Virtual Sacrament Ordinance

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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

I think some things are eternal. Ours is not the only universe that has existed and had the gospel. They have existed in the eternal past and will in the eternal future.
Ordinances and basic gospel principles are eternal. To ask why they exist assumes that someone at some time made a decision to have them, but if they are eternal that could not have happened.
They just exist and always have. My own opinion and speculation.

[alter idem]

15 hours ago, JAHS said:

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

I'm confused as to which John you both are referring to? John the Beloved was translated. John the Baptist was resurrected and appeared to Joseph Smith. 

[JAHS]

7 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I'm confused as to which John you both are referring to? John the Beloved was translated. John the Baptist was resurrected and appeared to Joseph Smith. 

Right. John the beloved was translated (but still has a body) and appeared with Peter and James to bestow the higher priesthood. John the Baptist was also a resurrected being, which was also required so he could bestow the Aaronic priesthood on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and hand the gold plates over to Joseph Smith.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

I think some things are eternal. Ours is not the only universe that has existed and had the gospel. They have existed in the eternal past and will in the eternal future.
Ordinances and basic gospel principles are eternal. To ask why they exist assumes that someone at some time made a decision to have them, but if they are eternal that could not have happened.
They just exist and always have. My own opinion and speculation.

The sacrament has always existed, is that what you are saying?

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

The sacrament has always existed, is that what you are saying?

 Yes. I think the answer is in 2 Nephi 31:11 and 21 and all that is implied there. Nephi asked this very question. Why did Jesus have to be baptized? 

Quote

And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.....And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God.

The Plan of Salvation is eternal, and therefore the ordinances and covenants that are essential to the Plan are also eternal. Jesus is the Lamb of God slain from before the foundation of the world. Baptism for the living and the dead was established before the foundation of the world. The rest of the ordinances follow the pattern.

Jesus had to be baptized. Why? Because the Father commanded it. It is the will of God. It is a matter of faith and obedience...even for the Lord himself. That’s all we know for the present time.

 

 

 

Edited May 16, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[JAHS]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The sacrament has always existed, is that what you are saying?

No, I am speculating that it is. That it has been used for mortals in other universes to remember their Savior and renew baptism covenants.  Just guessing though.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

The sacrament has always existed, is that what you are saying?

No, I am speculating that it is. That it has been used for mortals in other universes to remember their Savior and renew baptism covenants.  Just guessing though.

The theory is that "our" multiverse is one of many in an eternal and infinite Cosmos, and that God the Father is God of "our" multiverse made up of billions of galaxies. There is a God the Father and Son of other multiverses. Theses multiverses have eternally existed in the past, present, and future and subsequently so have the basic doctrines and ordinances that we now follow.

[Bernard Gui]

4 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The theory is that "our" multiverse is one of many in an eternal and infinite Cosmos, and that God the Father is God of "our" multiverse made up of billions of galaxies. There is a God the Father and Son of other multiverses. Theses multiverses have eternally existed in the past, present, and future and subsequently so have the basic doctrines and ordinances that we now follow.

There’s a hymn about that....and it has multi verses. 😉

Edited May 16, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

There’s a hymn about that....and it has multi verses. 😉

😂 

Very clever! Bravo! 👏👍

[bluebell]

22 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 Yes. I think the answer is in 2 Nephi 31:11 and 21 and all that is implied there. Nephi asked this very question. Why did Jesus have to be baptized? 

The Plan of Salvation is eternal, and therefore the ordinances and covenants that are essential to the Plan are also eternal. Jesus is the Lamb of God slain from before the foundation of the world. Baptism for the living and the dead was established before the foundation of the world. The rest of the ordinances follow the pattern.

Jesus had to be baptized. Why? Because the Father commanded it. It is the will of God. It is a matter of faith and obedience...even for the Lord himself. That’s all we know for the present time.

 

 

 

Is the sacrament a part of the plan of salvation though?  Because the sacrament is not a saving ordinance.  Unlike baptism, it's not required for salvation.  That makes me think that the sacrament and baptism are not in the same category of ordinances (for lack of a better term).

I'm not questioning it because I don't think we should be obedient, and I understand that we don't have much information on it, but it's still something that I wonder about.

[bluebell]

On 5/14/2020 at 7:43 PM, Bernard Gui said:

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?

 

Maybe I'm not explaining myself very well. 

As I've already said, it's clear that some form of bread product is the norm.  And that means that when we don't use it, it would indeed be a 'rare exception' (just by virtue of the statistics involved) because we almost always have access to some kind of bread.  But I'm not talking about the math, or the rate at which we use something other than a bread product compared to the rate at which we use a bread product.

I'm talking about the propriety of using something other than bread, not the probability.  Is the verse correct, and it doesn't matter to God when we don't use bread, or does God require us to use bread except under rare exceptions?

[JAHS]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is the sacrament a part of the plan of salvation though?  Because the sacrament is not a saving ordinance.  Unlike baptism, it's not required for salvation.  That makes me think that the sacrament and baptism are not in the same category of ordinances (for lack of a better term).

I'm not questioning it because I don't think we should be obedient, and I understand that we don't have much information on it, but it's still something that I wonder about.

Following my multiverse theory, I would suppose that even though the Sacrament is not a saving ordinance it is an enabling ordinance that would logically also be employed in all multiverses that saints of God would be commanded to follow the same as we are.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Maybe I'm not explaining myself very well. 

As I've already said, it's clear that some form of bread product is the norm.  And that means that when we don't use it, it would indeed be a 'rare exception' (just by virtue of the statistics involved) because we almost always have access to some kind of bread.  But I'm not talking about the math, or the rate at which we use something other than a bread product compared to the rate at which we use a bread product.

I'm talking about the propriety of using something other than bread, not the probability.  Is the verse correct, and it doesn't matter to God when we don't use bread, or does God require us to use bread except under rare exceptions?

In my opinion, considering the context of all scripture, practice, and history, option B is correct. “God requires us to use bread except under rare exceptions“

Edited May 17, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

I suspect that the saving ordinances we follow are unique to this world but I am probably edging into heresy again.

[Bernard Gui]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

Is the sacrament a part of the plan of salvation though?  Because the sacrament is not a saving ordinance.  Unlike baptism, it's not required for salvation.  That makes me think that the sacrament and baptism are not in the same category of ordinances (for lack of a better term).

I'm not questioning it because I don't think we should be obedient, and I understand that we don't have much information on it, but it's still something that I wonder about.

Baptism was practiced at least by the Nephites and John the Baptist, but there was no ordinance of remembrance or renewal associated with it. In my opinion, the sacrament became an integral part of baptism after it was initiated at the Last Supper and in Zarahemla as a post-atonement commandment. It’s proper role, purpose, and administration was part of the Restoration. I believe it is an essential part of the Plan established before the foundation of the world. I don’t think it is an optional add-on. 

Edited May 18, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Rain]

On 5/16/2020 at 1:32 AM, mfbukowski said:

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 

I didn't  reply to this earlier because I really wanted to think about it. 

Honestly, the sacrament is not any more "real" than prayers and prayers any more "subjective" than the sacrament to me.  This "real" idea doesn't make any sense to me.  Prayers from the heart are totally participatory or you are just going through the motions. Something you can do with the sacrament as well.  

I understand used a "catalyst" sometimes, but he didn't use it all the time and some of those big moments like the first vision had no catalyst as far as I am aware. 

Maybe we are just different? I have never received revelation in the sacrament like I have with prayer. 

I think there are things in the symbolism that are really helpful and I understand there is a need to have it when we can. I was wondering if there was  blood/living water and flesh/staff of life symbolism back then that we/I am not aware of so that when at the last supper he added the wine and bread the symbolism was even stronger with them.

So I'm sorry, I still don't get it.

[JAHS]

On 5/14/2020 at 7:40 AM, 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 think this is the main reason. When a person is baptized and confirmed; when a healing blessing is given; when temple ordinances are performed there is a physical presence involving both the priesthood holding officiator and the recipient of the ordinance. 
Another possible reason is that a priesthood holder being physically present serves as a witness by an authorized person who can assure the ordinance is being performed correctly. All other ordinances have priesthood holders physically present to preside over the ordinance and stand as witnesses. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

I didn't  reply to this earlier because I really wanted to think about it. 

Honestly, the sacrament is not any more "real" than prayers and prayers any more "subjective" than the sacrament to me.  This "real" idea doesn't make any sense to me.  Prayers from the heart are totally participatory or you are just going through the motions. Something you can do with the sacrament as well.  

I understand used a "catalyst" sometimes, but he didn't use it all the time and some of those big moments like the first vision had no catalyst as far as I am aware. 

Maybe we are just different? I have never received revelation in the sacrament like I have with prayer. 

I think there are things in the symbolism that are really helpful and I understand there is a need to have it when we can. I was wondering if there was  blood/living water and flesh/staff of life symbolism back then that we/I am not aware of so that when at the last supper he added the wine and bread the symbolism was even stronger with them.

So I'm sorry, I still don't get it.

WHY HAVE ANY ORDINANCES AT ALL?

WHY HAVE SEALINGS?

Why do we do temple ordinances rather than just praying them into where they belong?

Why can't the prophet just say to God: 

"Father thou knowest all thy children, who they are, when thy lived, and the circumstances of their lives, their motivations, their actions and desires, and we know there will be a final judgement in which we will be consigned to the Kingdom we deserve, regardless of receiving ordinances.

Please have thine Angels teach those worthy to progress, and bring all those deserving, into each of thy kingdoms, and spare us from the expense and time expended in searching them out, and maintaining temples.  In the name of...."

<dusts off his hands, and makes an announcement that we have no more ordinances, they are not necessary, and temples we be converted into meeting houses>

[JAHS]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

WHY HAVE ANY ORDINANCES AT ALL?

WHY HAVE SEALINGS?

Why do we do temple ordinances rather than just praying them into where they belong?

Why can't the prophet just say to God: 

"Father thou knowest all thy children, who they are, when thy lived, and the circumstances of their lives, their motivations, their actions and desires, and we know there will be a final judgement in which we will be consigned to the Kingdom we deserve, regardless of receiving ordinances.

Please have thine Angels teach those worthy to progress, and bring all those deserving, into each of thy kingdoms, and spare us from the expense and time expended in searching them out, and maintaining temples.  In the name of...."

<dusts off his hands, and makes an announcement that we have no more ordinances, they are not necessary, and temples we be converted into meeting houses>

Certainly would save the church some expense not needing to build and maintain all those temples. 😉  But would members still pay their tithing if they didn't need a temple recommend? 😨
Yeah, I think it's pretty obvious that the ordinances and sealings give members an opportunity to dedicate and rededicate their lives to God and to strengthen faith and spirituality.  
 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

WHY HAVE ANY ORDINANCES AT ALL?

WHY HAVE SEALINGS?

Why do we do temple ordinances rather than just praying them into where they belong?

Why can't the prophet just say to God: 

"Father thou knowest all thy children, who they are, when thy lived, and the circumstances of their lives, their motivations, their actions and desires, and we know there will be a final judgement in which we will be consigned to the Kingdom we deserve, regardless of receiving ordinances.

Please have thine Angels teach those worthy to progress, and bring all those deserving, into each of thy kingdoms, and spare us from the expense and time expended in searching them out, and maintaining temples.  In the name of...."

<dusts off his hands, and makes an announcement that we have no more ordinances, they are not necessary, and temples we be converted into meeting houses>

Because people are not predetermined to a kingdom and the ordinances change people. They are not just a legal formality to get in; the ordinances with their covenants perform the decontamination so you can get in. You cannot become godly without them.

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Because people are not predetermined to a kingdom and the ordinances change people. They are not just a legal formality to get in; the ordinances with their covenants perform the decontamination so you can get in. You cannot become godly without them.

I agree with you, but probably you did not see the context.   The question I was answering was "why not just make sacrament meeting a prayer and not an ordinance?" essentially.

Ordinances are objectively verifiable events, that occur in time and space, and yes, as you imply, people change and part of that is actually CHOOSING to perform the ordinance.

They are like the proverbial school yard story where a line is drawn in the dirt, and the leader says "If you want to be on my side, step over the line!"  It is a demonstration of a commitment in time and space- it is physical and done before your community to show you

Quote

witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his ^ccommandments which he has given them; that they may always have his ^dSpirit to be with them. Amen.

This action of taking the sacrament is a "witness" to the world that you have stepped over the line to the Lord's side!

It is the same commitment we make at baptism- RENEWED, because as you say, people change.

THAT is why it is an ordinance and not a prayer

Doing before the community is not a subjective even but an objective one.   It is a declaration to the community that we are STILL a part of the community of believers.  THAT is precisely why it needs to be renewed.

I am running out of ways to say the same thing.

Yes, if we do not have the opportunity to demonstrate our fidelity publicly we can tell the Lord we love him and re-accept our commitment to Him, but we are not WITNESSING before others- that takes the full live, real opportunity to do that in a congregation at church.

The Lord is not going to condemn us because the church is not meeting.  

THAT is the difference between an ordinance and a prayer.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Rain said:

I didn't  reply to this earlier because I really wanted to think about it. 

Honestly, the sacrament is not any more "real" than prayers and prayers any more "subjective" than the sacrament to me.  This "real" idea doesn't make any sense to me.  Prayers from the heart are totally participatory or you are just going through the motions. Something you can do with the sacrament as well.  

I understand used a "catalyst" sometimes, but he didn't use it all the time and some of those big moments like the first vision had no catalyst as far as I am aware. 

Maybe we are just different? I have never received revelation in the sacrament like I have with prayer. 

I think there are things in the symbolism that are really helpful and I understand there is a need to have it when we can. I was wondering if there was  blood/living water and flesh/staff of life symbolism back then that we/I am not aware of so that when at the last supper he added the wine and bread the symbolism was even stronger with them.

So I'm sorry, I still don't get it.

Since others gave you rep points for this, let me try this approach and make it easier to understand.

See above and then I will repeat:

This action of taking the sacrament is a "witness" to the world that you have stepped over the line to the Lord's side!

It is the same commitment we make at baptism- RENEWED, because as you say, people change.

THAT is why it is an ordinance and not a prayer

Doing before the community is not a subjective even but an objective one.   It is a declaration to the community that we are STILL a part of the community of believers.  THAT is precisely why it needs to be renewed.

I am running out of ways to say the same thing.

Yes, if we do not have the opportunity to demonstrate our fidelity publicly we can tell the Lord we love him and re-accept our commitment to Him, but we are not WITNESSING before others- that takes the full live, real opportunity to do that in a congregation at church.

The Lord is not going to condemn us because the church is not meeting.  

THAT is the difference between an ordinance and a prayer.

Does that help?

And does it help, CALM and BLUEBELL?

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I suspect that the saving ordinances we follow are unique to this world but I am probably edging into heresy again.

Why do you suspect that? The one solid indication we have of what goes on in other worlds seems to point to universality. 

[Kenngo1969]

53 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why do you suspect that? The one solid indication we have of what goes on in other worlds seems to point to universality. 

Elohim asks: [Mm-mmmf-mfff-mmm-mmm!]

Whereupon Satan answers: [Mfff-mmm-mmmf-mmff-ffmmmff]

[Rain]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

WHY HAVE ANY ORDINANCES AT ALL?

WHY HAVE SEALINGS?

Why do we do temple ordinances rather than just praying them into where they belong?

Why can't the prophet just say to God: 

"Father thou knowest all thy children, who they are, when thy lived, and the circumstances of their lives, their motivations, their actions and desires, and we know there will be a final judgement in which we will be consigned to the Kingdom we deserve, regardless of receiving ordinances.

Please have thine Angels teach those worthy to progress, and bring all those deserving, into each of thy kingdoms, and spare us from the expense and time expended in searching them out, and maintaining temples.  In the name of...."

<dusts off his hands, and makes an announcement that we have no more ordinances, they are not necessary, and temples we be converted into meeting houses>

Seriously?  I take the time to really think about what you said, still don't get it, ask for help and you answer me this way?