Virtual Sacrament Ordinance

[MustardSeed]

In an age where many people are exposed to what I have seen - several "posts" by women who say "I"m so glad to have a priesthood holder in my home who can bless the sacrament" I can see how it might feel NOT to have that experience.  Women might feel lifted by options like on line sacrament.  But it's a no go.   Technically it's not necessary.  But I can see how some might like that.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If it were not part of the ordinance it would make more sense to break it when you set up instead of just before the prayer.

Why? I'm not following the logic here. Why does the timing of the breaking of bread matter. If it's 30 minutes before the prayer (when sacrament is set up) or 30 second before the prayer. Why would it really matter?

I think Jana makes a great point. I see no reason, theological or otherwise, why the church couldn't do virtual sacrament. The only thing stopping the church is a policy

[JAHS]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why? I'm not following the logic here. Why does the timing of the breaking of bread matter. If it's 30 minutes before the prayer (when sacrament is set up) or 30 second before the prayer. Why would it really matter?

I think Jana makes a great point. I see no reason, theological or otherwise, why the church couldn't do virtual sacrament. The only thing stopping the church is a policy

Include the fact that people can provide an already broken piece of gluten-free bread or cracker that is not broken by the Priests during the ordinance. 
However, I can see where a policy change to allow this could be abused by some members. And how often are we going to have pandemics like this where we are not able to go to church?
 

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why? I'm not following the logic here. Why does the timing of the breaking of bread matter. If it's 30 minutes before the prayer (when sacrament is set up) or 30 second before the prayer. Why would it really matter?

I think Jana makes a great point. I see no reason, theological or otherwise, why the church couldn't do virtual sacrament. The only thing stopping the church is a policy

How can we be sure that breaking the bread isn't a part of the sacrament ordinance?  

[mgy401]

If remote sacrament, why not remote baptisms?

[JAHS]

19 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

If remote sacrament, why not remote baptisms?

I'm sure you are being facetious, but what would they do, dunk themselves in their bathtub?

[Robert F. Smith]

22 hours ago, JAHS said:

.....................................

If death cannot separate us or invalidate our most sacred ordinances, we should also be able to conduct a sacrament meeting without being in each other’s physical presence. There is no theological reason why I should not be able to see and hear a priesthood holder blessing the sacrament in an online service and then consume the elements privately in my own home, knowing as I do that many other Saints around the world are doing so alongside me.".................................

Reminds me of the old time radio preachers who used to ask that those listening put their hands on the radio, and be blessed thereby.  Or the Mormon elder who blessed someone over the phone -- he got disfellowshipped for that.

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Reminds me of the old time radio preachers who used to ask that those listening put their hands on the radio, and be blessed thereby.  Or the Mormon elder who blessed someone over the phone -- he got disfellowshipped for that.

Uh Oh 😨  I did the same thing when my son had just moved into a new ward and didn't know anyone yet and asked me to give him a blessing over the phone, which I did and would do it again if needed. It was very helpful to him at the time. 

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Quote

Reminds me of the old time radio preachers who used to ask that those listening put their hands on the radio, and be blessed thereby.  Or the Mormon elder who blessed someone over the phone -- he got disfellowshipped for that.

Uh Oh 😨  I did the same thing when my son had just moved into a new ward and didn't know anyone yet and asked me to give him a blessing over the phone, which I did and would do it again if needed. It was very helpful to him at the time. 

In 1991 I entered Army Basic Training right after I graduated from high school.  During the second-to-last week there I pulled a groin muscle that made running very painful.  The drill sergeant told me I could sit out the final Physical Training test, which includes a 2-mile run, but that I would need to re-start the two-month Basic Training cycle as a result.  I really didn't want to do that.  The next day, a Sunday, I called my father and asked if he could give me a priesthood blessing over the phone so that I could be healed or endure the pain.  He said he couldn't, as a priesthood blessing requires the "laying on of hands."  However, he prayed with me over the phone.  The next day, I ran the 2 miles with only mild pain.

I think the "laying on of hands" component of officiating in ordinances seems like a necessary component.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

How can we be sure that breaking the bread isn't a part of the sacrament ordinance?  

The breaking of the bread symbolizes Christ's physical body being broken, which took place in public.  Using pre-broken bread would seem to miss out on this.

Exceptions can and should be made for gluten or other allergy reasons.

Edited May 13, 2020 by ksfisher

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

How can we be sure that breaking the bread isn't a part of the sacrament ordinance?  

Has anyone ever taught that it is an essential part of the sacrament? If they have, I'm not aware of it. I appreciate the arguments for breaking the bread based on the symbolism of the act, but I can't, for the life of me, figure out why breaking bread would be essential. As others have noted, bread substitutes haven't been broken and everyone seems to have survived and even been edified by partaking. IMO the food product (bread or something else, broken or not) is about as essential as using wine for the sacrament. I'm sure it was a shock when the church transitioned to wine because the traditional understanding was challenged. But do we lack blessings because water is now used? I don't think so.

I mentioned the whole "virtual sacrament" on a different post weeks ago and I still think it makes a lot of sense in certain cases. While it might not be the ideal, there are many people that experience life outside the ideal. Even when the pandemic subsides, there will still be people who are isolated and could benefit by a virtual sacrament, whether it be someone in a nursing home with severe medical issues, or a single person living in China who attends church weekly via skype. Those kinds of virtual wards exist so a virtual sacrament would make sense too. At least to me. Sure the President would have to approve it, but I don't think it would be a stretch for him to do so. I think it would be one of those "well, of course" kinds of moments and we will all wonder why we hadn't done it before.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Reminds me of the old time radio preachers who used to ask that those listening put their hands on the radio, and be blessed thereby.  Or the Mormon elder who blessed someone over the phone -- he got disfellowshipped for that.

But hasn't the prophet/apostles offered apostolic blessings upon the congregation of conference before? Did that blessing only apply to people in the building? I've also seen this at the ward level where an apostle blesses the congregation of the Stake conference and I assumed it applied to those watching in other buildings or rooms.

IF a prophet or apostle can issue a blessing to a congregation gathered both physically and digitally, why couldn't they also approve priesthood blessing others via phone or video. It's obviously a different kind of blessing, more similar to a prayer than healing of sick with laying on hands, but still. Why would we expect priesthood to be limited by space and physical proximity?

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, mgy401 said:

If remote sacrament, why not remote baptisms?

You could have sealings where the husband and wife weren't even on the same continent. 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

1 hour ago, mgy401 said:

If remote sacrament, why not remote baptisms?

I'm sure you are being facetious, but what would they do, dunk themselves in their bathtub?

If a physical presence isn't required to officiate an ordinance then why not?

To help get people used to the idea though we should probably start out with something a little more familiar - like baptizing robots (patent pending!).

They could have monitors (or possibly holograms) in lieu of a faces - that way anybody with a smartphone could just hop onto BaptizeTime, connect to the appropriate robot, and then perform the ordinance. You know, just like God intended.

[JAHS]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In 1991 I entered Army Basic Training right after I graduated from high school.  During the second-to-last week there I pulled a groin muscle that made running very painful.  The drill sergeant told me I could sit out the final Physical Training test, which includes a 2-mile run, but that I would need to re-start the two-month Basic Training cycle as a result.  I really didn't want to do that.  The next day, a Sunday, I called my father and asked if he could give me a priesthood blessing over the phone so that I could be healed or endure the pain.  He said he couldn't, as a priesthood blessing requires the "laying on of hands."  However, he prayed with me over the phone.  The next day, I ran the 2 miles with only mild pain.

I think the "laying on of hands" component of officiating in ordinances seems like a necessary component.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Under normal circumstances both I and my son would agree with that, but at that moment I didn't have time to look up the propriety of doing such a thing. 
Hard to imagine someone getting disfellowshipped over doing that as Robert said. 

Edited May 13, 2020 by JAHS

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The breaking of the bread symbolizes Christ being broken, which took place in public.  Using pre-broken bread would seem to miss out on this.

Exceptions can and should be made for gluten or other allergy reasons.

"Pre-broken" still has to be broken, right. So it's just a matter of the timing of when it was broken. Like you say, it's symbolic anyways, so not sure why the timing would really matter. Even saying Christ was "broken" is symbolic or at least metaphorical since he wasn't actually "broken".

[HappyJackWagon]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In 1991 I entered Army Basic Training right after I graduated from high school.  During the second-to-last week there I pulled a groin muscle that made running very painful.  The drill sergeant told me I could sit out the final Physical Training test, which includes a 2-mile run, but that I would need to re-start the two-month Basic Training cycle as a result.  I really didn't want to do that.  The next day, a Sunday, I called my father and asked if he could give me a priesthood blessing over the phone so that I could be healed or endure the pain.  He said he couldn't, as a priesthood blessing requires the "laying on of hands."  However, he prayed with me over the phone.  The next day, I ran the 2 miles with only mild pain.

I think the "laying on of hands" component of officiating in ordinances seems like a necessary component.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Cool story, Smac.

So it would seem "laying on of hands" is a necessary component for a blessing for the healing and the sick.

Yet it did not appear to be a necessary component for receiving a blessing which healed the sick. So the logical question might be, why would laying hands for the purpose of healing the sick be better than praying a blessing that yielded the same desired result?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Or bringing one's hand to the square is not insisted upon if for some reason a person isn't able to (arthritis, broken, missing).

Yes. And there are other ordinances in the Church in which Individual accommodation is made for disabilities. 

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

You could have sealings where the husband and wife weren't even on the same continent. 

True.

Would that be any more impossible, strange, inconceivable than a husband and wife being sealed  when they weren't even both living?

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Under normal circumstances both I and my son would agree with that, but at that moment I didn't have time to look up the propriety of doing such a thing. 
Hard to imagine someone getting disfellowshipped over doing that as Robert said. 

Unless there are other elements to the story we don’t know about. Perhaps the person stubbornly refused to receive correction and persisted in doing it. 

[ksfisher]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

"Pre-broken" still has to be broken, right. So it's just a matter of the timing of when it was broken. Like you say, it's symbolic anyways, so not sure why the timing would really matter. Even saying Christ was "broken" is symbolic or at least metaphorical since he wasn't actually "broken".

I guess with symbolism you can see as much, or as little, as you want to.  To me the entire ordinance is filled with symbolism and has deep personal meaning to me.

Edited May 13, 2020 by ksfisher

[Robert F. Smith]

43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But hasn't the prophet/apostles offered apostolic blessings upon the congregation of conference before? Did that blessing only apply to people in the building? I've also seen this at the ward level where an apostle blesses the congregation of the Stake conference and I assumed it applied to those watching in other buildings or rooms.

IF a prophet or apostle can issue a blessing to a congregation gathered both physically and digitally, why couldn't they also approve priesthood blessing others via phone or video. It's obviously a different kind of blessing, more similar to a prayer than healing of sick with laying on hands, but still. Why would we expect priesthood to be limited by space and physical proximity?

Excellent points all, HappyJack.  So far, some rules or limits have been set out.  Yet a great many changes have been made within the Nelson Presidency, some of them having to do with liturgy and holy garments, others merely meeting schedules.  LDS history is rife with changes, some quite amazing and sweeping (polygyny, word of wisdom, etc.).  Over time, the whole character of our Church may seem quite different.  However, by then a new generation could be in place, and it might not seem so sweeping to them.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Uh Oh 😨  I did the same thing when my son had just moved into a new ward and didn't know anyone yet and asked me to give him a blessing over the phone, which I did and would do it again if needed. It was very helpful to him at the time. 

Yes, and I have heard about blessings of animals and even of a car (which oddly enough worked).

[Rain]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think that amounts to a circumstantial accommodation.

Exactly.  Which is why it is similar to virtual sacrament during quarantines. 

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One analogy that comes to mind is priesthood blessing of the sick and afflicted. If, in an emergency, no consecrated oil is present, the ordinance can be done without it. However, we are to try to perform the ordinance as instructed when we can.

 

 

[Rain]

5 hours ago, mgy401 said:

Trying to extrapolate “well, if we can do it this way, we should also be able to do it that way”, is how the primitive church wound up with baptism by sprinkling, and baptism of infants, and a bunch of other liturgical innovations that we now consider “apostasy”.

Fundamentally, we have no right to officiate in a priesthood ordinance at all unless the one holding the keys of that ordinance authorized it—and therefore, no right to buck the keyholder’s instructions as to the time/place/manner of the ordinance.  If we acknowledge that President Nelson has authority to, without an explicit theological basis, overrule an over-zealous local bishop’s attempt to have all the deacons wear white shirts and bow ties; then we also have to acknowledge President Nelson’s authority to prohibit sacrament-by-videoconference—even if he does so, again, without an explicit theological foundation.

I haven't seen anyone here trying to "buck the keyholder's instructions."

What I am doing and what I see others doing is trying to figure out the reasoning behind them.  Joseph asked lots of questions.  We have been taught to ask questions so we can learn more.