that they should break bread, and give unto the multitude.

That is how they administered it after the Savior left them:

Quote

Moroni 4:1 The manner of their elders and priests administering the flesh and blood of Christ unto the church; and they administered it according to the commandments of Christ; wherefore we know the manner to be true; and the elder or priest did minister it—

Why? I guess it’s because he said to do it this way.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Amulek]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The question is, would God penalize you for something you cannot do.

Not enjoying a benefit isn't the same thing as actively receiving a penalty.

Lots of people go through life without having the opportunity to marry, have children, serve a mission, or even hear about the gospel at all. 

God doesn't penalize people who, though no fault of their own, aren't able to engage in any of those activities - even if they go throughout their entire mortal lives without ever participating in them.

But I think it's obvious that they missed out on the benefits which naturally result from participating in those endeavors here in mortality. 

Now, maybe - in the end - the Atonement bridges that gap, but I'm not certain that is the case. That's something I may need to think about more.

 

[Amulek]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We LDS folks believe that if we are unable through no fault of our own, to obtain our ordinances and blessings here in life, we will not be penalized but have an opportunity in the afterlife to receive those ordinances and blessings through temple work.

The underlying reason for that belief is the understanding that God would cease to be God if he penalized us for not doing what was impossible for us to do.

It would not be just.

If we limit the discussion to essential ordinances (or saving ordinances) then that's obviously all correct.

But we have been talking about the Sacrament, which isn't a saving ordinance, and we don't do temple work for non-essential ordinances. To my knowledge, there is no guaranty that we will receive those in the next life.

I mean, there is no room set aside in the temple for proxy sacrament meetings, proxy father's blessings, or any other non-essential priesthood blessing or ordinance.

Which kind of makes sense when you consider the fact that we also believe that any bit of experience/learning/wisdom/progression that we attain in mortality carries with us. There are bound to be progression gaps between individuals - many of which invariably are a result of circumstances beyond their control while they were living on the earth. I believe the Atonement provides a way so that none of those gaps can affect anything relating to salvation, but I'm less certain (tentatively skeptical, in fact) that it bridges all potential differences in progression.

 

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Rain said:

If one does not partake of the sacrament in this life there is no sacrament for the dead. So how is it that the person gets the blessings for it in the next life? 

If you don't get the blessings for the sacrament through no fault of your own and you don't get them in the next life through proxy then how does it work that you get the blessings?

Yes.  So we have mercy to cover that. 

But the Lord's house is a house of order.  Which is why we have proxy ordinances.

But not for sacrament.

So either sacrament works differently than the other ordinances or people do miss out on blessings. I'm not concerned about that, but I would like to know how it works.

That could be, but which of us is it?  

Don't know but it's quite clear we are not able to communicate.

Thanks for the discussion