Virtual Sacrament Ordinance

[alter idem]

On 5/22/2020 at 11:02 AM, 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.""

And just to clarify, they aren't suggesting that this replace the Sacrament ordinance.  It is acknowledging that for some, they will not be able to take the Sacrament, and this is a suggestion for what a person can do while they are not able to take it.

[alter idem]

On 5/22/2020 at 11:30 AM, bluebell said:

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.

Yes, they are missing out. We're also missing out on not being able to attend the Temple.  Many are missing out on not being able to serve in callings they enjoy, and we're missing out on not being able to spend time with family and friends, go on planned trips, just do our normal routine.  

But, does that mean that that the Lord can't bless them because they can't take the Sacrament?  I believe absolutely no, and I also believe that we can find other ways to enjoy blessings within the limitations that this Covid19 shutdown has brought about.  

Not being able to take the Sacrament is going to mean some miss out on the actual ordinance, but the Lord can still bless them and even provide insight, and personal revelation, blessings through other means, if we are faithful and prayerful. He is all powerful and all loving.

[alter idem]

2 hours 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.

And it would seem that it is necessary for the priesthood holder to be physically present with the emblems. Makes complete sense to me.   I think he's being as accommodating as possible, but will not cross a line with that 'small step' where it is no longer a valid ordinance.

edited to add, he said 'providing', not 'preparing' (there's a difference) the sacrament emblems, so suggesting that he means the individual prepares their own sacrament could be a leap, and you need clarification to know if this is the case.  You might be reading more into it.

Edited May 29, 2020 by alter idem

[mfbukowski]

43 minutes ago, alter idem said:

And just to clarify, they aren't suggesting that this replace the Sacrament ordinance.  It is acknowledging that for some, they will not be able to take the Sacrament, and this is a suggestion for what a person can do while they are not able to take it.

Yes exactly 

In addition to the benefits of the ordinance itself I would imagine that obedience is a factor, getting out of bed putting on your clothes getting yourself to church Etc.

But if you are unable to do so in my opinion God will not remove any of the benefits you could have had, because he understands you did what you could under the circumstances.

I'm not buying this hold you that somehow he puts the rest of the blessings in a bank until you can withdraw them at the next ordinance.

That is a very Catholic way of thinking.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasury_of_merit

And for me that also goes with the view of the atonement as paying some kind of literal debt.

Monetary analogies about spiritual matters just don't make it for me.

Edited May 29, 2020 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

On 5/22/2020 at 11:11 AM, 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.

The method of administering the sacrament has changed frequently since it was restored.  Like the theatrical portion of the endowment.

It used to be limited to priests and above, now deacons participate.  It used to have the arm raised to the square, now that's not done.  There are examples of bless/break AND break/bless.  There are records based on D&C that the congregation could kneel.  And of course the variation in food and drink.

Basically the only thing not to change is the prayer. 

Edited May 31, 2020 by JLHPROF

[JAHS]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The method of administering the sacrament has changed frequently since it was restored.  Like the theatrical portion of the endowment.

It used to be limited to priests and above, now deacons participate.  It used to have the arm raised to the square, now that's not done.  There are examples of bless/break AND break/bless.  There are records based on D&C that the congregation could kneel.  And of course the variation in food and drink.

Basically the only thing not to change is the prayer. 

During the first few years of the Church the sacrament was like an actual meal where they would eat bread and wine til “they satisfied their appetites.”"

"On June 22, 1836, Joseph Smith escorted his mother, Lucy Mack Smith, and aunt Clarissa to Painesville, Ohio, where these sisters would await their husbands’ return from a mission to the eastern states. Upon arrival, Joseph “broke bread” and administered the Lord’s Supper “after the ancient order.”[1] The company then ate and drank until “they satisfied their appetites.” According to George Q. Cannon, former member of the First Presidency, in the early years of the Church between 1830 and 1844, the “bread and the wine were not passed as is the custom now among us. It was an actual supper.” He believed that “this would be the proper manner to administer this ordinance now if circumstances permitted”; however, congregations apparently outgrew this approach. 

Other aspects of the ordinance also underwent significant refinement since the first formal and official instructions in the Articles and Covenants of the Church, now section 20 of the Doctrine and Covenants. This early revelation did not outline the Lord’s Supper in great detail, leaving most of the procedural aspects and understanding of the ordinance open to influences from Joseph Smith’s and other early leaders’ religious backgrounds and cultural surroundings. As a result, the sacrament was irregularly and inconsistently administered during the first years of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."   (The Lord's Supper in Early Mormonism, Justin R. Bray)

The above referenced paper has some interesting history about the ordinance.

 

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Basically the only thing not to change is the prayer. 

Presence of the Priesthood is another. 

[JLHPROF]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

Presence of the Priesthood is another. 

Joseph said where there is no change in ordinances, there is no change in priesthood. 

I believe Joseph when he said:

“Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles.” 

So I consider it important to not alter the eternal elements in order to preserve priesthood authority.  The question is which elements are eternal?  The prayer?  The priesthood office?  We know it's not the type of food.