Virtual Sacrament Ordinance

[smac97]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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?

Obedience?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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?

I've always wondered this about Jesus and how He could heal most people by touching, but that one guy he had to spit in the mud and put that on his eyes to make him see again.  Why mud spit for one but just touch to get the same desired results for everyone else?  Seems legitimately odd.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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. 

Have you ever worked in the nursery? 😬  At least in my ward the priests use hand sanitizer before the break the bread.

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've always wondered this about Jesus and how He could heal most people by touching, but that one guy he had to spit in the mud and put that on his eyes to make him see again.  Why mud spit for one but just touch to get the same desired results for everyone else?  Seems legitimately odd.

The man was blind, perhaps he needed something that made it more concrete for him, more connected than a momentary touch from someone he was likely not familiar with so may have had only a vague sense of him, while he would be very familiar and connected with earth. 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

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. 

Possibly, but in 3 Nephi giving the bread to the people in person is part of the ordinance, in my opinion. Like baptism and the ordinances of the temple.

Edited May 13, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Have you ever worked in the nursery? 😬  At least in my ward the priests use hand sanitizer before the break the bread.

I have worked in nursery.  You're right, it can be gross. 

But in nursery, it's only a handful adults that are exposed to the kids' germs.  When you pass bread and water down rows, that bread and water is exposed to all the germs of the people it goes by.  Normally we all hope for the best (that no one has coughed or sneezed on it, and no grubby kid has handled all the pieces or drooled into the cups) but in a pandemic, I don't think the church is going to rely on hope.   

The priests are really the very least of the worry. 

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

The man was blind, perhaps he needed something that made it more concrete for him, more connected than a momentary touch from someone he was likely not familiar with so may have had only a vague sense of him, while he would be very familiar and connected with earth. 

That's the only thing I can think of, that he needed the mud for some reason to strengthen his faith.  Still, the need for mud was definitely the exception and not the rule.  The existence of exceptions doesn't necessarily mean anything when the rule is applicable. 

But I find great comfort in knowing that God makes exceptions according to our needs and weaknesses.  

Edited May 14, 2020 by bluebell

[Rain]

3 hours ago, mgy401 said:

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. 

Do you feel people who have responded here feel that way?

If not, why did you bring it up?

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

That's the only thing I can think of, that he needed the mud for some reason to strengthen his faith.  Still, the need for mud was definitely the exception and not the rule.  The existence of exceptions doesn't necessarily mean anything when the rule is applicable. 

But I find great comfort in knowing that God makes exceptions according to our needs and weaknesses.  

Then there is this.

Quote

Mark 7:And they brought to him aman who was deaf and had a speech impediment, and they begged him to lay his hand on him. 33 And taking him aside from the crowd privately, he put his fingers into his ears, and after spitting touched his tongue. 34 And looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to him, “Ephphatha,” that is,” Be opened. And his ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke plainly. 36 And Jesus charged them to tell no one. But the more he charged them, the more zealously they proclaimed it. 37 And they were astonished beyond measure, saying, “He has done all things well. He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak.”

We can speculate as to why he did it this way or even seek to rationalize it, I suppose, but to me the important thing is that the healing happened. 

[Bernard Gui]

Are we questioning for the use of grains such as wheat (some have proposed rice, and there are other grains available) as the material for sacrament, or are we saying that anything edible should be acceptable?

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Are we questioning for the use of grains such as wheat (some have proposed rice, and there are other grains available) as the material for sacrament, or are we saying that anything edible should be acceptable?

Doesn’t the D&C say that anything edible is acceptable?

[JAHS]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Are we questioning for the use of grains such as wheat (some have proposed rice, and there are other grains available) as the material for sacrament, or are we saying that anything edible should be acceptable?

Doesn’t the D&C say that anything edible is acceptable?

On my mission in Austria in a small branch we sometimes didn't have bread for the sacrament so we brought some breakfast pastry instead. 😋

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, JAHS said:

On my mission in Austria in a small branch we sometimes didn't have bread for the sacrament so we brought some breakfast pastry instead. 😋

We used an English muffin a couple of weeks ago. 

[Robert F. Smith]

In the OP @JAHS , conjuring Jana Riess, asks us whether we can have a "Virtual Sacrament Ordinance"?

This entails the question of virtual reality, which is not quite the same as reality.  However, just suppose that (for whatever reason) God had decided to make this life and this universe just a simulation -- a virtual universe -- which follows a full set of laws (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.).  Such a virtual reality would be encoded the same way we encode a computer program, even if far more complex.  That would make space, time, and pain no more than illusion, and it would get the job done of providing an earthly experience for us without too much risk.  Same as if we had experienced the real thing.  Right?  😎  Even including a virtual bogeyman, Satan. 

In fact, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, ... said that he thinks the likelihood of the universe being a simulation "may be very high."  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/neil-degrasse-tyson-thinks-theres-130300649.html .

Quote

But Tyson uses a thought experiment to imagine a life form that's as much smarter than us as we are than dogs, chimps, or other terrestrial mammals.

"What would we look like to them? We would be drooling, blithering idiots in their presence," he says.

Whatever that being is, it very well might be able to create a simulation of a universe.

"And if that's the case, it is easy for me to imagine that everything in our lives is just the creation of some other entity for their entertainment," Tyson says. "I’m saying, the day we learn that it is true, I will be the only one in the room saying, I’m not surprised."

Nobel Prize winning astrophyscist George Smoot argues the same possibility, if only tongue in cheek, for TED.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chfoo9NBEow  .

In 2016, there was a secret meeting of 130 scientists at Harvard discussing a project to chemically synthesize the human genome within the next ten years.  http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_29890402/critics-attack-harvards-secret-meeting-human-genome-synthesis .  Genomic legos?

On the other hand, in 2011, futurist Ray Kurzweil said that, after the coming Singularity, we will all be robots anyway.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR57633ztYc  .

[The Nehor]

On 5/12/2020 at 10:07 PM, 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.

It is doctrine that those with gluten allergies are foreordained to damnation. We only give them an alternative to humor them and pretend we do not know their fate to let them experience a little joy before the ax falls so it does not matter what we do with their stuff.

Source? .....uhhhh, sealed portion of the Book of Mormon as referenced by the appendix of the 116 lost pages.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This entails the question of virtual reality, which is not quite the same as reality.  However, just suppose that (for whatever reason) God had decided to make this life and this universe just a simulation -- a virtual universe -- which follows a full set of laws (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.).  Such a virtual reality would be encoded the same way we encode a computer program, even if far more complex.  That would make space, time, and pain no more than illusion, and it would get the job done of providing an earthly experience for us without too much risk.  Same as if we had experienced the real thing.  Right?  😎  Even including a virtual bogeyman, Satan. 

 

 

How would a simulated universe change the potential risks?

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

We used an English muffin a couple of weeks ago. 

English muffins are bread. Crackers and such things are essentially unleavened bread. We used wheat crackers several weeks ago when we could not obtain bread.

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Doesn’t the D&C say that anything edible is acceptable?

There is no requirement it be edible in the text.

President Benson once told of the experience of some French Saints after WW2 who had no access to bread so they resorted to using potato peelings instead. He used used it as one of several examples of the faithfulness of European Saints during times of extreme duress.

IMO, it is in this context that D&C 27:2 should be taken. It should be the rare exception, not the rule. Every other scriptural reference to the sacrament including the foundations of the Last Supper and the administration to the Nephites refers to the emblems of bread and wine/water. The prayer which is repeated verbatim is over bread.

Perhaps in times of desperation or deprivation, one might have to resort to that singular instruction in D&C, but the rest of the time I think it best we follow the instructions given by the Brethren, by scriptures, in tradition and common practice, and by Jesus himself. I doubt very much that it should be interpreted to mean anything can be used for the emblem. Taken to its logical conclusion, the interpretation that anything goes would mean the substance wouldn’t even have to be solid or organic. I don’t think that is what the Lord had in mind.

I would like to see more of the backstory for this revelation and commentary by the Brethren and if there are any other examples of non-bread material being used for the sacrament.. 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

How would a simulated universe change the potential risks?

How can we know it isn’t a simulation?

“It may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato. There's more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!”

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Rain]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

English muffins are bread. Crackers and such things are essentially unleavened bread. We used wheat crackers several weeks ago when we could not obtain bread.

There is no requirement it be edible in the text.

President Benson once told of the experience of some French Saints after WW2 who had no access to bread so they resorted to using potato peelings instead. He used used it as one of several examples of the faithfulness of European Saints during times of extreme duress.

IMO, it is in this context that D&C 27:2 should be taken. It should be the rare exception, not the rule. Every other scriptural reference to the sacrament including the foundations of the Last Supper and the administration to the Nephites refers to the emblems of bread and wine/water. The prayer which is repeated verbatim is over bread.

Perhaps in times of desperation or deprivation, one might have to resort to that singular instruction in D&C, but the rest of the time I think it best we follow the instructions given by the Brethren, by scriptures, in tradition and common practice, and by Jesus himself. I doubt very much that it should be interpreted to mean anything can be used for the emblem. Taken to its logical conclusion, the interpretation that anything goes would mean the substance wouldn’t even have to be solid or organic. I don’t think that is what the Lord had in mind.

I would like to see more of the backstory for this revelation and commentary by the Brethren and if there are any other examples of non-bread material being used for the sacrament.. 

I agree with this.

It still doesn't explain to me why a virtual sacrament could not be a rare exception in homes where there is no priesthood holder during a pandemic. 

Just reiterating for everyone:  I'm not pushing for it. I don't even like the idea. I appreciate that others have come up with possibilities like the need to break" the bread.  I'm not "speculating" about it. Or giving "knee jerk reactions" to proposed explanations.

It's just not clear to me why potato peelings can be a "rare exception" and virtual sacrament cannot be. What about it is so "impactful to others" that it makes a difference?  

Generally it feels like the difference is some kind of physical presence of administering the sacrament, but then the idea of leaving the bread at the door or my experience with teaching the gospel by instant messenger makes me think I still may not have it.

Also, I'm good with an "I don't know why there is a difference."  I'd still love to know why if anyone has ideas, but an "I don't know" would at least show me one understands what I'm asking.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Rain

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

How would a simulated universe change the potential risks?

The same way pilots get experience flying in simulators -- never leaving the ground, and able to have accidents/crashes without actual risk to life and limb.

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

It still doesn't explain to me why a virtual sacrament could not be a rare exception in homes where there is no priesthood holder during a pandemic. 

Just reiterating dor everyone:  I'm not pushing for it. I don't even like the idea. I appreciate that others have come up with possibilities like the need to break" the bread.  I'm not "speculating" about it. Or giving "knee jerk reactions" to proposed explanations.

It's just not clear to me why potato peelings can be a "rare exception" and virtual sacrament cannot be. What about it is so "impactful" to others that it makes a difference?  

To be frank, I don't believe the current pandemic is anywhere close to approaching the inaccessibility threshold requisite before something like a virtual ordinance would even be considered - let alone condoned.

Here's the thing: you can find examples of blessings or miracles which didn't require direct physical contact (e.g., Naaman), but I don't believe there is any precedent for a remote ordinance. The person officiating the ordinance is always physically present. It took the physical laying on of hands by resurrected / translated beings to restore the priesthood to Joseph Smith, opening the way for ordinances to be performed on Earth once more. 

And I think it's fair to say that all of the ordinances relating to the atonement require(d) a physical presence. In ancient times, the high priest would physically touch the sacrificial animal while offering confession for sin. The atonement itself required the physical presence of our savior, Jesus Christ (behold the condescension of God!). And in modern times, the sacrament of the Lord's supper is broken, blessed, and administered in person - just as Jesus instructed.

I honestly don't see how you get away from the physical presence component of ordinances without direct revelation allowing for such. 

 

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

To be frank, I don't believe the current pandemic is anywhere close to approaching the inaccessibility threshold requisite before something like a virtual ordinance would even be considered - let alone condoned.

Here's the thing: you can find examples of blessings or miracles which didn't require direct physical contact (e.g., Naaman), but I don't believe there is any precedent for a remote ordinance. The person officiating the ordinance is always physically present. It took the physical laying on of hands by resurrected / translated beings to restore the priesthood to Joseph Smith, opening the way for ordinances to be performed on Earth once more. 

And I think it's fair to say that all of the ordinances relating to the atonement require(d) a physical presence. In ancient times, the high priest would physically touch the sacrificial animal while offering confession for sin. The atonement itself required the physical presence of our savior, Jesus Christ (behold the condescension of God!). And in modern times, the sacrament of the Lord's supper is broken, blessed, and administered in person - just as Jesus instructed.

I honestly don't see how you get away from the physical presence component of ordinances without direct revelation allowing for such. 

 

You feel that there is a difference in a blessing and in an ordinance somehow that makes the ordinance require the physical presence.  As far as you can tell there has never been an exception for the physical presence and do not feel this is bad enough, at least at the moment, to need an exception.  Do I have that right?

Someone above mentioned Alma baptizing himself. I did find this about Alma's baptism:

"President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) explained that Alma had authority to baptize:

“We may conclude that Alma held the priesthood before he, with others, became disturbed with King Noah. Whether this is so or not makes no difference because in the Book of Mosiah it is stated definitely that he had authority [see Mosiah 18:13].

“If he had authority to baptize that is evidence that he had been baptized. Therefore, when Alma baptized himself with Helam that was not a case of Alma baptizing himself, but merely as a token to the Lord of his humility and full repentance.” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual/chapter-21-mosiah-18-24?lang=eng

--------

So if he was baptized and this was just a symbol that would make sense to me. The fact that he says, "whether this is so makes no difference" shows that there is room for the possibility that it was a baptism and not just a symbol.  Either way, this makes it a non issue for me personally as to my question here.

Do you have any thoughts as to why a physical presence is needed other than "it has always been done that way"? 

I'm deeply of the mind as well that there is a spiritual/physical connection throughout our doctrine and I find the concept logical and beautiful.  I'm just not sure why an ordinance would require it.

If you don't I am ok with that.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Rain

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

To be frank, I don't believe the current pandemic is anywhere close to approaching the inaccessibility threshold requisite before something like a virtual ordinance would even be considered - let alone condoned.

Here's the thing: you can find examples of blessings or miracles which didn't require direct physical contact (e.g., Naaman), but I don't believe there is any precedent for a remote ordinance. The person officiating the ordinance is always physically present. It took the physical laying on of hands by resurrected / translated beings to restore the priesthood to Joseph Smith, opening the way for ordinances to be performed on Earth once more. 

And I think it's fair to say that all of the ordinances relating to the atonement require(d) a physical presence. In ancient times, the high priest would physically touch the sacrificial animal while offering confession for sin. The atonement itself required the physical presence of our savior, Jesus Christ (behold the condescension of God!). And in modern times, the sacrament of the Lord's supper is broken, blessed, and administered in person - just as Jesus instructed.

I honestly don't see how you get away from the physical presence component of ordinances without direct revelation allowing for such. 

 

I agree. I wonder how temples will function in the near future. I doubt there could be virtual ordinances there even if virtual sacrament were authorized, but who knows?

Edited May 14, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Quote

There is no requirement it be edible in the text.

 

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.

Yes, there is.  I've bolded it for you.

Quote

IMO, it is in this context that D&C 27:2 should be taken. It should be the rare exception, not the rule. Every other scriptural reference to the sacrament including the foundations of the Last Supper and the administration to the Nephites refers to the emblems of bread and wine/water. The prayer which is repeated verbatim is over bread.

I agree it's an exception, per our policies (and I have no problem with that), but doctrinally seems to be a different story.  I don't feel comfortable adding caveats to this verse that the Lord didn't put there.  The Lord doesn't say 'rare exception'.  The Lord says 'it mattereth not.' 

Why change 'it mattereth not' to 'it does matter except in rare exceptions'?  I don't see the point of making that change, barring added revelation.

And, even though the sacrament prayer is to be repeated verbatim, and the scriptural accounts use the word 'wine', the Lord didn't mind the change to water, which He made clear in the section 27.  

Quote

Perhaps in times of desperation or deprivation, one might have to resort to that singular instruction in D&C, but the rest of the time I think it best we follow the instructions given by the Brethren, by scriptures, in tradition and common practice, and by Jesus himself. I doubt very much that it should be interpreted to mean anything can be used for the emblem. Taken to its logical conclusion, the interpretation that anything goes would mean the substance wouldn’t even have to be solid or organic. I don’t think that is what the Lord had in mind.

I agree that we should follow the dictates of the prophet on this matter.  But like I said, changing the verse to say something it absolutely doesn't say seems really sketchy, and maybe looking beyond the mark a bit.  

Edited May 14, 2020 by bluebell

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

You feel that there is a difference in a blessing and in an ordinance somehow that makes the ordinance require the physical presence.  As far as you can tell there has never been an exception for the physical presence and do not feel this is bad enough, at least at the moment, to need an exception.  Do I have that right?

Someone above mentioned Alma baptizing himself. I did find this about Alma's baptism:

"President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) explained that Alma had authority to baptize:

“We may conclude that Alma held the priesthood before he, with others, became disturbed with King Noah. Whether this is so or not makes no difference because in the Book of Mosiah it is stated definitely that he had authority [see Mosiah 18:13].

“If he had authority to baptize that is evidence that he had been baptized. Therefore, when Alma baptized himself with Helam that was not a case of Alma baptizing himself, but merely as a token to the Lord of his humility and full repentance.” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual/chapter-21-mosiah-18-24?lang=eng

--------

So if he was baptized and this was just a symbol that would make sense to me. The fact that he says, "whether or so makes no difference" shows that there is room for the possibility that it was a baptism and not just a symbol.  Either way, this makes it a non issue for me personally as to my question here.

Do you have any thoughts as to why a physical presence is needed other than "it has always been done that way"? 

I'm deeply of the mind as well that there is a spiritual/physical connection throughout our doctrine and I find the concept logical and beautiful.  I'm just not sure why an ordinance would require it.

If you don't I am ok with that.

I think of the return of resurrected prophets who physically conferred Priesthood keys to Joseph Smith and others, and the personal appearances on the Mount of Transfiguration. There are other ways it could have been done, but it set a precedent for physical contact that has been followed ever since. As far as I know, there has been no doctrinal explanation why it is necessary.