Virtual Sacrament Ordinance

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

Yep. He's da Boss. !

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

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.

 

Thanks.

Then again we are not all billionaires either, so we all are going to miss out on some benefits possible to those born into this world 

I am sure somebody is going to post something like "money isn't everything" and of course they are right.

We could go round and round on this forever, I I think we are pretty much in agreement. Thanks for the discussion.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

f 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.

Yes, I know that.

I was speaking in more general terms, that God does not withhold blessings for things we cannot do for ourselves.

And it appears no one wants to discuss that principle, and how it applies to virtual sacrament meetings.  If all one wants is to renew their Covenants, as the church teaches, AND has no other option available, they can do so with prayer, with no loss of blessings.

Those comments about the temple were analogies to show general principles, not to argue that the sacrament was a saving ordinance.

I have said my piece, and my peace.

All I am doing is affirming what the church has already taught on this matter.

Edited May 22, 2020 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

15 hours 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.  

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

Maybe it helps to clarify (because some how it's been missed) that I'm talking about mortality.  That blessings are often lessened in mortality by circumstances through no fault of our own.  Yes, eventually all will be made right, but until that point, then we sometimes go without blessings for a time even though it's not our fault.

Quote

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!! 

We'll agree to disagree on that.  Especially since those in the spirit world are not yet in God's presence or residing in a place where God resides, or with the same characteristics of where He lives.

Quote

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

I'm not sure what all the exclamation marks are supposed to mean, but again, just because there is no time for God does not mean that there is no time for those who are not yet with God.

Quote

I think that folks are just not thinking it through.

No, I think that some of us understand this doctrine differently.  

[mfbukowski]

Church statement:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/essential-ordinances-blessings-other-church-functions

"". 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.""

Edited May 22, 2020 by mfbukowski

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

blessings are often lessened in mortality by circumstances through no fault of our own.  Yes, eventually all will be made right, but until that point, then we sometimes go without blessings for a time even though it's not our fault.

What blessings do you believe people are missing out on by not being able to partake of the sacrament under the current circumstances?

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

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

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

In that verse in 3. Ne. the Savior says that the priests are the ones that should give the blessed bread and wine to the congregation.  We don't do it that way though.  Deacons, and not priests, pass out the emblems, and then non priesthood holders pass it down the rows to each other.

Even though we don't do it exactly how it says in the scriptures, we still believe we are doing it how God wants it done, and that's the issue being discussed.  There is room in these scriptures for different interpretations of exactly what Jesus was instructing. 

Was He instructing that breaking the bread is a part of the ordinance, or was He just instructing that the bread is broken before the ordinance begins?  Was He instructing that those who partake of the sacrament must receive the emblems personally from a priest or was He just instructing that the emblems go from the priest to the congregation (in whatever way seems best)?

The verses in 3 Ne., on their own, aren't very clear.

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, I think that some of us understand this doctrine differently. 

And fail to support their positions using church sources.

That's it for me , folks, love you all

 

[ksfisher]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

n that verse in 3. Ne. the Savior says that the priests are the ones that should give the blessed bread and wine to the congregation.  We don't do it that way though.  Deacons, and not priests, pass out the emblems, and then non priesthood holders pass it down the rows to each other.

There is no evidence in the Book of Mormon that priesthood offices and duties were the same as today.

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

What blessings do you believe people are missing out on by not being able to partake of the sacrament under the current circumstances?

That's what we've been feeling out through this discussion.  Are blessings lost?  And if they are, what are they?

We are promised specific blessings when we partake of the sacrament, so if we don't partake, do we still get those blessings?  (such as renewing our covenants and being promised that the Spirit will be with us).

What do you think?  Does God give us the blessings associated with the sacrament when we can't partake of it?  Or is it like with other blessings associated with ordinances, where we don't get them until we are able to take part in the ordinance even if it's not our fault, but we will get them eventually?  (I think that Rain pointed out some good reasons why the sacrament is obviously different than other ordinances, so that idea has some problems.)

To answer your question for myself, I don't know. 

Our leaders have always taught that we do lose out on blessings when we don't partake of the sacrament, but under the current circumstances, maybe that's different.  If it is, and God can grant us the blessings that are connected to the sacrament without actually needing to take the sacrament, then why?  Why is the sacrament ordinance necessary, except when it's not?

They are interesting concepts to ponder.

Edit to add:  Having read over the church's statement again (thanks for posting it again mfb), I think that yes, people are missing out on not being able to partake of the sacrament under the current circumstances.  I think the church's statement implies as much.

Edited May 22, 2020 by bluebell

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And fail to support their positions using church sources.

That's it for me , folks, love you all

 

I've used the same sources you have, the teachings of the church.  

 

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Church statement:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/essential-ordinances-blessings-other-church-functions

"". 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.""

I hadn't noticed before but this statement is actually really interesting because the church says that members who can't take the sacrament can be comforted, but does it say that they can receive the same blessings that come with partaking of it? 

I don't believe so, because if that's what they were saying, why the need to pray "for the day when they will receive it in person, properly administered by the priesthood"?  The statement seems to imply that yes, those who can't take the sacrament, even when it's not their fault, are missing out on something that they should pray to have access to as soon as possible.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

There is no evidence in the Book of Mormon that priesthood offices and duties were the same as today.

Very true.  Which is another reason why we can't only use verses in the BOM to support the way we administer the sacrament in our day.  

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Maybe it helps to clarify (because some how it's been missed) that I'm talking about mortality.  That blessings are often lessened in mortality by circumstances through no fault of our own. 

 

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That's it for me , folks, love you all

 

 

[Rain]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

What blessings do you believe people are missing out on by not being able to partake of the sacrament under the current circumstances?

I don't know either.  

This goes back to where my questions all started from though.  I wanted to know why sacrament could not be done virtually.  Clearly there is something about it that makes it different than prayers "recommitting to live the covenants".  And if there is something of that importance that it can't be done virtually or that we can't put the bread outside the single woman's door then it follows that the consequences of partaking the sacrament and the consequences of saying the prayer are different. 

What those blessing are I don't fully know.  I do know that once while preparing for a talk I prayed to know the non monetary blessings I had received of paying a full tithe. I was surprised bu the answer.  So it doesn't surprise me that I don't know what blessings I would be missing out on should my husband not be able to do the sacrament for me.  

Maybe it doesn't matter,  Maybe in saying this kind of prayer the blessing are an equal value to the blessings of partaking of the sacrament.  If that is the answer then it goes back to the question of why are we asked to take the sacrament each week as we are able when a prayer would have equal value.  

My gut tells me it is something in what Amulek spoke of when speaking of it being "physical", but I can't really pin what that is as of it yet or if that is the only thing.

[ksfisher]

27 minutes ago, Rain said:

I don't know either.  

This goes back to where my questions all started from though.  I wanted to know why sacrament could not be done virtually.  Clearly there is something about it that makes it different than prayers "recommitting to live the covenants".  And if there is something of that importance that it can't be done virtually or that we can't put the bread outside the single woman's door then it follows that the consequences of partaking the sacrament and the consequences of saying the prayer are different. 

 

Perhaps this phrase from Mosiah 24:13 could also be instructive: "the voice of the Lord came to them in their afflictions, saying: Lift up your heads and be of good comfort, for I know of the covenant which ye have made unto me"

While present circumstances may be different that what Alma and his people found themselves, I think the principle is the same.  Even though some may not be able to currently partake of the sacrament, they can still be comforted  knowing that the Lord remembers the covenants they have made.

[mfbukowski]

58 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Perhaps this phrase from Mosiah 24:13 could also be instructive: "the voice of the Lord came to them in their afflictions, saying: Lift up your heads and be of good comfort, for I know of the covenant which ye have made unto me"

While present circumstances may be different that what Alma and his people found themselves, I think the principle is the same.  Even though some may not be able to currently partake of the sacrament, they can still be comforted  knowing that the Lord remembers the covenants they have made.

And who gives the "comfort" in the first place?

Like anything else how do we know that the Lord has heard our prayers and is blessing us?

Through our receiving comfort.

The spirit is the Comforter, what more tangible evidence do you need than that?

How does that feel compared to a regular sacrament meeting?

If there's a difference it's all in your head.

Where else can Comfort come from?

Is a testimony real or in your head?

We all know that that discussion goes nowhere.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

In that verse in 3. Ne. the Savior says that the priests are the ones that should give the blessed bread and wine to the congregation.  We don't do it that way though.  Deacons, and not priests, pass out the emblems, and then non priesthood holders pass it down the rows to each other.

Even though we don't do it exactly how it says in the scriptures, we still believe we are doing it how God wants it done, and that's the issue being discussed.  There is room in these scriptures for different interpretations of exactly what Jesus was instructing. 

Was He instructing that breaking the bread is a part of the ordinance, or was He just instructing that the bread is broken before the ordinance begins?  Was He instructing that those who partake of the sacrament must receive the emblems personally from a priest or was He just instructing that the emblems go from the priest to the congregation (in whatever way seems best)?

The verses in 3 Ne., on their own, aren't very clear.

Like I said, it seems very plain to me, but not many agree. The instructions, IMO, are crystal clear. Break, bless, give. 

Quote

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.

He said he would ordain someone to do it. Deacons, teachers, and priests are ordained to do it. 

Edited May 23, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Like I said, it seems very plain to me, but not many agree. The instructions, IMO, are crystal clear. Break, bless, give. 

 

I don't think that anyone is disputing that the bread needs to be broken, blessed, and given though, are they?

[Calm]

18 hours ago, Amulek said:

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.

We are talking about a few years in a limited format (mortality and spirit prison/paradise) that is followed by an eternity of perfection,  How could the Atonement not bridge the very small gap in comparison given not only the infinite time available to do so, but our level of perfect interaction with God (eventually even if it takes us awhile for God to up our level to his)?

In mortality, I don't see it happening though any more than somehow all the traveling we were planning before my disorder made travel miserable will suddenly be able to be done if a cure happens in 10 or 20years...there just won't be the time, plus the damage done to my body won't disappear even if it stops being further damaged and starts to heal. Some can be made up, but mortal consequences and limitations don't disappear significantly in most cases imo until mortality passes.  It is how we learn what we need to learn.  And we can add positives consequences we create onto thr negative consequences we have been given (I have learned a lot on how to help others due to my health restrictions)  But eternity...I can go tons more places as much as I want and there won't be the aches and pains either.

Edited May 23, 2020 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, Amulek said:

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.

Occasionally there are major errors made in doing temple ordinances for the dead.  Sometimes they are done out of order, sometimes with new workers, they are simply done grossly incorrectly.

The question is always raised about whether or not the ordinance was "valid" even though everyone did their best, but guess what- Humans make mistakes!

The answer is inevitably "Don't worry- we do the best we can and the atonement makes up for the rest"

[Bernard Gui]

22 hours ago, ksfisher said:

There is no evidence in the Book of Mormon that priesthood offices and duties were the same as today.

But there is solid evidence that elders and priests were ordained to preach, teach, baptize,  see that there is no iniquity in the Church, administer the sacrament, ordain others to offices, bless the sick, organize The Church, conduct meetings, decide on worthiness to participate in the Church and the sacrament, receive revelation, and give the gift of the Holy Ghost. Pretty much the same duties specified in the D&C.

[Amulek]

On 5/22/2020 at 8:45 PM, Calm said:

On 5/22/2020 at 8:04 AM, Amulek said:

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.

We are talking about a few years in a limited format (mortality and spirit prison/paradise) that is followed by an eternity of perfection,  How could the Atonement not bridge the very small gap in comparison given not only the infinite time available to do so, but our level of perfect interaction with God (eventually even if it takes us awhile for God to up our level to his)?

Well, to be clear, it isn't that I think the gap is insurmountable. I guess what I'm not certain about, specifically, is whether or not the Atonement is the mechanism that actually makes up for that difference in experience / progress gained in mortality, or is is the 'eternity of perfection' that handles that instead (or something else)?

I honestly don't know. I think I'll leave it on my list of things to ponder about for a little while though. 

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Well, to be clear, it isn't that I think the gap is insurmountable. I guess what I'm not certain about, specifically, is whether or not the Atonement is the mechanism that actually makes up for that difference in experience / progress gained in mortality, or is is the 'eternity of perfection' that handles that instead (or something else)?

I honestly don't know. I think I'll leave it on my list of things to ponder about for a little while though. 

 

Perhaps if you reverse the coils on anti- matter capacitor, and disconnect the xeron drive....

 

[HappyJackWagon]

The issue of an individual preparing his/her own emblems (bread & water) to then be blessed by someone else, whether in a sacrament meeting, through a screen door, or via online blessing, has been brought up a couple of times on this thread and there has been disagreement about whether a priesthood holder officiating in the ordinance must prepare/break the bread etc the emblems.

Well, this article by the church news quoting Pres. Nelson seems to clarify the answer for us.

Quote

“I am especially concerned for those who desire to partake of the sacrament but do not have a worthy priesthood bearer in their home,” he wrote.

“They should let their bishop know that they would like to have his delegated representatives come to their home to administer the sacrament. If they wish to provide their own bread and water, based on their specific needs, they may do so.”

https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2020-05-28/covid-19-sacrament-at-home-president-nelson-social-media-post-185360

 

So IF an individual can prepare his/her own emblems, which it appears they can, then it is only a small step to allowing the person to prepare the emblems and have them blessed even if the priesthood holder is outside of the room, or home.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The issue of an individual preparing his/her own emblems (bread & water) to then be blessed by someone else, whether in a sacrament meeting, through a screen door, or via online blessing, has been brought up a couple of times on this thread and there has been disagreement about whether a priesthood holder officiating in the ordinance must prepare/break the bread etc the emblems.

Well, this article by the church news quoting Pres. Nelson seems to clarify the answer for us.

So IF an individual can prepare his/her own emblems, which it appears they can, then it is only a small step to allowing the person to prepare the emblems and have them blessed even if the priesthood holder is outside of the room, or home.

I think it's a matter of what "this" refers to when we bless "this" bread or "this" water.  We don't bless "that" bread or water, some bread or water we don't have in front of us.