Virtual Sacrament Ordinance

[Amulek]

7 hours ago, 10THAmendment said:

I believe Jesus Christ would approve of a virtual sacrament so these women could partake of it.

All of the women in my ward are partaking of the sacrament as frequently as they wish. No more than once a week obviously, but anyone who wants to have it weekly is getting it weekly without issue. 

Why would Jesus need to institute a completely new delivery method for the sacrament when the existing method is still pretty much getting the job done? 

I'm sorry, but some of the whining I'm hearing about this whole situation has a strong Children of Israel smell about it. Honestly, it's only been a couple of months. Can we not suffer a bit of inconvenience for even that long? How sad is that.

 

[JAHS]

17 minutes ago, Amulek said:

8 hours ago, 10THAmendment said:

I believe Jesus Christ would approve of a virtual sacrament so these women could partake of it.

All of the women in my ward are partaking of the sacrament as frequently as they wish. No more than once a week obviously, but anyone who wants to have it weekly is getting it weekly without issue. 

Why would Jesus need to institute a completely new delivery method for the sacrament when the existing method is still pretty much getting the job done? 

I'm sorry, but some of the whining I'm hearing about this whole situation has a strong Children of Israel smell about it. Honestly, it's only been a couple of months. Can we not suffer a bit of inconvenience for even that long? How sad is that.

Agreed. I was working at a hospital on Sundays for a while and sometimes had to go several months without taking the sacrament. This stay at home thing thing will be over in a few weeks anyway.

[alter idem]

8 hours 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. 

I'm of the Agreement with President Nelson et al that the sacrament isn't really the sacrament unless it's properly blessed by someone holding authority to do so, and it's wrong to give members a false impression regardless of the warm fuzzies it might offer. Imo, it's damaging in the long run as it dilutes/contradicts the very important doctrine of priesthood authority when members mistake not properly blessed tokens with real deal blessed tokens.

When I was a kid, we would play church, with the sacrament. It was harmless because we knew we were just pretending.  As long as people admit it's not the real thing, then no harm done imo. If they want to pretend with the symbols, no ones going to stop them, but leaders would be irresponsible to condone or encourage it.imo

[Amulek]

23 hours ago, Rain said:

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

I don't know it's merely that 'it has always been done that way' - though, so far as I know, it has always been done that way - so much as 'that is how it is done.' 

My personal thought is that a physical presence is necessary because that is what comports with God's Law.  

I believe priesthood ordinances are formal acts which take place in a way that combine sacred time and sacred space. As such, there must be some sort of proximal presence in order for those to combine in a way that effectuates the actual ordinance being preformed. 

As to why that is the case, I don't know that we have received revelation on that specifically.

I suspect it may simply be a limitation of mortality, designed to teach us something that will lead us closer to Christ. What that specific teaching may be, I do not currently know - though I am open to pondering more on the matter. Admittedly, it is not something I have ever given much thought or reflection to prior to now.

And, to be honest, I don't think that many of those who are clamoring about it 'just being a policy' have given it much thought or reflection either. For example, I don't see any of them asking for the "why" behind the requirement that ordination to the priesthood requires the physical laying on of hands. Sure, it's clearly spelled out in scripture that it works that way, but there's no explanation about why it works that way. 

Having the priesthood exercised in person just feels...right. I would much rather go to church and listen to the newly ordained priest struggle through his nerves as he valiantly officiates in blessing the bread for the first time, than listen to the prophet flawlessly repeat the same prayer each week over the church's Facebook live-stream. I dearly adore the prophet, but I'm sorry - for me it's thanks, but no thanks when it comes to virtual sacrament. I'll take may gospel IRL the way God intended. 

 

[JAHS]

31 minutes ago, Amulek said:

On 5/14/2020 at 8:44 AM, Rain said:

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

I don't know it's merely that 'it has always been done that way' - though, so far as I know, it has always been done that way - so much as 'that is how it is done.' 

My personal thought is that a physical presence is necessary because that is what comports with God's Law.  

I believe priesthood ordinances are formal acts which take place in a way that combine sacred time and sacred space. As such, there must be some sort of proximal presence in order for those to combine in a way that effectuates the actual ordinance being preformed. 

As to why that is the case, I don't know that we have received revelation on that specifically.

I suspect it may simply be a limitation of mortality, designed to teach us something that will lead us closer to Christ. What that specific teaching may be, I do not currently know - though I am open to pondering more on the matter. Admittedly, it is not something I have ever given much thought or reflection to prior to now.

And, to be honest, I don't think that many of those who are clamoring about it 'just being a policy' have given it much thought or reflection either. For example, I don't see any of them asking for the "why" behind the requirement that ordination to the priesthood requires the physical laying on of hands. Sure, it's clearly spelled out in scripture that it works that way, but there's no explanation about why it works that way. 

Having the priesthood exercised in person just feels...right. I would much rather go to church and listen to the newly ordained priest struggle through his nerves as he valiantly officiates in blessing the bread for the first time, than listen to the prophet flawlessly repeat the same prayer each week over the church's Facebook live-stream. I dearly adore the prophet, but I'm sorry - for me it's thanks, but no thanks when it comes to virtual sacrament. I'll take may gospel IRL the way God intended. 

According to Joseph Fielding Smith:
"It is true that the Lord has power to call forth any person or persons from the dead, as he may desire, especially if they have a mission to perform which would require their resurrection. For example, we have the cases of Peter, James, and Moroni." (Doctrines of Salvation, 1954-1956)

Apparently Peter James and John had to be resurrected beings and physically present so they could actually place their hands on Joseph Smith to bestow the priesthood.
There are things that are eternal laws that we may not know the reasons for, simply because they are eternal. 

[mfbukowski]

On 5/12/2020 at 7:38 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

In my opinion, there's a specific reason why we break bread instead of, for example, cut it.

I know that I have felt deeply on many occasions that it has been, quite literally in some cases, my hands that have done violence to the body of my Saviour.

Wow.

Thanks, but that gives me shivers 😪

[mfbukowski]

On 5/13/2020 at 8:19 AM, JAHS said:

Except of course in the temple ordinances for the dead where the recipient is not physically present. But I guess there's nothing that can be done about that.
Perhaps they are present in spirit and are aware of it happening.

But the whole reason FOR temples is so that the embodied "savior on mount zion" is here physically in proxy for the individual receiving the ordinances!

Otherwise we could just have a prayer endowing all of the Dead everywhere across the world and do it in one shot.

Poof! All temple work is done virtually for all the dead!

[HappyJackWagon]

Quote

      On ‎5‎/‎12‎/‎2020 at 9:38 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

In my opinion, there's a specific reason why we break bread instead of, for example, cut it.

I know that

But what happens if we break bread that has already been cut?

Utter chaos. Dogs and cats living together.

I can easily imagine Pharisees having very deep discussions about cut versus broken bread, water versus wine, the distance between a person blessing and the relative strength of that blessing to the receiver etc. Don't get me wrong. I find the discussion fascinating and I'm enjoying it but if we really think that it matters if we partake of bread or a muffin, water or wine, or whether or not the person blessing the sacrament must be in the same room, or the same building etc, I think we're missing the point of the spirit of the sacrament in favor of living the letter of the law as we know it via current policy.

[mfbukowski]

On 5/13/2020 at 8:33 AM, Bernard Gui said:

On my mission in Central America, there were rumors spread that Mormon missionaries took photos of people so they could secretly baptize them (the photos). That’s vicarious to the extreme. 😉 On the other hand, it would save a lot of time, effort, and money,  if we didn’t have to have to perform individual proxy ordinances for every individual. 

See two posts above

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by mfbukowski

[JAHS]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But the whole reason FOR temples is so that the embodied "savior on mount zion" is here physically in proxy for the individual receiving the ordinances!

Not sure what you mean by this?

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Otherwise we could just have a prayer endowing all of the Dead everywhere across the world and do it in one shot.

I think the proxy temple work is almost as important for the person standing in as proxy and performing that act of love as it is for the recipient. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

See two posts above

 

Yep. Our ordinances are intimately personal, just as the Atonement is intimate and personal.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Rain]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

I don't know it's merely that 'it has always been done that way' - though, so far as I know, it has always been done that way - so much as 'that is how it is done.' 

My personal thought is that a physical presence is necessary because that is what comports with God's Law.  

I believe priesthood ordinances are formal acts which take place in a way that combine sacred time and sacred space. As such, there must be some sort of proximal presence in order for those to combine in a way that effectuates the actual ordinance being preformed. 

What do you mean by this?

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

As to why that is the case, I don't know that we have received revelation on that specifically.

I suspect it may simply be a limitation of mortality, designed to teach us something that will lead us closer to Christ. What that specific teaching may be, I do not currently know - though I am open to pondering more on the matter. Admittedly, it is not something I have ever given much thought or reflection to prior to now.

And, to be honest, I don't think that many of those who are clamoring about it 'just being a policy' have given it much thought or reflection either. For example, I don't see any of them asking for the "why" behind the requirement that ordination to the priesthood requires the physical laying on of hands.

You might be surprised how many are asking why to a lot of these things. In general I don't think people ask why a lot, but that increases when people have concerns.  

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

Sure, it's clearly spelled out in scripture that it works that way, but there's no explanation about why it works that way. 

There aren't many scriptures that explain why.  Which leads me to wonder why that is. Lol

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

Having the priesthood exercised in person just feels...right. I would much rather go to church and listen to the newly ordained priest struggle through his nerves as he valiantly officiates in blessing the bread for the first time, than listen to the prophet flawlessly repeat the same prayer each week over the church's Facebook live-stream. I dearly adore the prophet, but I'm sorry - for me it's thanks, but no thanks when it comes to virtual sacrament. I'll take may gospel IRL the way God intended. 

 

 

[alter idem]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

I don't know about that, but it would seem there was prohibition in place against making a salve on the Sabbath in Jesus' day; 

https://excatholic4christ.wordpress.com/2017/05/03/why-did-jesus-use-mud-salve-to-heal-the-blind-mans-eyes/

 

Quote

In reading John 9, I’ve often wondered why Jesus made a mud salve and applied it to the blind man’s eyes? Why didn’t Jesus just heal the man’s eyes outright with a verbal or non-verbal command? What was the mud salve all about?

In his single-volume Bible commentary, John MacArthur suggests that “Jesus may have used the clay to fashion a new pair of eyes.” Hmm, that’s certainly a possibility but it seems like a stretch given the text. In his Thru-the Bible commentary, J. Vernon McGee doesn’t even attempt to explain Jesus’s use of mud salve.

Yesterday, I may have stumbled across the answer. A book I’m currently reading points out that the Mishna of the Talmud prohibited Jews from applying soothing mud salves to a person’s ailing eyes on the Sabbath:

“To heal a blind man on the Sabbath…it is…prohibited to make mud with spittle and smear it on his eyes” (Shabbat 108:2).

Well, of course. That’s it. Jesus not only ignored the traditions of the Pharisees by healing the blind man on the Sabbath, but he purposly used a mud salve in the healing in direct defiance of the specific regulations of the Talmud! This would seem to be an excellent explanation of Jesus’s use of the mud salve.

 

 

[2BizE]

I tend to agree with Jana on this concern.  If you read the baptismal ordinance, the priesthood bearer is stating he is performing the ordinance. The sacrament is quite different.  It is a prayer.  The person performing the sacrament is offering a prayer. Although Jana does not mention this part, it seems reasonable that this prayer could be offered by anyone in the home.  At least by proxy via Zoom should be acceptable.

[alter idem]

5 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

I tend to agree with Jana on this concern.  If you read the baptismal ordinance, the priesthood bearer is stating he is performing the ordinance. The sacrament is quite different.  It is a prayer.  The person performing the sacrament is offering a prayer. Although Jana does not mention this part, it seems reasonable that this prayer could be offered by anyone in the home.  At least by proxy via Zoom should be acceptable.

Here's the problem that I think you and she may not be considering.  When Jesus appeared to the Nephites, he called twelve disciples and gave them authority- this is in 3 Nephi 12.  Then, in chapter 18, he has these same 12 disciples bless and prepare the sacrament for the people.  It's not just about the prayer, or why would he bother to do it this way?  Why not just tell the people how to do it and send them home to do it themselves?  The answer is found in Moroni Chapters 3-5.  In chapter 3 Moroni explains how the disciples (the elders) ordained priests and teachers, who then in turn, are told how to administer the sacrament in chapters 4 and 5.  So, Moroni clearly did not think anyone else could just do this on their own, offer a prayer in the home and it was considered the Sacrament, it clearly was not.

So, this to me, means that proxy via Zoom is not the same thing as having a man who holds the proper authority to give the blessings on the actual emblems he's performing the ordinance on, fulfilling his duty as outlined in the Book of Mormon, and suggesting that it can somehow work through the computer screen, reminds me of the faith healer I used to see on TV who would offer healing power to be sent through the TV screen to their handkerchiefs. 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

6 hours ago, Amulek said:

I don't know it's merely that 'it has always been done that way' - though, so far as I know, it has always been done that way - so much as 'that is how it is done.' 

My personal thought is that a physical presence is necessary because that is what comports with God's Law.  

I believe priesthood ordinances are formal acts which take place in a way that combine sacred time and sacred space. As such, there must be some sort of proximal presence in order for those to combine in a way that effectuates the actual ordinance being preformed. 

What do you mean by this?

I mean that this is just how the priesthood operates. It isn't a matter of tradition, per se. 

Just like the example with priesthood ordination requiring the laying on of hands.

It's technically true that 'it has always been done that way,' but we don't do it that way merely because of tradition. For whatever reason, that just happens to be the way God set it up to work (at least in mortality). 

I don't know why it works that way, but I know that it does work that way. And just because we don't know the why doesn't mean that it's merely a policy that we are free to ignore or change on a whim.

For whatever reason, priesthood ordinances require a physical presence. Personally, I think that's a good thing. I honestly don't understand the push by some to move to virtual ordinances. If everything could be done virtually, there would have been no point in coming into mortality to begin with.

I say we embrace our second estate and take joy in having the opportunity to personally go about interacting, blessing, and serving our fellow brothers and sisters.  

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by Amulek

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, JAHS said:

Not sure what you mean by this?

I think the proxy temple work is almost as important for the person standing in as proxy and performing that act of love as it is for the recipient. 

Why do we do temple work on this side of the Veil, instead of just waiting until we die, and do it in the Temple in Heaven?

No need for genealogy, no need for earthly temples, more could be spent on the poor, etc

If we get converted on the other side, we just report in and get endowed as spirits.  We were born in China, 2000 BC, no one knows we even lived, no records! No problem. As in the millennium (suppose) we walk right up, give our name, they check to see if we qualify (whatever!) and zap we are endowed.

IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!!... usually, except in the millennium.

ORDINANCES CAN ONLY BE DONE UPON A PHYSICAL BODY...or a physical body as PROXY. Physical presence is required!!

So the sacrament requires physical presence! We cannot take the sacrament by Proxy, no one can RENEW Covenants for us. We already physically were baptized, this is a RENEWAL.

Because it is between God and us, as a physical ordinance and not a prayer, we must be there

Just renew the promises in your heart, not as an ordinance but as a prayer.

Maybe read the words and meditate on the promises rather than listening to see if the kid makes a mistake?

Do these folks believe that God is aware of our circumstances, and hears prayers of the heart or not???

Why in heaven's name do we NEED to renew promises virtually??

Only if God doesn't hear prayer!!!

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, JAHS said:

According to Joseph Fielding Smith:
"It is true that the Lord has power to call forth any person or persons from the dead, as he may desire, especially if they have a mission to perform which would require their resurrection. For example, we have the cases of Peter, James, and Moroni." (Doctrines of Salvation, 1954-1956)

Apparently Peter James and John had to be resurrected beings and physically present so they could actually place their hands on Joseph Smith to bestow the priesthood.
There are things that are eternal laws that we may not know the reasons for, simply because they are eternal. 

Not to be nit picky but I am going to be nit picky and say John has not been resurrected yet.

[JAHS]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not to be nit picky but I am going to be nit picky and say John has not been resurrected yet.

Right. John was translated but still has some kind of physical body that he could use to lay on hands

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

I mean that this is just how the priesthood operates. It isn't a matter of tradition, per se. 

Just like the example with priesthood ordination requiring the laying on of hands.

It's technically true that 'it has always been done that way,' but we don't do it that way merely because of tradition. For whatever reason, that just happens to be the way God set it up to work (at least in mortality). 

I don't know why it works that way, but I know that it does work that way. And just because we don't know the why doesn't mean that it's merely a policy that we are free to ignore or change on a whim.

For whatever reason, priesthood ordinances require a physical presence. Personally, I think that's a good thing. I honestly don't understand the push by some to move to virtual ordinances. If everything could be done virtually, there would have been no point in coming into mortality to begin with.

I say we embrace our second estate and take joy in having the opportunity to personally go about interacting, blessing, and serving our fellow brothers and sisters.  

 

I should probably be more clear.  What do you mean by this: 

Quote

I believe priesthood ordinances are formal acts which take place in a way that combine sacred time and sacred space.

 

[Rain]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Why do we do temple work on this side of the Veil, instead of just waiting until we die, and do it in the Temple in Heaven?

No need for genealogy, no need for earthly temples, more could be spent on the poor, etc

If we get converted on the other side, we just report in and get endowed as spirits.  We were born in China, 2000 BC, no one knows we even lived, no records! No problem. As in the millennium (suppose) we walk right up, give our name, they check to see if we qualify (whatever!) and zap we are endowed.

IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!!... usually, except in the millennium.

ORDINANCES CAN ONLY BE DONE UPON A PHYSICAL BODY...or a physical body as PROXY. Physical presence is required!!

So the sacrament requires physical presence! We cannot take the sacrament by Proxy, no one can RENEW Covenants for us. We already physically were baptized, this is a RENEWAL.

Because it is between God and us, as a physical ordinance and not a prayer, we must be there

Just renew the promises in your heart, not as an ordinance but as a prayer.

Maybe read the words and meditate on the promises rather than listening to see if the kid makes a mistake?

Do these folks believe that God is aware of our circumstances, and hears prayers of the heart or not???

Why in heaven's name do we NEED to renew promises virtually??

Only if God doesn't hear prayer!!!

If we can renew the promises as a prayer then why do we need the sacrament at all?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

If we can renew the promises as a prayer then why do we need the sacrament at all?

Because it is an ordinance.

It is more formal than a prayer, and involves a physical re enactment of the last supper, it is NOT a prayer.

Yes we pray during the ordinance. But if it is not possible to do the ordinance we can at least do the prayer.

 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Because it is an ordinance.

It is more formal than a prayer, and involves a physical re enactment of the last supper, it is NOT a prayer.

Yes we pray during the ordinance. But if it is not possible to do the ordinance we can at least do the prayer.

 

But why do have an ordinance if it isn't a saving ordinance and the renewing can happen with a prayer? What does the ordinance provide that the prayer does not other than the symbolism?

I'm truly not trying to be difficult on this.  I just don't get it.

[mfbukowski]

53 minutes ago, Rain said:

But why do have an ordinance if it isn't a saving ordinance and the renewing can happen with a prayer? What does the ordinance provide that the prayer does not other than the symbolism?

I'm truly not trying to be difficult on this.  I just don't get it.

Jesus gave a commandment: " DO this in remembrance of me".  Not "pray this".

For me it makes ordinances objective, and therefore "real", an I think that is what it is about.

Prayers are not participatory, ordinances are. In every facet of life, we live in the subjective, but the objective verification makes it real.

Imagine being in bed late at night and hearing an odd noise. The experience at that point is subjective. Was it a dream? You may ask someone else if they heard it, a spouse, child etc.

If they yes, you know that someone had the experience you did. That makes it "real"!

Why would you ask that?

Because it makes the event "real"! 

Making a subjective experience an objectively verifiable one requires a community. That is what makes science! Verifiability!

It creates a "real event"

It is done as part of defining a community- it is what we DO, objectivly and then interpret it subjectively in prayer.

We DO the act to make the remembrance of Christ real to the community, and then maintain silence for us to reflect on what we have just done, and contemplate it.

It is a commanded ordinance precisely to help us remember and ponder.  We DO it, to elevate our consciousness to then reflect upon our own lives.

The event serves as a catalyst for each of us to receive our own revelations.

In a small way, it is a catalyst not unlike what aided Joseph to receive his revelations, the physical papyrus, the gold plates, seer stones, etc, all through pure revelation.

It is how we can learn it too, through physical ordinances, and their mental analysis 

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, Rain said:

But why do have an ordinance if it isn't a saving ordinance and the renewing can happen with a prayer? What does the ordinance provide that the prayer does not other than the symbolism?

I'm truly not trying to be difficult on this.  I just don't get it.

I wonder the same thing about ordinances. Why have them at all?  Why are they necessary for salvation?