Virtual Sacrament Ordinance

[Rain]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

That was not at all the question. If you think that was the question it totally makes sense why I didn't understand your answers.

Quote

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

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.

I'll withdraw my question now 

Edited May 18, 2020 by Rain

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Rain said:

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?

I apologize, I did not realize my tone was off-putting, but I should have because my sainted wife helps me understand that problem as well

I definitely tend to be an unthinking oaf, but I really am trying not to be. Sorry again

But if you are willing to carry on, I would appreciate it, I am thinking this through as well

What do you see as the difference between prayers and ordinances?

Do you agree one is public and the other private?

I thought that was all I was saying, but in a more detailed way, explaining why that was an important distinction 

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, Rain said:

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. 

In hope of re-establishing, communication, perhaps this is where I went wrong.

The sacrament is a public event, right?

Everyone there could verify that you were there, in principle. That makes it a verifiable community event.

However during that time, many pray as well which is a private event, and because of the prayer they might receive a revelation about the atonement Etc.

Do you agree with that?

Ordinances are always public events. That's why they must be witnessed. In the sacrament we state that we are witnessing to God.

Prayers are subjective events on the other hand. No one knows what we have felt or understood during that prayer.

The public events can be objectively verified as "real" by others. The private subjective event cannot be verified as "real" to others.

It to us personally of course they're both equally real and in fact the subjective prayer event might even be more influential in our lives than the public event of course.

Does that help even a little? 

Edited May 18, 2020 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

10 hours 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. 

I prefer not to spread my blasphemy too much but I will say that if this world is the way it typically goes why did Satan think doing exactly what has always been done would thwart the whole plan?

[JAHS]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I prefer not to spread my blasphemy too much but I will say that if this world is the way it typically goes why did Satan think doing exactly what has always been done would thwart the whole plan?

Not the whole plan but he could always get some people to drift away from the plan on any world.

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

In hope of re-establishing, communication, perhaps this is where I went wrong.

The sacrament is a public event, right?

Everyone there could verify that you were there, in principle. That makes it a verifiable community event.

However during that time, many pray as well which is a private event, and because of the prayer they might receive a revelation about the atonement Etc.

Do you agree with that?

Ordinances are always public events. That's why they must be witnessed. In the sacrament we state that we are witnessing to God.

Prayers are subjective events on the other hand. No one knows what we have felt or understood during that prayer.

The public events can be objectively verified as "real" by others. The private subjective event cannot be verified as "real" to others.

It to us personally of course they're both equally real and in fact the subjective prayer event might even be more influential in our lives than the public event of course.

Does that help even a little? 

In terms of the bolded part, how does that work with how we are doing the sacrament ordinance right now, where it currently being done as a private event, and doesn't require any witnesses?

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In terms of the bolded part, how does that work with how we are doing the sacrament ordinance right now, where it currently being done as a private event, and doesn't require any witnesses?

It is virtually the same "public event" as when held in the chapel, but currently authorized on a decentralized and much smaller scale within the unit's boundaries.

[Bernard Gui]

56 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I prefer not to spread my blasphemy too much but I will say that if this world is the way it typically goes why did Satan think doing exactly what has always been done would thwart the whole plan?

Maybe it’s his job.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

In terms of the bolded part, how does that work with how we are doing the sacrament ordinance right now, where it currently being done as a private event, and doesn't require any witnesses?

The only way that it would be "private" would be if the priesthood holder blessed it for himself and no one else.

Anyone there would be a witness.

They are witnessing to each other that they take upon themselves  the name of Christ etcetera.

Maybe I didn't understand the question?

 And if he was the only one?

 he would still be his own witness because the sacrament prayer itself says that the action is an action of witnessing.

How can one "witness" to oneself?

  Of course under normal circumstances that would be very unusual for a bishop to issue permission for someone to bless the sacrament for himself alone.  I can't imagine that. 

 That's exactly why we bring the sacrament to shut-ins, if they are priesthood holders or not.

I suppose theoretically someone could bless it for themselves but I don't think it would be valid.

 Ordinarily that would be a very strange anomaly, except these are very strange times, so who knows what a single Bishop in a single Ward somewhere might do.

Edited May 18, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It is virtually the same "public event" as when held in the chapel, but currently authorized on a decentralized and much smaller scale within the unit's boundaries.

😁

Thanks for the back up !

Edited May 18, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Bernard Gui]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That's exactly why we bring the sacrament to shut-ins, if they are priesthood holders or not.

Good point. 

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

suppose theoretically someone could bless it for themselves but I don't think it would be valid.

I know men who have gotten permission to perform it for themselves alone. 

[bluebell]

45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The only way that it would be "private" would be if the priesthood holder blessed it for himself and no one else.

Anyone there would be a witness.

They are witnessing to each other that they take upon themselves  the name of Christ etcetera.

Maybe I didn't understand the question?

 And if he was the only one?

 he would still be his own witness because the sacrament prayer itself says that the action is an action of witnessing.

How can one "witness" to oneself?

  Of course under normal circumstances that would be very unusual for a bishop to issue permission for someone to bless the sacrament for himself alone.  I can't imagine that. 

 That's exactly why we bring the sacrament to shut-ins, if they are priesthood holders or not.

I suppose theoretically someone could bless it for themselves but I don't think it would be valid.

 Ordinarily that would be a very strange anomaly, except these are very strange times, so who knows what a single Bishop in a single Ward somewhere might do.

Bishops have authorized men to bless the sacrament just for themselves though, so it's not unusual right now.  We have a lot of active single men in our ward, which is what made me think of it.

What I was really asking though is how these exceptions work with what you and others have said, and what we've always been taught, about the purpose and importance of the sacrament. 

We've always been told how important the sacrament is and that that is the main reason that we go to church, etc. but now single women or women without authorized male members are being told that saying a prayer is just as good as taking the sacrament.  How do we reconcile those two things?

Likewise, how do we reconcile your explanation that the sacrament is to be a public ordinance witnessed by others with our current state of private sacrament ordinances, some of which are not witnessed by anyone?  No where else does in our teachings or scripture does the person participating in the ordinance count as a witness to it, so that idea seems to be playing a little fast and loose with the whole witness concept.

These are my questions (and maybe they resonate with Rain and her questions as well).  If the rule is necessary, then how do we explain the exceptions?  If the exceptions are good enough, then how do we explain the rule? 

If the sacrament is necessary then how do we explain how a prayer for someone who can't take it is the same thing?  If a prayer is just as good as the ordinance, then why is the ordinance necessary at all?  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

It is virtually the same "public event" as when held in the chapel, but currently authorized on a decentralized and much smaller scale within the unit's boundaries.

Can you explain what you mean?  How can a private event be virtually the same as a public event?  

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

Not the whole plan but he could always get some people to drift away from the plan on any world.

Was he involved in those other worlds?

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We've always been told how important the sacrament is and that that is the main reason that we go to church, etc. but now single women or women without authorized male members are being told that saying a prayer is just as good as taking the sacrament.  How do we reconcile those two things?

 

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If the sacrament is necessary then how do we explain how a prayer for someone who can't take it is the same thing?  If a prayer is just as good as the ordinance, then why is the ordinance necessary at all?  

It sounds like you're trying to set up cases and rules here.  Instead I think we should concentrate on following the guidance the prophet has given us and trusting in the Lord and His wisdom.

[mfbukowski]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

I know men who have gotten permission to perform it for themselves alone. 

Ok. 

The bishops can do whatever they like 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I suppose theoretically someone could bless it for themselves but I don't think it would be valid.

Uh-oh, I better be careful. My covenants have not been renewed for a while now.........

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

 

It sounds like you're trying to set up cases and rules here.  Instead I think we should concentrate on following the guidance the prophet has given us and trusting in the Lord and His wisdom.

Because a few bishops made the compassionate decision, and authorized a placebo, we have a theological controversy 

Oil vey!

Let them witness to no one but themselves then, if it makes them feel better. 

If that was good Doctrine then we would never take the sacrament to shut in priesthood holders.

Again the placebo effect in action.

Edited May 18, 2020 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

 

It sounds like you're trying to set up cases and rules here.  Instead I think we should concentrate on following the guidance the prophet has given us and trusting in the Lord and His wisdom.

That seems like a false dichotomy.    

Because it seems like you are saying that we can either 1) concentrate on following the guidance of the prophet and trust in the Lord or we can 2) ask questions about why our doctrine is what it is. 

Is that what you are meaning to say?

Because from my perspective, asking questions is how we learn and I don't think that it bothers God when we want to understand things better.

[ksfisher]

26 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

 

It sounds like you're trying to set up cases and rules here.  Instead I think we should concentrate on following the guidance the prophet has given us and trusting in the Lord and His wisdom.

Thinking about this further, the blessings we receive are based on our individual obedience the the laws and ordinances of the gospel.  I'm not blessed based on how I measure up against my neighbor.  So if I'm only able to partake of the sacrament every month or two while my neighbor is able to every week, I'm blessed by my willingness to do what I am able to do. 

Same sort of thing as with temple attendance.  Regular temple attendance is taught by the church.  But regular look different for someone who lives days from a temple versus someone who lives minutes.

Edited May 18, 2020 by ksfisher

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That seems like a false dichotomy.    

Because it seems like you are saying that we can either 1) concentrate on following the guidance of the prophet and trust in the Lord or we can 2) ask questions about why our doctrine is what it is. 

Is that what you are meaning to say?

Because from my perspective, asking questions is how we learn and I don't think that it bothers God when we want to understand things better.

I'm saying you should do what the Lord in asking you to do.  He will bless you for doing what you are able.  Someone else may be able to do more or less.  They will be equally blessed for that. 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Because a few bishops made the compassionate decision, and authorized a placebo, we have a theological controversy 

Oil vey!

Let them witness to no one but themselves then, if it makes them feel better. 

Does it bother you when you attempt to answer someone's questions and the answers don't help the questioner?  Because this is the second time in thread (first with Rain and now with my questions) that disagreement or confusion with your answers has produced a snarky or slightly condescending response from you and I'm not exactly sure why.

I'm wondering though, what is the placebo you are talking about here?  Is a lone man blessing the sacrament for himself a placebo, is that what you are saying?

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'm saying you should do what the Lord in asking you to do.  He will bless you for doing what you are able.  Someone else may be able to do more or less.  They will be equally blessed for that. 

Ok, but that isn't in question, which is why I'm confused by the answer.

Can we do what the Lord is asking us to do, recognize that He will bless us for doing what we are able, and still ask questions about why things are done as they are or taught as they are taught?

Or is that wrong in some way?

[mfbukowski]

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Uh-oh, I better be careful. My covenants have not been renewed for a while now.........

Cute, but for the record I have already said that you can renew your covenants anytime you want to through prayer. That's between you and the Lord. But in my opinion that not an "Ordinance."

But surprise surprise I'm not the Lord.

Everybody gets to figure that out for themselves.