Virtual Sacrament Ordinance

[Bernard Gui]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

 

 

Quote

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

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.  

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.  

I’ve bolded the critical part. I don’t believe I have added or changed anything.  Edible means that what one eats will not cause injury or death. To me “it doesn’t matter what you eat“ means you can eat anything.  I understand this to mean to ingest or to take in whatever you want.  We may disagree on that.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

I’ve bolded the critical part. I don’t believe I have added or changed anything.  Edible means that what one eats will not cause injury or death. To me “it doesn’t matter what you eat“ means you can eat anything.  I understand this to mean to ingest or to take in whatever you want.  We may disagree on that.

The change that I read you making is where you say that 'it mattereth not' should be interpreted to mean 'bread only except for rare exceptions'.  If i've misunderstood you then I apologize.

[juliann]

10 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.

 

The verse says it is eaten. That means it is edible. Come on.

You continue to move goal posts. This is not a contest between bread and "using anything."  The scripture you reject assumes a sacrament, which as you say, was bread and wine. That is what JS was familiar with. How in the world you get to an alternative for bread being something liquid or inedible escapes me. 

 

 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

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. 

Thank you! I really appreciate this.

If you ever hear of one I would love to have you share it.

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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!”

 

That would be a hallucination and not a simulation.

[Bernard Gui]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That would be a hallucination and not a simulation.

How would you know which was which?

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

How would you know which was which?

It is not that hard. I got over my existential crises back in college.

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, juliann said:

The verse says it is eaten. That means it is edible. Come on.

You continue to move goal posts. This is not a contest between bread and "using anything."  The scripture you reject assumes a sacrament, which as you say, was bread and wine. That is what JS was familiar with. How in the world you get to an alternative for bread being something liquid or inedible escapes me. 

 

 

How in the world? By following the argument that "anything will do" to its logical conclusion. The verse says "it doesn't matter what you eat." That does not require that "what you eat" must be edible. I can eat a rock or swallow a piece of wood without consequences, but that is not what the Savior had in mind. Do you understand it to say that "mattereth not" is limited to food substances? 

My position from the start has been that bread is the requisite substance except in extreme deprivation. That is how interpret the scripture. That has never changed. I know of only one time that such an exception has occurred, but that was an anecdote about French members who were in that situation. Pres Benson did not appear to be putting his stamp of approval on what they did. He used it as an example of faithfulness in duress.

In any event, since a bishop must preside over the ordinance of the sacrament, "anything" would have to be used only with the bishop's approval. An Institute manual asks the question, "What would you think if potato peelings were used for the sacrament?" I would think that there must have been some extraordinary circumstances for that to happen. It would be an extremely rare occurrence, in my opinion, and would not set a precedent. We may disagree.

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is not that hard. I got over my existential crises back in college.

Maybe the crises were just a simulation. Or a hallucination. Or a dream.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

The change that I read you making is where you say that 'it mattereth not' should be interpreted to mean 'bread only except for rare exceptions'.  If i've misunderstood you then I apologize.

Absolutely no need to apologize. We are learning together.

Within the context of 2000 years of revelation, instruction, tradition, and practice I think it truly means bread only except for extremely rare exceptions. I certainly don't believe we can switch out substances just because we want to or that we have some temporary problems getting bread and justify it with D&C 27:2.  I have seen only one example, and that was anecdotal. Do you disagree with that? Are you aware of any other precedents? How do you interpret it?

Edited May 14, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Maybe the crises were just a simulation. Or a hallucination. Or a dream.

Sorry, search and rescue teams are not authorized to mount rescues into Plato’s cave. We hope you find your way out.

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Absolutely no need to apologize. We are learning together.

Within the context of 2000 years of revelation, instruction, tradition, and practice I think it truly means bread only except for extremely rare exceptions. I certainly don't believe we can switch out substances just because we want to or that we have some temporary problems getting bread and justify it with D&C 27:2.  I have seen only one example, and that was anecdotal. Do you disagree with that? Are you aware of any other precedents? How do you interpret it?

I think you are right in that our policies dictate bread.  I agree that bread is the general rule.

But doctrinally,  I can't reconcile "it mattereth not what is eaten" with "only bread except for extremely rare exceptions".  Those two statements seem contradictory.  I'm left asking, which is it?  Does it really not matter or does it?

[alter idem]

23 hours 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.

As I recall, it had to do with this healing taking place on the Sabbath.  It seemed that Jesus went to the effort of making a sort of salve and applying it to the man's eyes for this healing because to do so was considered a violation of the Sabbath.  This was an opportunity for Jesus to teach them that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath and it is right to do good (including performing healing miracles) on the Sabbath. It's an example of one of the times Jesus violated (or told someone else to violate) the punitive and outrageous Sabbath rules the Sadducees and Pharisees demanded be strictly enforced.

[alter idem]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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!”

 

One of my very favorite lines from 'A Christmas Carol' 💛

[mfbukowski]

23 hours 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.

One set of onlookers believed that spirituality was based on scientific facts and history so they needed to see mud and divine spit.

They others understood that scientific explanations were irrelevant to spiritual miracles, and so Christ taught them the truth that such mechanical devices were irrelevant. 

This is clearly found in the gospel of MFB 1: 17.  😇

[alter idem]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think you are right in that our policies dictate bread.  I agree that bread is the general rule.

But doctrinally,  I can't reconcile "it mattereth not what is eaten" with "only bread except for extremely rare exceptions".  Those two statements seem contradictory.  I'm left asking, which is it?  Does it really not matter or does it?

I personally never interpreted it as 'only bread except for extremely rare exceptions'.  Rather I've read this scripture as;  'While Bread is optimal for the symbolism in this ordinance,  if you don't have bread, 'it mattereth not'  you can use what you have'....., such as potato peelings.  It's not really the bread that's important, it's what it symbolizes; his broken body.  So, because it symbolizes something so sacred, we should make an effort to use appropriate replacements, whenever possible.  And that's what they do for gluten intolerants.  They try to replace the bread with something they can eat that won't detract from the sacred nature of the ordinance, imo.

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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 .

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  .

These guys need a good dose of James or Dewey to figure out the phrase "a distinction without a difference" 

If you can't tell it's a simulation, what difference does it make? 

 

 

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I personally never interpreted it as 'only bread except for extremely rare exceptions'.  Rather I've read this scripture as;  'While Bread is optimal for the symbolism in this ordinance,  if you don't have bread, 'it mattereth not'  you can use what you have'....., such as potato peelings.  It's not really the bread that's important, it's what it symbolizes; his broken body.  So, because it symbolizes something so sacred, we should make an effort to use appropriate replacements, whenever possible.  And that's what they do for gluten intolerants.  They try to replace the bread with something they can eat that won't detract from the sacred nature of the ordinance, imo.

That's how I've always interpreted it as well.

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, alter idem said:

As I recall, it had to do with this healing taking place on the Sabbath.  It seemed that Jesus went to the effort of making a sort of salve and applying it to the man's eyes for this healing because to do so was considered a violation of the Sabbath.  This was an opportunity for Jesus to teach them that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath and it is right to do good (including performing healing miracles) on the Sabbath. It's an example of one of the times Jesus violated (or told someone else to violate) the punitive and outrageous Sabbath rules the Sadducees and Pharisees demanded be strictly enforced.

That's interesting.  I've never heard a plausible explanation for it that had to with Jesus teaching a lesson about the Sabbath and not something to strengthen the blind man's faith.  Thanks for sharing.

[Robert F. Smith]

55 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

These guys need a good dose of James or Dewey to figure out the phrase "a distinction without a difference" 

If you can't tell it's a simulation, what difference does it make? 

Exactamente !!

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think you are right in that our policies dictate bread.  I agree that bread is the general rule.

But doctrinally,  I can't reconcile "it mattereth not what is eaten" with "only bread except for extremely rare exceptions".  Those two statements seem contradictory.  I'm left asking, which is it?  Does it really not matter or does it?

I think if we look at the entirety of the 2000 years of scriptural and historical practices and policies regarding the sacrament, it is clear that bread is what we use and something else would be the extremely rare exception. One statement in the D&C does not trump all that evidence, IMO. I think it really matters that we use bread as commanded except in time of duress and then only under direction of those who hold the keys to the ordinance. Could you give an example when we would not use bread?

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Sorry, search and rescue teams are not authorized to mount rescues into Plato’s cave. We hope you find your way out.

No rescue needed. I’m hardly a cave dweller. That would be bad form. 

Edited May 15, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, alter idem said:

As I recall, it had to do with this healing taking place on the Sabbath.  It seemed that Jesus went to the effort of making a sort of salve and applying it to the man's eyes for this healing because to do so was considered a violation of the Sabbath.  This was an opportunity for Jesus to teach them that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath and it is right to do good (including performing healing miracles) on the Sabbath. It's an example of one of the times Jesus violated (or told someone else to violate) the punitive and outrageous Sabbath rules the Sadducees and Pharisees demanded be strictly enforced.

Not sure if it was still controversial but didn’t most rabbis at the time say you could (for example) set bones on the sabbath? I think they were whining in order to be contrary.

[10THAmendment]

I believe Jesus Christ would approve of a virtual sacrament so these women could partake of it. I disagree with Nelson and the church. 

Edited May 15, 2020 by 10THAmendment

[Bernard Gui]

9 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

I believe Jesus Christ would approve of a virtual sacrament so these women could partake of it. I disagree with Nelson and the church

Nelson?

Edited May 15, 2020 by Bernard Gui