Virtual Sacrament Ordinance

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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?

Looks like I'm on a losing streak

Yes to my way of thinking that's what I think.

And that case it is a private prayer. That's clearly not a public event. Is witnessing to No One except his father. Which of course he can do very easily simply in prayer. I wouldn't understand the purpose and Performing what appears to be the ordinance.

Where I alone with no one to give me the sacrament I would simply go to the Lord in prayer and do so. No problem at all.

Heck I essentially did that for 30 Years anyway.  I had regular chats with the Lord and never felt like I needed a ceremony to do so.  You have to believe in Authority for a ceremony to be valid. At that time I didn't Believe in religious authority. It was just the Lord in me. We got along fine.  

If some feel they need a ceremony they need a ceremony, but to me ceremonies are ceremonial!

A ceremony is a public Declaration of something.

It's like this covid-19 graduation problem where people think they can't graduate unless they walk across the stage in a funny hat, and switch the tassel to the right side.

But if you feel you need to ceremony and you're all alone then making a ceremony. That's pragmatism.

But that is my opinion.

This was dictated so forgive all the errors

Edited May 18, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Yes it's because I'm an oaf and I cannot put myself in the questioners frame of mind.

My thought processes are entirely different than the questioners, I have been thinking with different paradigms in my head that most people for the last 50 years. I've been brainwashed by philosophy.

There are some philosophers who do not believe in the difference between public and private and that subjectivity doesn't exist.

They believe that we are programmed by society and culture so much that we cannot even think for ourselves.

I oppose that position so it is very important for me to distinguish in my mind between public and private.

If you don't believe me Google "the death of man Foucault"

It is a serious puzzle which I think has been solved and favorable position like mine.

Edited May 18, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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?

Of course not. Where is this coming from?

[ksfisher]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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?

I think we can ask questions, but many times the answer from the Lord seems to be to be obedient and wait for the answer.

Edited May 18, 2020 by ksfisher

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Looks like I'm on a losing streak

Yes to my way of thinking that's what I think.

And that case it is a private prayer. That's clearly not a public event. Is witnessing to No One except his father. Which of course he can do very easily simply in prayer. I wouldn't understand the purpose and Performing what appears to be the ordinance.

Where I alone with no one to give me the sacrament I would simply go to the Lord in prayer and do so. No problem at all.

Heck I essentially did that for 30 Years anyway.  I had regular chats with the Lord and never felt like I needed a ceremony to do so.  You have to believe in Authority for a ceremony to be valid. At that time I didn't Believe in religious authority. It was just the Lord in me. We got along fine.  

If some feel they need a ceremony they need a ceremony, but to me ceremonies are ceremonial!

A ceremony is a public Declaration of something.

It's like this covid-19 graduation problem where people think they can't graduate unless they walk across the stage in a funny hat, and switch the tassel to the right side.

But if you feel you need to ceremony and you're all alone then making a ceremony. That's pragmatism.

But that is my opinion.

This was dictated so forgive all the errors

It makes sense, given your views on the need for the sacrament ordinance to be public and a witness to other people, that a lone man blessing the sacrament for himself would be nothing more than a placebo.  Thanks for clarifying that.

If it's not a placebo (and I don't believe it is), then to me that would mean that the idea of eternal ordinances for their public witnessing isn't completely correct.  That the 'why' of ordinances cannot be explained completely by public witnessing requirements. 

That's why I don't completely agree with your previous explanations of why ordinances are different from prayers.  There is no controversy here, only questions and a disagreement on the possible answers.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes it's because I'm an oaf and I cannot put myself in the questioners frame of mind.

My thought processes are entirely different than the questioners, I have been thinking with different paradigms in my head that most people for the last 50 years. I've been brainwashed by philosophy.

There are some philosophers who do not believe in the difference between public and private and that subjectivity doesn't exist.

They believe that we are programmed by society and culture so much that we cannot even think for ourselves.

I oppose that position so it is very important for me to distinguish in my mind between public and private.

If you don't believe me Google "the death of man Foucault"

It is a serious puzzle which I think has been solved and favorable position like mine.

Thanks, I appreciate the explanation.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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

The magic of semantics!

With regards to the event that entails the blessing, passing and partaking of the sacrament, it is the same event in distinct settings, one public (the chapel) and the other private (the home). The essential aspects* of the event are exactly the same in both settings, and virtually the same in practice with a few practical exceptions warranted by the setting.

* Prepare, bless and pass the emblems by the priesthood authority and in the order found in scripture; pray, sing, speak, testify, etc. according to the Spirit; preside and conduct by the common consent of the attendees eligible to do so in the respective settings.

In another sense it is a private communion with the Lord in both settings, though the chapel setting is more public than the home.

Edited May 18, 2020 by CV75

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The magic of semantics!

With regards to the event that entails the blessing, passing and partaking of the sacrament, it is the same event in distinct settings, one public (the chapel) and the other private (the home). The essential aspects* of the event are exactly the same in both settings, and virtually the same in practice with a few practical exceptions warranted by the setting.

* Prepare, bless and pass the emblems by the priesthood authority and in the order found in scripture; pray, sing, speak, testify, etc. according to the Spirit; preside and conduct by the common consent of the attendees eligible to do so in the respective settings.

In another sense it is a private communion with the Lord in both settings, though the chapel setting is more public than the home.

I agree that whether it happens in the home or in a chapel, the details are the same.  And that it is a private communion with the Lord in both settings as well.  

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And that it is a private communion with the Lord in both settings as well. 

That's an interesting way of looking at it.  I would say that the sacrament is about community.  This is a covenant that we as a community are entering into together. 

The pronouns are plural versus the singular pronouns used in the temple.

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think we can ask questions, but many times the answer from the Lord seems to be to be obedient and wait for the answer.

But to be told to 'wait for the answer' we must first ask the question, right?

Pushback against asking questions seems odd to me, especially considering that we just had a historic conference which partly focused on how so much of the restoration was the result of asking questions.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

That's an interesting way of looking at it.  I would say that the sacrament is about community.  This is a covenant that we as a community are entering into together. 

The pronouns are plural versus the singular pronouns used in the temple.

I agree that that is usually the case, but not always.  Do you believe that the ordinance is just as valid when the pronouns are not plural?

[ksfisher]

Just now, bluebell said:

But to be told to 'wait for the answer' we must first ask the question, right?

Pushback against asking questions seems odd to me, especially considering that we just had a historic conference which partly focused on how so much of the restoration was the result of asking questions.

I don't think the questions are a problem, unless the questions get in the way of receiving the answer.

Perhaps I just accustomed to some posters on this board asking endless questions and never understanding the answers.

[ksfisher]

Just now, bluebell said:

Do you believe that the ordinance is just as valid when the pronouns are not plural?

Are you meaning when only one person is present?

 

[bluebell]

Just now, ksfisher said:

I don't think the questions are a problem, unless the questions get in the way of receiving the answer.

Perhaps I just accustomed to some posters on this board asking endless questions and never understanding the answers.

I can understand that. 

In these kinds of settings it can be helpful to consider who the poster is that is asking the questions.  Some posters have been interacting with each other for years, and in those conditions we should have some understanding of who each other is and where we are each coming from.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

Are you meaning when only one person is present?

 

Yes, like with Nehor, for example.  He said that he has been blessing the sacrament for only himself the last few weeks.

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, like with Nehor, for example.  He said that he has been blessing the sacrament for only himself the last few weeks.

My answer would be that that is a question for the person holding the appropriate priesthood keys to answer.  I'm not trying to give a cope out answer, but that's how the church operates, revelation given to the person with appropriate stewardship. 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

My answer would be that that is a question for the person holding the appropriate priesthood keys to answer.  I'm not trying to give a cope out answer, but that's how the church operates, revelation given to the person with appropriate stewardship. 

I can respect that, but I still want to ask, Why? 

If someone were to ask, "is the ordinance valid if the bishop authorizes the miller family to do the sacrament in their home", no one would answer "that's a question for the person holding the appropriate priesthood keys.  Revelation on that question is given to the person with the appropriate stewardship." 

Instead everyone, you included I'm guessing, would just say 'Yes, it's valid.'  

So why is a question concerning two+ people easily answered but a question about one person being authorized by the person holding the appropriate priesthood keys to do the sacrament one that can only come by revelation to the bishop?

Is it because a sacrament ordinance for one challenges our cultural and traditional perceptions of what the sacrament is, or is a doctrinal issue? 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

Wait, if it was a placebo and not an ordinance then the rush of saving power was all in my head. If it was all in my head and was identical to many of my other spiritual experiences than those are suspect too. The more dramatic manifestations could be isolated hallucinations. So it is is all wrong. So there.....is no God. Huh.....well, guess I should go burn down some churches and hire some prostitutes. Maybe start pulling all those scams my brain came up with but my conscience would not let me mess with.

 

Now look what you did......

[The Nehor]

39 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

That's an interesting way of looking at it.  I would say that the sacrament is about community.  This is a covenant that we as a community are entering into together. 

The pronouns are plural versus the singular pronouns used in the temple.

I know. I had a brief moment of confusion wondering if I should adjust it the first Sunday I did the ordinance alone. I decided to stick with the script.

[alter idem]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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?

I agree with what you are saying,  except for the need to witness before others as a required part of it? My father in law does the sacrament by himself for only himself. I've heard of soldiers in foxholes who had permission, prepared and took sacrament by themselves.  I think it's because witnessing is first and foremost before God and Christ.  And so, I don't think taking the sacrament must be witnessed in front of a congregation. Sometimes there is no congregation to witness to and it's still valid and sanctioned.

And doesnt it say that in the prayers, that we are witnessing  unto God, the eternal father and as far as I recall no mention of witnessing to others around us? It's actually a very personal thing between us and diety, imo.

Edited May 18, 2020 by alter idem
Add something I forgot

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

That's an interesting way of looking at it.  I would say that the sacrament is about community.  This is a covenant that we as a community are entering into together. 

The pronouns are plural versus the singular pronouns used in the temple.

With baptism we individually and personally covenant to become a Christlike actor whether alone or as part of the broader community (e.g. at all times and all place). We help create and maintain the community by reaching out to others and ministering to and serving them. We remain part of that community whether we renew that covenant in a public or private setting. In both settings, it is a private exercise with the Lord and a communal exercise with others who are present, but it is certainly possible to bless and partake alone. The plural pronouns in the prayers are appropriate for that reason even we we say them alone. And this is why people who cannot have a priesthood holder perform the sacrament ordinance for them are encouraged to read, ponder and remember the prayers (it still counts -- the "we" isolating in some other place are part of the same community).

[JAHS]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Was he involved in those other worlds?

According to the Temple endowment apparently he was involved in other worlds in this universe.

[CV75]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

The sacrament is the only ordinance I can think of that has been authorized to be performed alone, given the great importance of its role in congealing the community. So I would say the difference between an ordinance and a prayer may not be the requirement of having fellow witnesses present, but the requirement for authorization by the presiding high priest.

ETA: consecrating oil can also be done alone but requires priesthood office, which is an authorization by virtue of ordination.

Amended since consecrated oil is not an ordinance administered to oneself,only performed by one who might be alone.

Edited May 18, 2020 by CV75

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The sacrament is the only ordinance I can think of that has been authorized to be performed alone, given the great importance of its role in congealing the community. So I would say the difference between and ordinance and a prayer may not be the requirement of having fellow witnesses present, but the requirement for authorization by the presiding high priest.

Administering to the sick, consecrating oil, Patriarchal blessings, and dedicating a home are ordinances that can be done alone. Or are those not considered priesthood ordinances?

[The Nehor]

34 minutes ago, JAHS said:

According to the Temple endowment apparently he was involved in other worlds in this universe.

No, I would say he just knew about them.