Social distancing, priesthood keys and worshipping from home

I wasn’t sure about what to make of the initial news reports regarding the novel Coronavirus and COVID-19. I usually try my best not to be an alarmist but I don’t want to be dismissive either. Like a lot of people, I thought about influenza mortality rates but then a friend shared a very informative article that offered some important perspective. I took the situation more seriously but I still wasn’t that concerned. I’m kind of a homebody anyway.

I’m very grateful that many members of my ward have a pretty good sense of humor.

Including my Bishop

When the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced that their April General Conference “will be distributed throughout the world via technology only,” it seemed like a reasonable precaution. My level of concern was elevated but it wasn’t something that really affected me since I’ve never attended the conference in person and—social anxiety being one of my personal struggles—have never had a desire to do so. I’ll stick with watching it at home, as usual.

Then came the announcement that all Church gatherings—meetings, conferences, even social activities—would be suspended until further notice, all around the world. That’s when my anxiety became significantly more elevated.

My stepmom’s observation made it really sink in.

Phrases like “Social Distancing” soon entered our lexicon. Filmmaking workshops that I was really looking forward to attending were canceled. As was a comedy show headlined by my favorite stand-up comic, Maria Bamford, for which I had already purchased tickets—I did receive a refund.

A friend from Church shared a magazine article on social media about administering the sacrament at home. This sparked a very odd response from someone who commented, “There is no scriptural basis for the church’s policy.”

Please,
forgive me
for falling
down
an internet
comment-
thread
rabbit
hole.

I replied to this individual’s comment with the following:

The scriptural basis for the authority of the Church's leadership to establish policies, change policies and even rescind policies is found in D&C 27:12-13…

…“These keys are the right of presidency; they are the power and authority to govern and direct all of the Lord’s affairs on earth. Those who hold them have power to govern and control the manner in which all others may serve in the priesthood. All of us may hold the priesthood, but we can only use it as authorized and directed so to do by those who hold the keys” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Conference Report, Apr. 1972, 98; or Ensign, July 1972, 87).

I ended my comment with a personal idiom that’s given me a great deal of comfort over the years: “Policy is not prophecy; counsel is not commandment; and tradition is not doctrine.”

I really should have known better than to engage with this person. Their statement about there being “no scriptural basis for the church’s policy” seems to indicate that they prefer a literal interpretation of scripture; so much so that every aspect of any directive, policy, or statement should have a direct, scriptural reference.

One problem with having such a literalist attitude is that it relies solely on what is written in scripture with little—if any—room for the Spirit, for personal revelation pertaining to one’s stewardship, and imbues in the individual a prejudice (a pre-judgment) of anyone who’s interpretations or practices vis-à-vis worshipping in the Church, differs from their own in the slightest.

Unprompted, they made reference to the Church’s “corporate policy” and an absence of scriptural justification for it. This has nothing to do with partaking of the sacrament at home but it’s obviously something that they take issue with.

I did not respond to that particular remark but upon further reflection, I realized that there is, in fact, a scriptural justification for the Church to be formally and legally organized as a corporation.

The Twelfth Article of Faith states, quite clearly, that “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”(emphasis added)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is organized as a corporation—as are most religious, charitable, and nonprofit organizations—in order to obey, honor, and sustain the law. This status is a prerequisite for the federal government to grant tax-exempt status to the organization, allowing individuals to deduct their contributions to it from their taxes. As “Public Charities,” religious organizations—ostensibly*—provide humanitarian and “safety net”-type services to people alongside those provided by the government, hence the tax deduction. That specific language is not going to be found anywhere in the scriptures, but the nature of it satisfies the scriptural admonition of the Twelfth Article of Faith.

This person then asked a really odd question:

“…do you claim that a local Bishop has the authority to stop my family and loved ones from gathering and participating in the sacrament?”

This makes me wonder if they even bothered to read the article, which said—quoting the Church’s General Handbook, “The bishop holds the priesthood keys for administering the sacrament in the ward. All who participate in preparing, blessing, and passing the sacrament must receive approval from him or someone under his direction.”

My response to the question was simply, “If a family sustains their Bishop in his calling, then their participation in the sacrament will be no different than anyone else's in their ward.”

In all fairness, I did not directly answer the question. Not because I was—as they accused—“insecure with the teachings of Jesus Christ.” I wasn’t being evasive, nor was it because an answer didn’t exist. The problem was a serious flaw in the nature of the question.

“…[does] a bishop [have] the authority to stop a family from participating in the sacrament in their own home?”

The magazine article, and the sources it referenced, say nothing about stopping anyone from doing anything. It does say that “In all cases, authorization is needed from a bishop or presiding authority to administer the sacrament.”(emphasis added)

Was this person asking if their bishop could stop them from administering the sacrament without his approval?

I wasn’t about to engage them further on the matter because I was pretty sure that they had already made up their mind about what sort of response to their question was going to be “correct.” Whatever quasi-theological argument they were fighting for also wasn’t helped when they inferred my unwillingness to continue with the discussion as evidence of a spiritual failing on my part, saying, “Those without the spirit of Christ tremble when confronted with such a simple question…you identify yourself as somebody who fears the teachings of Jesus Christ.”

Actually, I just identify as someone who has better things to do with his time than to engage with hostile people who want to debate and argue instead of having a civil discussion. Obviously, this exchange did give me something to think about.

The very next day, I received an e-mail from our Ward’s Bishop with instructions on how to partake of the Sacrament at home—they were pretty much identical to what was shared in the magazine article. One might suppose that this rendered the commenter’s question moot but outside of the context of current events, I think it might be worth giving it some more thought.

Even without the need for social distancing during a pandemic, there are circumstances where partaking of the Sacrament at home with one’s family is permissible. Members of the Church that live in very isolated areas and are not able to attend regular branch or ward meetings are able to worship at home with their families. However, it still has to be with “authorization from the stake, mission, or district president.”

People who are confined to their homes, live in residential care facilities, or are hospitalized can all still receive the Sacrament from priesthood holders in their ward who are more than happy to bring it to them but if none of those circumstances apply to an individual’s situation—and if distance or ability to travel are not matters of concern—if they want to receive the Sacrament, all they have to do is go to Church on Sunday.

I suppose there is nothing stopping a person from staying home on a Sunday, breaking up some bread, pouring water into a glass, reading aloud the sacramental prayers and then consuming said bread and water. This begs the question of why someone would want to do it that way when there is nothing preventing them from just going to Church like everyone else in their ward.

If there is some other circumstance that hasn’t been considered, there is nothing preventing that person from simply asking for authorization from their Bishop, who specifically “holds the priesthood keys for administering the sacrament in the ward.” But, if they choose instead to disregard their Bishop's authority—e.g. choose to not sustain their Bishop in his calling—and act in defiance, claiming that their Bishop doesn’t have “the authority to stop a family from participating in the sacrament in their own home?” it is no longer a question of where the priesthood authority of a Bishop ends and where that of the presiding priesthood holder of a household begins.

“…the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake… to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.” D&C 121:36–37(emphasis added)

One can recite the Sacramental prayers over a piece of bread and a cup of water and consume them all day, every day, and regardless of whether that person has been ordained as a holder of the priesthood, if they are trying to exercise those rites not only without proper authorization but with a self-righteous attitude, and out of blatant defiance, then it all means nothing. They are not truly renewing their covenants. Without the Spirit, without the priesthood authority that they have nullified with their own pride and desire for control, all they’re doing is saying words, eating bread, drinking water, and being jerks about it.

---

*Charlatans wearing the trappings of religiosity—in particular, so-called “televangelists”—are infamous for exploiting people and the government for their own personal gain. It’s one of the reasons that I am personally not opposed to revoking tax-exempt status for organized religions. Any organization that is motivated solely by the prospect of acquiring tax-free income would most likely cease operations. Their accounting practices would be subject to more scrutiny and their proceeds would dwindle since “donations” to their “cause” would no longer be tax-deductible, eliminating one possible motive for those making contributions, to begin with.

I also believe that were the federal government to take such a step, religious organizations that are sincere in their efforts to help their members and communities will continue to function and to serve despite their new tax burden while those that were only in it for the money, to begin with, will have to find some other way to make a living.

Certainly, there will be those who might be hesitant to continue making donations that are no longer tax-deductible, but if that’s the only reason they were making donations in the first place, then their motives aren’t that far removed from any organization that prioritizes their tax-exempt status above any other mission they might profess to be undertaking in the name of whichever god they might publicly or privately worship—be it rooted in ancient scripture or the all-mighty-dollar.

Current revision: July 20, 2020

On doubt, skepticism and faith

There was an interesting post on the Mormon.org Facebook page that read:

"Today I will _________ to strengthen my faith."

Subscribers to the page were invited to fill in the blank in the comments beneath the post. Many of the comments were pretty conventional; "pray," "sing," "study the scriptures," etc. I usually just read these remarks, this day I felt that I should contribute—but I'm anything but conventional. I filled in the blank with something I had been pondering for a while now: "accept my doubt and skepticism as a necessary part of faith."

One person "Liked" my comment with a click of the mouse. However, another person commented after I did with what appeared–to me at least–to be a rebuttal.

"ignore the skepticism from others and focus on the truth of what I have felt, and continue to feel, and have always felt in my life regarding the teachings of Jesus Christ and His church. I know it and I know He knows I know it so I will strengthen my faith by loving those that hate, but ignoring their hateful/misunderstandings of who they 'think' we are"

It's completely possible that this individual was not responding to me or what I had written, but they did choose to use a word that was a key part of my comment: "skepticism."

This person did more than just use the word; they refuted it. They are choosing to "ignore the skepticism from others" as if skepticism is antithetical to faith. And I can't help but wonder if by referencing "those that hate," they might be referring to me and my so-called "hateful/misunderstandings..." Obviously, my own neuroses are shining through, and I may be reading more into this person's comments than what's actually there.

So, I will do my best to disconnect from it and respond to what was said that resonates with me and not take it personally.

I honestly don't think that it's possible to have faith without some element of doubt and skepticism. We often hear the phrase, "Taking a leap of faith." Consider what that means: Choosing to accept something that is intangible–even unprovable for all practical purposes–as true without empirical evidence. The leap is what's key. The leap is from a place of doubt and skepticism to a place of acceptance and faith. This doesn't mean that doubt and skepticism are bad or "hateful." They are–in fact–a necessary step toward having faith. One cannot take a leap from nothingness. One must leap from a place of uncertainty because if you have no doubt, if you are not skeptical, then there is no need to take a leap of any kind at all.

Ignoring doubt and skepticism will not strengthen one's faith, it will merely supplant it with blind acceptance–and blind acceptance is not the same thing as faith. God does not want blind followers. God gave all of His children the capacity to think. Why would He do that if He expected us not to use it.

Labeling the doubt and skepticism of others as "hateful" does a grave disservice to those who are sincerely in search of meaning and faith. Often they are simply tired of being skeptics and having doubts but don't think of themselves as "hateful," so we shouldn't assume that they are. They just want some assurance, and that's what faith can provide. To use Paul's words, "...faith is the substance [assurance] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” -Hebrews 11:1

One of my favorite verses of scripture is from the Book of Mormon.

"But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words." -Alma 32:27 (emphasis added)

"...arouse your faculties..." in other words: Think. I love that Alma uses the word "experiment." Experimentation is key to seeking truth, whether it's applied scientifically or theologically. This verse challenges individuals to not just accept what is being taught to them but to put it to a test. To be empirical in the application of Gospel principles–to observe the effect they can have on our lives, to experience their truth through their praxis. And it doesn't require one to fully believe from the beginning, only to "exercise a particle of faith"–not a leap–something that even the most hardened skeptic should be able to muster, even if the best that they can do is to just have the "desire to believe." And if the result of this is just belief in "a portion" of what has been presented, so be it. I highly recommend reading that chapter in its entirety.

Where does the hostility–expressed by that Facebook user and others–toward doubt and skepticism come from? Some might argue that it comes from Christ Himself who said, "...blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." -John 20:29

Of course, it's a popular practice in any religious culture to pick and choose what verses–or parts of verses–one quotes to reinforce a particular point of view. Me? I'm all about context.

Christ was speaking to the apostle Thomas–also known as "Doubting Thomas"–who had said, after he was told of Christ's resurrection, "...Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." -John 20:25

A lot of people look at Christ's statement in verse 29 as a clear rebuke of Thomas' skepticism, but–when we read more–we see that Christ himself invited Thomas to "...Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing." (emphasis added) I find it quite intriguing that even after inviting Thomas to see and feel for himself the physical presence of the resurrected Christ, He speaks of this evidence as a reason to "be not faithless, but believing." Even when one is presented with undeniable proof, we aren't supposed to abandon having faith any more than we are supposed to abandon our ability to think critically. The scriptures don't actually say that Thomas took Christ up on his offer, as depicted in Caravaggio's The Incredulity of Saint Thomas. Only that he answered, "My Lord and my God." -John 20:28. We can, however, infer that he did because Christ invited all of the apostles to "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." -Luke 24:39 (emphasis added)

I don't think Thomas was rebuked. Christ's statement was simple; it was in praise of those who are willing to take that leap of faith. But His invitation to His apostles to touch Him and experience for themselves the reality of His existence and the truth of His resurrection shows the value He places on evidence and witnesses who can testify through their own observations and sensory perceptions the truth of all things. It is no different than the methodology used by scientists to gather evidence through observation and experimentation, and it is validated through repetition. If it is true, it can be replicated. That is the scientific witness of truth. And it all starts by asking questions that lead to discussion, doubt, skepticism, theories, hypotheses (which some might call a kind of faith), experimentation, and an arrival at some matter of truth.

Many people of faith have carried out their own experiments on the word based on the spiritual experiences of others–past and present–and have replicated the results for themselves. I find it intriguing how the word "theology"–defined as "the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially the study of God and of God's relation to the world"–shares the suffix "-logy" with words used to describe scientific fields of inquiry–biology, geology, paleontology, physiology, technology, etc.–and yet, despite this common etymological structure and the way its principles, theories, and hypotheses are applied, it's not discussed with the same... reverence (if you will) as other analytical disciplines.

It's interesting when one considers how many ordinary people will say that they rely on science for their truth–that they are indifferent or even suspicious of anyone's claims of spiritual enlightenment–and yet they themselves are not scientists. They did not conduct scientific experiments or try to replicate them. They are simply taking the scientific community at its word–accepting their testimony–because scientists have done the work and validated it amongst themselves. How is that different from a group of people exploring their spirituality, putting to the test the principles they have learned–"experimenting on the word"–and sharing their experiences with others.

A lot of Mormons like to say that they "know the church is true." It's a common statement in the church and the culture, and it can sound presumptuous, especially to non-Mormons. As if what they are really saying is, "I know; therefore, you don't. I have the fullness of the gospel; therefore, you have nothing." It can be easily perceived by others that Mormons think that they are the sole possessors of all truth–despite the fact that the doctrine and their leadership acknowledge time and again that "the Church does not hold a monopoly on truth;" and that there is truth to be found everywhere, including other faiths, philosophies and, of course, science.

The commenter above said of the "truth" of what they had "felt," "I know it and I know [Christ] knows I know it..." This is a variation on what Joseph Smith said in response to his critics who tried their hardest to get him to deny his claims of a personal visitation from God and Jesus Christ. "...I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it..." -Joseph Smith–History 25

I'm glad that they specifically spoke of their feelings. I imagine many Mormons want to have an experience like Joseph Smith's. They want that "perfect knowledge," and that statement from the Prophet is so straightforward and powerful it would be difficult not to want to emulate it, so they do when bearing their testimonies in Church or in the mission fields by saying the words, "I know."

But the use of the word "know"–as opposed to saying, "I believe" or "I have faith that..."–carries with it certain expectations on the part of the listener. Not everyone is going to understand that the knowledge being referred to is related to feelings and the personal witness of the Holy Spirit, which is ultimately a subjective experience. So, this statement of "knowledge" is often dismissed because it implies–albeit subtly–that their statement has been independently verified in such a way that there is no room for doubt and/or that the testifier has transcended the need for faith because their knowledge is perfect. But how many Mormons actually know these things? What does such knowledge entail? If it's direct, real observation on par with Joseph Smith's and other prophets' communions with God and Christ, then I think that number is pretty small.

I prefer to say that I know that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true because it's a concept that I have personally embraced, experimented with, and received a personal, subjective affirmation of its truth. I don't know to what degree others share this knowledge. It's the sort of thing that can't be independently verified by a non-biased third party. I can only take others at their word, and my God-given faculties for thought and deduction, my direct experience with other human beings, and just living my life causes me to be skeptical–even of those with whom I share nearly identical beliefs. That's when I choose to take a leap of faith. I also have the testimony of individuals that I can turn to who do have a perfect knowledge, who have had personal experiences that were shared with others–testifying witnesses of those events–and I take a leap of faith to believe that they are telling the truth.

One doesn't abandon all doubt at once. You can take a leap of faith on one matter, and maintain a healthy skepticism, and have doubts about another. We are not expected to accept everything we're told at face value. We are specifically counseled to question and pray about all new knowledge that we acquire–even when the source is a Prophet of God–and to take time to develop and nurture our faith because it cannot and should not be rushed. That's why Alma, when speaking of "experimenting on the word," uses the analogy of a seed that not only has to be planted but nurtured over time.

Our doubts and skepticism are the soil in which we plant that seed of faith. They prompt us to ask questions and seek out the truth; those inquiries are the nourishment our faith needs to grow.

Current revision: 14 AUG 2022