On the inefficacy of Zoom sacraments: a note on media and religious history

A telling aspect of the Restoration is what the golden plates couldn’t do.

When people are left without access to the sacrament or other priesthood ordinances, one might ask: Why not let the miracle of modern technology solve the problem by allowing a priest to bless the bread and water from a distance? The words of the sacrament prayer would still be audible in the room where the recipient was along with the bread and water, after all, and the priest would act with the same authority.

The answer is based on a series of media-historical propositions.

(1) An action that can be transmitted over distance can also necessarily be transmitted forward in time. The transmittable action is therefore preservable as well.

(2) Actions that can be preserved can also be reproduced in multiple copies. These copies do not depend on the original action, but can instead derive from other copies of the original.

(3) Transmittable, preservable and reproducible actions can be stored and accumulated. A collection introduces an element of competition for validity between copies with the same point of origin, and versions with different points of origin. One unavoidable end point of transmitting action across space is the problem of the library: Which action is most valid? Which copy is correct?

(4) Reproducible, preservable, transmittable and collectible actions become commodities that are commercially exploitable. The other end point of transmitting action is the problem of the marketplace.

This process is most clearly illustrated in the history of literacy. The action of the spoken word depends on the physical proximity of the speaker and listener. This can be overcome through recourse to writing, and it has ever been the claim of the written word to transport one person’s speech to another’s ear, whether on paper, papyrus, or imprinted on a clay tablet. But those same media also bring the speaker’s words forward in time and make them reproducible. Even without the speaker’s presence, copies can be made from copies. Records of the spoken word are accumulated in libraries and archives, where their differences raise questions of validity and priority. And they also compete as commercial wares in the marketplace.

Based on the historical precedent of literacy, I would draw two religious corollaries:

(a) If the action of the sacrament is reduced to the speaking of particular words, all of (1) to (4) would obviously apply to the words of a priest, so that playing a recording of a priest speaking the sacramental prayers would be as valid as a priest officiating in person. The Church would need only one priest – not at any given moment, but one priest ever – who could be recorded speaking the sacrament prayers. This is the media logic of the televangelist broadcasting to believers who hope to access his divine charisma through their televisions. This is also what made the abuse of indulgences possible with the advent of the printing press.

(b) If the action of the sacrament is considered to go beyond the spoken word to include some priesthood power however defined, but this power can still be transmitted over distance, then all of (1) to (4) will again apply with the same logical consequence. The medium need not be electronic. The force of the sacrament could for example be considered to inhere in the blessed bread and water. This material transmission would nevertheless have the same results, with the bread and water becoming the medium for a transmittable, preservable, reproducible, and commoditized priesthood power. This media logic is visible in history in the various superstitions surrounding the consecrated Eucharistic host, or in the medieval trade in relics.

The problems generated by allowing priesthood ordinances through telepresence become especially acute for the Church when it comes to the ordinance of ordaining priests. If a priest could be ordained at a distance without physical laying-on of hands, then the Great Apostasy – the cessation of divine authority to conduct sacraments – is reduced to a much more solvable problem. Peter and the apostles clearly had this authority, so if the authority is not present at some later date, then the solution according to (a) is to find a copy of the relevant words; or according to (b), to find an artifact that would materially transmit the relevant power.

So it is notable that the golden plates represent a rejection of these solutions based on what the plates couldn’t accomplish. In the words of Joseph Smith, the plates contained the “the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”  Moreover, the golden plates are in religious terms the most extraordinary artifact ever discovered: an autograph record made by a prophet and priesthood holder who enjoyed the ministry of transfigured apostles ordained by Christ himself. They contain the sacramental prayers we use today. If neither the words of the Book of Mormon nor the golden plates as artifact were able to transmit priesthood authorization to Joseph Smith, then nothing else could. To solve the problem of the Great Apostasy, a personal angelic visitation was required.

I hasten to point out I am not stating (a) and (b) as claims about the nature of ultimate reality or the divine will. Instead, they represent opportunities where particular choices were made in history. The existence of other practices in other churches means that other choices would have certainly been possible. In many Christian churches, for example, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper has a strictly memorial function. From this perspective, there would be little difference between congregants taking the sacrament in the chapel, and an individual contemplating the sacrament prayers before consuming bread and water in isolation, with no divine authority or ecclesiastic mandate claimed or required.

But what the alternate choices have in common is that they would make the Restoration a superfluous complication of the religious landscape. Contemplating Christ in the sacramental emblems is a wonderful thing, but there would be no need for John the Baptist to personally confer the priesthood on Joseph Smith if the sacrament is a strictly memorial act. If priesthood authority could be conferred through either verbal or material telepresence, then the solution to the Great Apostasy could have been found through philology or archeology. To admit the efficacy of Zoom sacraments would mean undoing basic choices in Church history, rewinding the Restoration back to before its origin.

The inability of women and others without access to a priesthood holder to partake of the sacrament in certain situations is a distressing problem in precisely the same way that the loss of priesthood authority for centuries before the Restoration was a distressing problem. However, the optimal solution for Latter-day Saints to a transitory problem will not involve strategies that, taken to their logical conclusion, would render the Restoration pointless.


Comments

15 responses to “On the inefficacy of Zoom sacraments: a note on media and religious history”

  1. Stephen C

    I’m not sure I buy the idea that transmission over space = transmission over time. (I mean, I guess in an Einstenien sense they’re interrelated, but still…), but I too kind of see the appeal of Zoom sacrament prayers initially but when I think about it more realize that would pull on a thread that would lead to all sorts of other complications that you outline.

  2. This is good stuff.

  3. Mark Ashurst-McGee

    Very interesting

  4. Thanks! Stephen, it makes more sense if you look at it from the printing press forward, than from the Internet backward (and I probably skipped over a few important steps too).

  5. Pontius Python

    I agree with Stephen C that transmission over space is not the same as transmission over time. That it is, is the key element of Jonathan Green’s argument, but it either misses or intentionally elides the entire point of the people who argued during the pandemic that the sacrament prayers should be transmitted over Zoom. The point of (hypothetically) allowing shut-ins to take the sacrament, after listening to the sacrament prayers transmitted live during sacrament meeting, during the pandemic, was that it was as close to a live, physically present, administration of the sacrament from local priesthood leaders as was possible at that time. I don’t think the mainstream of this body of thought ever argued the slippery slope of turning the sacrament prayers into a storable, salable commodity subject to the library problem, nor about having one single priest transmitting one single prayer for the entire church – that is a textbook slippery slope fallacy as taught in elementary school. It was never about that. It was about improving real-time access to local priesthood authorities during a widespread health emergency. And I don’t think this blog post addresses that at all – not that it necessarily should, we don’t need to rehash that old argument at the present time.

  6. Sacramental prayers are whatever we say they are. Why does the prayer attach to the bread sitting on top of the table, but not the bread in the bag under the table? Is it proximity? Does all the bread have to be within a certain distance of the priest? Is it the plastic bag? Can prayers make it through plastic? Are the Rice Chex in the plastic container my ward uses not valid? (They’re not being physically broken, either.) Is there a time component here? Could the priest bless 100 gallons of water on January 1st and then we use it through the whole year? Or it is valid only for that day? If the congregation is too larger and 10 minutes pass before everyone receives the cup of water has the blessing worn off? If the emblems are blessed and then taken next door, are they still valid? Can I drive them 100 miles? Or is the ordinance valid only if the person taking the emblems was present for the prayer? What if they were in the foyer? Or arrived late to church? What if the sound system isn’t working and they are sitting in the back? What if they are deaf?

    The sacrament is a symbolic act, and the thing about symbols is that they don’t do anything, and they only mean what we agree that they mean. You can’t logic through how symbols work. The CoJCoLdS have set up guidelines as to how the ceremony is to be done, and put limits on what is and is not acceptable. Some, if not all, of those limits are arbitrary. That’s not to say that they are without reason or thought, but I can 100% guarantee that if some of those policies were to change, someone else could cook up an equally convincing philosophy of why the new guidelines are True and Correct, and the only possible way that the ordinance could be done. We do it the way we do it, because that is the way we’ve agreed to do it. The way that we have chosen to administer it is not meaningful. What is meaningful is that we have chosen to do it, and we have chosen a message around the ideas that the action represents.

  7. I’m with DaveW on this. Its just a ritual that is done this “way” today and was done very different in our buildings in the past. No right/wrong way, just current way. If we dont truly recommit each sunday we are just eating and drinking stuff. The ritual in itself is just that, a ritual. Baptism, Endowment, Sealing, all the same in my book. What we do with our lives, what we become, is what is important. Ritual = reminder to go do. Do = become God-like. (as best we can in mortality) Focus less on the ritual and more on the becoming.

  8. Zoom is a good example of how something that seems instantaneous and ethereal actually requires a whole system of physical media to work – your Zoom conversation doesn’t just zip from one place to another, but gets stored and forwarded at a dozen or more places, which might retain or reproduce parts of it. Security is a separate issue – what’s important is that the bytes you send don’t disappear into the ether. They’re transmitted via a medium and become infinitely storable and reproducible.

    I don’t think I’m making a slippery slope argument, because (i) we have historical precedent of media change and sacraments interacting and leading to places you may not want to end up; and (ii) DaveW’s comment has already landed us at the bottom of the slope, with the contention that the sacramental ordinance is just a verbal social convention with only symbolic function. I wouldn’t expect Zoom sacrament to lead to many changes within a few years, but because our ordinances are distillations of our theology, the logic of Zoom sacrament would work itself through the rest of the system over time. It took us centuries before we got a trade in relics and decades for indulgences to be abused, but things move faster these days.

    DaveW states that the sacramental prayers are whatever we say they are, but that is incompatible with what the Church claims to be. We’re not just some body of saints gathering in the wilderness, but the gathered and restored Church, with a chief High Priest overseeing the sacraments and canonized texts about them and codified norms for conducting them and designated congregational leaders. So there’s an important difference between following convention, and following the direction of the presiding High Priest.

    One of the foundational planks of our belief is that ordinances are not just symbolic, but also efficacious. Faith and subsequent action may be necessary components, but the effect of ordinances is not limited to what they symbolize. Someone who is baptized, or ordained a priest, or sealed to his family, or partakes of the sacrament is different in a meaningful way from someone else who is not. Else why are we baptized for the dead, if baptism is just a symbol?

    So I suspect DaveW and REC911 are wrong, but I’m not in a position to prove that they’re wrong – I can only point out that if we follow their logic to its conclusion, the Restoration is just a superfluous complication of the religious landscape. If all we needed was to meditate on sacramental symbolism, fully recommit, and then live our lives accordingly while loving and doing good for one another – all of which are things we should be doing! – then there would have been no need for John the Baptist to show up in 1830. But his visitation and the restoration of the priesthood commits us to the idea that not having a duly authorized priest is in fact a difficult problem without a simple solution.

  9. Last Lemming

    Else why do we take the sacrament for the dead, if the sacrament is just a symbol?

    Oh wait! We don’t take the sacrament for the dead. So either people who died on Saturday night must be worse off than those who died on Sunday night, or (maybe) the sacrament really is just a symbol.

  10. How do you feel about the following:
    1. People who close their eyes and say amen during General Conference prayers
    2. People who participate in sustainings during GC
    3. Participation in the Hosanna shout that President Hinkley broadcasted for the Nauvoo temple dedication
    4. Christ healing the Centurion’s via long distance

    Personally, I think God’s power transcends space and time everyday to make it into our lives from wherever it is he exists. If he wanted a sacrament prayer to have efficacy over space and time, it would. If he didn’t, it wouldn’t. If I give a blessing, it has power if God wants it to, and it doesn’t if he doesn’t. I don’t own or control his power, just as a transmission can’t store it or forward it. Rather, he sends his power across space and time to endorse my blessing if I’m aligned with his will. Similarly, he could endorse a zoom transmission of an ordinance just as he endorsed the transmission of the Hosanna shout performed by President Hinkley.

  11. Dr Cocoa, those are good counter-examples worth thinking about. I would say in response that prayers and sustainings are not ordinances, and that both prayers and sustainings are in fact just verbal matters that can be effectively communicated through media.

    Participation in the Hosanna shout by video is much closer to an ordinance, which may be why it was such a carefully-controlled event. If I remember correctly, temple recommends were required to enter the chapel, the chapel doors remained closed, and it was all under the personal supervision of the prophet. (Was it that occasion or a later one where Pres. Hinckley asked for the media not to rebroadcast that part?) So on the one hand it’s enough like a communal response to prayer that broadcast participation was possible, but also enough like an ordinance to cause some concern.

    Jesus can heal at a distance because God’s power is unlimited – transcending time and space, as you say. (Blessings for the sick as an ordinance are an interesting case because oil is involved as a physical object. We wouldn’t say that the oil is the medium for conveying the healing blessing – we can’t mail out a tube of consecrated oil to Sister Jones to apply at home, and there’s no market for pre-consecrated oil for all your ailments. The ordinance is set up to require the simultaneous physical presence of the priesthood holders, person being blessed, and consecrated oil.)

    In most cases I agree with your understanding of priesthood blessings. However, with some ordinances, I think we do have to say that the priesthood holder actually does have and direct God’s power without need for separate endorsement. If someone is baptized by proper authority, we think something real and important has occurred, whether or not the baptizer was really feeling it that day.

  12. I think I’m with DaveW and REC911. The convention is what has been practiced, as directed by the presiding high priest. The convention can change; to wit., the change from communal cup to individual cups. No doubt, before that change, there was mysticism and even dogma supporting the communal cup.

    To me, God’s house is a house of order, and that is why we have pattern and ritual. I see nothing mystical or magical in a priesthood ordinance – absolutely nothing, it is wholly symbolic. The power of the priesthood comes from respect for the symbolism, as well as from (a) following the order; and (b) recording on the books of the church (see D&C 128).

    That said, I am not an advocate of recorded or broadcasted ordinances – I see value in saints gathering together and some among them called to offer a service for others, according to our order.

  13. [I say “no doubt” in my comment above because it seems that we almost always create mysticism and dogma for almost everything related to the practice of religion.]

  14. JI, calling it convention just doesn’t work when we have multiple canonized texts about the sacrament, and authoritative instructions about how it should be performed. That’s the opposite of convention. Changes are very much top-down affairs, not based on popular practice.

    Wholly symbolic ordinances are definitely a possibility! Calvin thought so, for example, although Luther disagreed with him. And Joseph Smith said and did many things that suggest he thought that priesthood power didn’t come from respecting symbolism, but from having it conferred by laying on of hands. I’m not being snide or facetious here – it’s an important distinction (with a long history before 1830) that ends up having a bunch of consequences for how we do things today.

  15. We have canonized text only about the words to be spoken, and that priests may perform the blessing in our assemblies. Everything else is convention. Authoritative instructions certainly can capture already-practiced convention, and can also become convention.

    I believe in order, and I sustain the prerogative of leaders to issue instructions and the duty of members to follow instructions. But I also don’t believe in the mysticism and dogma that often attach to our conventions. For example, it is our convention (and instruction) to cover the bread and water in our assemblies with a white cloth, and I sustain that practice. However, mysticism and dogma have attached to that practice among some of our members, saying the cloth represents the burial cloth wrapped around the Savior when he was entombed – but I reject that notion, and tend to believe the cloth was originally used simply to keep the flies off the bread. And if I take the sacrament to a person in the hospital or a nursing home, I might not use a white cloth at all, and doing so does not impair the efficacy of the ordinance.

    Regarding laying on of hands, I believe in it – but I remember of Spencer W. Kimball calling a man without hands to be a patriarch, even though he had no hands to lay on the head of the person receiving the blessing. We follow the pattern of laying on of hands as best we can because it is the prescribed order of things, not because of any power or essence actually flowing from one party to the other.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.