Virtual Sacrament Ordinance

[Rain]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

Perhaps.  While it could get crummy I have no problem with it if that is why we use bread.

Edited May 13, 2020 by Rain

[juliann]

17 hours ago, Rain said:

If we can give crackers or rice chex without breaking them to those who are gluten-free it seems like you could do virtual sacrament without "breaking" the bread as well for basically the same reason (health reasons) so it seems to me there must be something more to not doing it virtually.

D&C 27:2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.

Bread is the obvious choice but according to our own scripture, which takes precedence, it doesn't matter what it is. Thus, the substitutions for medical reasons or inaccessibility. This is not an exception because using bread isn't our scriptural rule. 

We are going to run into these dilemmas, which are based on tradition or policy, more and more. How are we going to be able to refill gallons and gallons of water in baptism fonts for each person as pandemics and droughts occur? How long can we insist the sacrament even matters when a good portion of the church is told they don't need it? 

There are much bigger issues here than how and when a slice of supermarket bread should be torn.

[JAHS]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

There are much bigger issues here than how and when a slice of supermarket bread should be torn.

Sometimes our store has bread and sometimes not. I can't even buy any flour right now to make bread.

[juliann]

43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

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?

This happens because we refuse to deal with the foundational issues and continue to try and talk our way around them instead. What is happening now, in an effort to keep priesthood office/ordination from women is a severe devaluation of the priesthood. Rather than elevating women to the priesthood, the go to has been to diminish the priesthood to the women. And it's nonsensical. It creates situations just like this and I don't know one woman who doesn't know that her prayers and faith are equal to authorized priesthood blessings and such. Not to mention this is coming from the highest levels. 

What is missing is the WHY.....not that women aren't given the priesthood. I am more confused about what priesthood actually means than I ever have been in my life. BTW, it is no longer disputable that women were deacons in the early church (whatever that meant to early Christians). That we now can't even tear up bread in our own homes with an authorized priesthood blessing is deeply insulting. 

[Rain]

1 hour 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?

I have wondered about apostolic blessings before. If you are sick or a policeman at work or out of town on business does that mean you don't get the blessing?  Because I HAVE heard people say if you are not there you don't get it.  

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

This happens because we refuse to deal with the foundational issues and continue to try and talk our way around them instead. What is happening now, in an effort to keep priesthood office/ordination from women is a severe devaluation of the priesthood. Rather than elevating women to the priesthood, the go to has been to diminish the priesthood to the women. And it's nonsensical. It creates situations just like this and I don't know one woman who doesn't know that her prayers and faith are equal to authorized priesthood blessings and such. Not to mention this is coming from the highest levels. 

What is missing is the WHY.....not that women aren't given the priesthood. I am more confused about what priesthood actually means than I ever have been in my life. BTW, it is no longer disputable that women were deacons in the early church (whatever that meant to early Christians). That we now can't even tear up bread in our own homes with an authorized priesthood blessing is deeply insulting. 

Nailed it!

Thanks for expressing what I've been trying but failing to say.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

It's taught as an essential part of the sacrament in 3 Ne.  But as I said, there is always the chance that those verses are being interpreted incorrectly.

I agree that there are a lot of benefits to a virtual sacrament meeting.  There are benefits to sprinkling during baptism instead of doing it by immersion too, which says to me that whether or not there are benefits to certain actions is really irrelevant.  All that matters is what God thinks of it, through His authorized servants.  

Do we have anything we can point to that we can use to help us understand God's perspective on the matter?  Can you provide anything like that (sincere question, not trying to be snarky)? 

Or is all we have (if we remove the prophet's words on the matter) personal opinion and costs/benefits analysis? 

[HappyJackWagon]

43 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

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.

Great. No one is trying to take that away from you.

However, suggesting that seeing something done a certain way and thus being meaningful in a symbolic way is more important than allowing others to participate in the ordinance, seems to miss the point.

I suspect you will find great meaning and enjoy the symbolism of the sacrament even if/when adjustments are made to it. If you had been alive when the church changed from water to wine, would that have bothered you, even though it made the sacrament more accessible and safe to a larger group of people? I doubt it.

[Bernard Gui]

22 minutes ago, juliann said:

D&C 27:2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.

Bread is the obvious choice but according to our own scripture, which takes precedence, it doesn't matter what it is. Thus, the substitutions for medical reasons or inaccessibility. This is not an exception because using bread isn't our scriptural rule. 

We are going to run into these dilemmas, which are based on tradition or policy, more and more. How are we going to be able to refill gallons and gallons of water in baptism fonts for each person as pandemics and droughts occur? How long can we insist the sacrament even matters when a good portion of the church is told they don't need it? 

There are much bigger issues here than how and when a slice of supermarket bread should be torn.

I think the use of bread is fundamental to our theology. Jesus used it symbolically and literally. I think it matters.

[Rain]

With all that I have said so far, I do want to say I agree with someone up thread that there is a physical component to this somehow.  While some people are insistent that spiritual is more important than physical, the scriptures and teachings are pretty consistent that the 2 are intertwined.

I'm also good with symbolism.  Christ is the bread, the living bread.  It makes sense to use "bread" whenever it is possible. 

And I'm ok with times when those in leadership sincerely/prayerfully look into things and feel that an exception cannot be made.

I just like to know why. It's in my nature. I drove some of my math teachers crazy.  I recognize I often won't get the answer, but asking why and trying to figure out why doesn't make me less faithful.

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, Rain said:

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

 

I see a substantial difference between making incidental, individual accommodations and drastically altering the character of the ordinance with universal impact. 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's taught as an essential part of the sacrament in 3 Ne.  But as I said, there is always the chance that those verses are being interpreted incorrectly.

I agree that there are a lot of benefits to a virtual sacrament meeting.  There are benefits to sprinkling during baptism instead of doing it by immersion too, which says to me that whether or not there are benefits to certain actions is really irrelevant.  All that matters is what God thinks of it, through His authorized servants.  

Do we have anything we can point to that we can use to help us understand God's perspective on the matter?  Can you provide anything like that (sincere question, not trying to be snarky)? 

Or is all we have (if we remove the prophet's words on the matter) personal opinion and costs/benefits analysis? 

I don't think that interpretation is necessarily right or wrong. I honestly don't think it matters, which is good because that scripture can be interpreted different ways. Maybe it was descriptive instead of prescriptive. Maybe it was a statement of the ideal. But in my opinion doing something 1 way because it is symbolic, at the expense of others being able to participate would really miss the point of the ordinance.

I don't think we have anything that helps us understand God's perspective. As Juliann mentioned earlier, the big question around all of this stuff is "why". We have the policy statements. We have been given certain directions, but we haven't been told why. It hasn't been linked to doctrine. It hasn't been claimed as essential. It just is. That doesn't inform us theologically at all.

I think it's personal opinion. The president of the church has the right to make the policy so we follow it. But that doesn't mean we can't think about ways things could be improved or hope for changes. I don't believe the prophet is directed from God in everything. I think he is a steward who does his best to follow what he believes God wants, and sometimes he receives direct inspiration. But I don't assume that everything he says is direct inspiration or doctrine

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's taught as an essential part of the sacrament in 3 Ne.  But as I said, there is always the chance that those verses are being interpreted incorrectly.

I agree that there are a lot of benefits to a virtual sacrament meeting.  There are benefits to sprinkling during baptism instead of doing it by immersion too, which says to me that whether or not there are benefits to certain actions is really irrelevant.  All that matters is what God thinks of it, through His authorized servants.  

Do we have anything we can point to that we can use to help us understand God's perspective on the matter?  Can you provide anything like that (sincere question, not trying to be snarky)? 

Or is all we have (if we remove the prophet's words on the matter) personal opinion and costs/benefits analysis? 

My frustration comes because I don't think we should have to be asking. Getting a dictated rule doesn't answer questions, it doesn't give me insight. It merely becomes off putting when those rules don't make sense and inadvertently isolate a huge hunk of members over something as basic as the sacrament.

Being in the virus vulnerable group, I can't see myself eating bread that boys, with washed or unwashed hands,  and kids in the congregation have handled ever again. And as a single woman, I've been reassured that it doesn't matter anyway. Much of the time, the bread is squished flat, meaning there isn't one area that hasn't had someone else's fingers all over it. Same with those teeny water cups. I've never had to think about it before. For me, these are bigger issues than what sex gets to tear the bread. 

[juliann]

18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I think the use of bread is fundamental to our theology. Jesus used it symbolically and literally. I think it matters.

I just gave you a scripture attributed to JS. How much more fundamental can it get? And if it is to be that literal, shouldn't we be using the same type bread Jesus did? I doubt it was supermarket yeast bread....    This seems no different to me than how upset some are that whole wheat bread was used instead of white.

[Rain]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I see a substantial difference between making incidental, individual accommodations and drastically altering the character of the ordinance with universal impact. 

How do you feel it is drastically altering the character that isn't altered with using a rice chex?

Just to be clear, I'm not big on doing it virtually. Despite the fact that I can talk with my missionary that way I just don't like video meetings of any kind and I'm even more uncomfortable with the idea of ordinances done this way. I just haven't found anything yet that gives me understanding of why it is not the same thing as in person.

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, Rain said:

How do you feel it is drastically altering the character that isn't altered with using a rice chex?

Just to be clear, I'm not big on doing it virtually. Despite the fact that I can talk with my missionary that way I just don't like video meetings of any kind and I'm even more uncomfortable with the idea of ordinances done this way. I just haven't found anything yet that gives me understanding of why it is not the same thing as in person.

My imperfect solution was to have the resident put the bread and water on the porch or apartment hall and have the ministering bros bless it there and leave without any contact. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think that interpretation is necessarily right or wrong. I honestly don't think it matters, which is good because that scripture can be interpreted different ways. Maybe it was descriptive instead of prescriptive. Maybe it was a statement of the ideal. But in my opinion doing something 1 way because it is symbolic, at the expense of others being able to participate would really miss the point of the ordinance.

I don't think we have anything that helps us understand God's perspective. As Juliann mentioned earlier, the big question around all of this stuff is "why". We have the policy statements. We have been given certain directions, but we haven't been told why. It hasn't been linked to doctrine. It hasn't been claimed as essential. It just is. That doesn't inform us theologically at all.

I think it's personal opinion. The president of the church has the right to make the policy so we follow it. But that doesn't mean we can't think about ways things could be improved or hope for changes. I don't believe the prophet is directed from God in everything. I think he is a steward who does his best to follow what he believes God wants, and sometimes he receives direct inspiration. But I don't assume that everything he says is direct inspiration or doctrine

So in terms of a virtual sacrament, you believe all we have is personal opinion.  Thanks for clarifying.  Personally, I think there is room for the prophet to authorize virtual sacrament blessing, but I don't believe he is currently wrong not to have already done so.  

And I agree that having an answer to the why would be theologically helpful.  Though, I think we can also agree that with some people, any answer to "why" that disagreed with their personal beliefs would likely be ignored as incorrect anyway, so in that sense, providing the why doesn't really solve anything either.  

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Rain said:

How do you feel it is drastically altering the character that isn't altered with using a rice chex?

The latter doesn’t impact others. Most people are scarcely even aware of it. 
 

It’s like Calm’s analogy of accommodating those who are unable to raise the right hand in the performance of an ordinance. That doesn’t affect anyone else in any degree. 

[Bernard Gui]

24 minutes ago, juliann said:

I just gave you a scripture attributed to JS. How much more fundamental can it get? And if it is to be that literal, shouldn't we be using the same type bread Jesus did? I doubt it was supermarket yeast bread....    This seems no different to me than how upset some are that whole wheat bread was used instead of white.

More fundamental than "I am the bread of life," the process and instructions at the Last Supper and the administration to the Nephites? I don't think so. There is much more to it, in my opinion. We have current stewards of the keys that make those decisions. For 2000 years bread has been the standard, not the exception.

Quote

Alma 5: 33 Behold, he sendeth an invitation unto all men, for the arms of mercy are extended towards them, and he saith: Repent, and I will receive you. 34 Yea, he saith: Come unto me and ye shall partake of the fruitof the tree of life; yea, ye shall eat and drink of the bread and the waters of life freely.

It's been decades since I heard anyone make bones about wheat or white; however, I was in a ward where the youth asked for homemade bread for the sacrament rather than supermarket bread. I wouldn't mind using unleavened bread. I think that would be awesome. 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Rain]

34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The latter doesn’t impact others. Most people are scarcely even aware of it. 
 

It’s like Calm’s analogy of accommodating those who are unable to raise the right hand in the performance of an ordinance. That doesn’t affect anyone else in any degree. 

Why would a virtual sacrament impact others?  If no one knows except the persons receiving it, blessing it and giving permission for it then it will impact others even less  than someone raising a different hand because no one will be able to see the virtual sacrament, but may see the hand and may see the rice chex on the tray.

Edited May 13, 2020 by Rain

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I think the use of bread is fundamental to our theology. Jesus used it symbolically and literally. I think it matters.

Wine was used in the same way, imo.  There is immense symbolic meaning in the pressing of grapes, wine being commonly shared among friends, the color for some, etc.  Yet we switched to water.

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, juliann said:

My frustration comes because I don't think we should have to be asking. Getting a dictated rule doesn't answer questions, it doesn't give me insight. It merely becomes off putting when those rules don't make sense and inadvertently isolate a huge hunk of members over something as basic as the sacrament.

Being in the virus vulnerable group, I can't see myself eating bread that boys, with washed or unwashed hands,  and kids in the congregation have handled ever again. And as a single woman, I've been reassured that it doesn't matter anyway. Much of the time, the bread is squished flat, meaning there isn't one area that hasn't had someone else's fingers all over it. Same with those teeny water cups. I've never had to think about it before. For me, these are bigger issues than what sex gets to tear the bread. 

I agree with the sanitation issue and I think that that is going to be the big problem in letting us go back to church again.  The sacrament is the most unsanitary thing that happens on Sunday, and with Covid-19 fears, I don't see them allowing sacrament as it's been done in the past.  The risk is too great.  Either we'll stay home or adaptions will happen.

For me, the current policies make sense in the moment, so I don't personally find them off putting (though I understand for others that's not the case) and I can see the need for our leaders to make absolutely sure that any change made to the sacrament ordinance is completely condoned by God before moving forward. 

As our circumstances and the need for change becomes more permanent or longer lasting, I would assume further information or better ways to do things will follow.  I don't personally see this as an issue of trying to do whatever necessary to keep women from performing priesthood ordinances.

[Bernard Gui]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Wine was used in the same way, imo.  There is immense symbolic meaning in the pressing of grapes, wine being commonly shared among friends, the color for some, etc.  Yet we switched to water.

Yet there are many references to Jesus, water, and eternal life. For example, the one I quoted above and the one I quote below. Remember that he also changed water to wine.

Quote

John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[mgy401]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

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

I apologize if I came off that way.  I’m on a mobile phone, which tends to result in my being less articulate than I perhaps ought to be.

I would be interested to hear ideas about why physical contact with/presence of the officiator/prayergiver might be necessary in the case of baptism if we assume that it is not necessary in the case of the sacrament.

(And it seems to me that at least as a matter of mechanics, we do know from the baptism of Alma the Elder that self-immersion is possible and has been acceptable to the Lord in at least one instance.)

[mgy401]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

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.  

Similarly, I don’t think anyone here is saying we shouldn’t ask.  But I think we’re liable to get into trouble if we go into things with a presumption that we are entitled to receive an ordinance (or understanding pertaining thereto) on our own terms; or if we respond with a knee-jerk “that’s not good enough!” to any proposed explanation that is offered to us by another thoughtful Latter-day Saint because we of ourselves have already decided that things must be a certain way.