Funerals to be used primarily as preaching opportunities.

[_Mephitus]

well, then let me pose this question to you: When a person dies, do you want the aspects of their death/afterlife to be the main topic of the discussion? Or do you think that its more appropriate to cover their life and how they lived? (im not trying to weight this, merely parsing where you stand) As i said in my last post, i would much prefer the latter. I believe a funeral is to celebrate the life they had with those he/she loved.

[_Coggins7]

What you originally did was attack the church for doing what its was created and organized to do for its members: teach the gospel and provide through that teaching comfort and courage in the face of the separation of physical death. The entire purpose of the Godpel is to remove the "sting" of the grave from the mortal experience, while leaving the normal sorrow and heartache that are a part of the loss of loved ones in mortality.

For LDS, funerals, at least for faithful members who have lived good, productive, and righteous lives, are a time for not only eulogy, but for the teaching of the fundamental concepts of the gospel that remove from death its fear and its illusory sense of permanent separation. Hence it is a time to teach, to testify, and to hear the words of the Lord regarding the core truths of the gospel and the eternal nature of both the individual and the family.

This is the best I can do here.

[_Mephitus]

While i completely understand your argument, I guess we just dissagree philosophicaly. I just don't think its appropriate to discuss theology at a funeral. I think that while a few might be comforted by another re-hash of what they have been told all their life, some might not. I would much rather leave that to the individuals to study on their own time under what many would see as more appropriate circumstances. I have several friends that are catholic, atheist, pagan, (other), that would be genuinly offended if they where attending my funeral only to have these things brought forth. Many of them would even walk out and i know at least one of them would become violently confrontational over it.(yes, even at a funeral)

[_moksha]

Loran, I am curious about your referring to Liz as a "cultural Mormon". What are your thoughts regarding this subject?

[_Roger Morrison]

"Moderate" Mormon? How would one be identified? Mild mannered? Live-and-let-live, we're all "God's"!??? There can be nothing but arguement over LDS edicts, rituals, oaths and covenants, etc between those who believe and those who do not believe them to be divine rites and promises.

Certialny any strong conservitve dogmatic religion is like this as well. That in and of itself does not make to right or good nor justify it. But for those who may want religion and may find flaws in most if not all religion the LDS Church may serve them well. But for the most part, those who are active will see themsleves as you indetify above.

RM: Quite likely. However THE difference between LDS and "...any (other) strong conservative dogmatic religion..." is the LDS Elitist position declaring THEIR 'exclusive franchise' to be THE only authorized, divinely lead lead "Church". (Excluding Catholicism.) Personally, for many years i didn't pay much attention to what that implies. Actively participating in, and benefiting from the social support--the good stuff--i was blind to the wrongs of LDS conservative dictitorial dogmatism...

There can be little disputing policies, practices, statements and attitudes that tend to be oppressive, manipulative, coersive, spiritually stiffling and encouage fear, shame and guilt in minds and lives of those subject to LDS' malignant authority. Some do tend to be immune... Or thrive in it???

This is the difficulty. One cannot challenge the status quo. If one is vocal about one most likely will leave. either on their own or be ushered out.

RM: Unfortunately this is the case. To the "Happy-camper" in their small corner of LDSism, this presents little concern. They can "moderate" edicts to their comfortability--such as Blacks and priesthood prior to 1978. Ear-rings, skirt length, Sunday shopping & swimming etc. etc... Even, Eve from Adam's rib, and the myriad Old Testament tales that may have had teaching qualities in antiquity, can not--nor should not--be taken literally today.

Jason, i respectfully suggest it IS NOT "the status quo" that cannot be challenged; they are simply the lump in the Bell-curve. IT IS THE HIEARCHIAL TOP-DOWN LEADERSHIP MODEL that CANNOT be CHALENGED!!!!!!! This is DICTATORSHIP in its extreme!!!!!

Seems hard for most LDS to see their church as simply 1 of 1,000 in which THEY feel comfortable. That it bears the name "Jesus Christ..." is little more than a marketing ploy.

I mostly respect what you say but the marketing ploy remark is out of line. The LDS Church believe it is Jesus's church as much as any other that claims to be His. One may disagree but still some brain trust did not wake up one day and say "hey, it would really help us to add Jesus to the name of the Church."

RM: That may seem "out-of-line". I think though, that name evolved, if i recall correctly. Maybe some other better informed readers will help here--please? I recall more than a little LDS scoffing "The Church Of God" in various classes... I find the LDS to "believe it is Jesus' church" MORE than "any other..."

Works for some, and not for others. T'ain't all good, or bad...just that it's not what it professes to be... Warm regards Roger

There is not much I have found in live that is really all it professes to be. Not organizatoins and not people either.

Likely so... However, generally speaking, one expects a higher quality product comes with constant R&D, and consequent product improvement. For which they are willing to pay. This happens in a Bottom-up model whether political, social, techno or spiritual. As Loran is wont to say about the evils of the "Left" so do most thinking folks decry the evils of "Dictatorships".

Yet, here in THE Democracy of all Democracies there are folks prone to submit willing--not freely, for it is at considerable cost--to obedience of authority. An officiousness with so little respect of their individual members that screens and hurdles are constructed to disallow personal, intimate contact, even by mail, with representatives of "God".

For many years i was in complete ignorance of the 'electoral' system of most other churches. LDSism Admin was touted as "God's" way. Looked at with askance on many occasions, in local Ward and Stake fumbles and calls by 'Desparation'. The ugliness, prejudices and demeaningness, over all of the system, was slow to be seen as counter to Spiritual spontaneity that fosters confidence love and goodwill...

Will faith in a Prophet Seer and Revelator continue as accepted today? Or, will a PSR in the future change the structure to be less nepotistic and dictitorial to allow personal initiative and aspirations to seed upward mobility without being called by "Authority"?

Let "God" do the calling in the "heart" of the individual! Warm regards, Roger

[_Coggins7]

Loran, I am curious about your referring to Liz as a "cultural Mormon". What are your thoughts regarding this subject?

I DIDN'T REFER TO HER AS A CULTURAL Mormon. She seems to have taken something I said about cultural Mormons to have been related to her, personally, which it was not. I think she confused the context. But no matter, it will now become a fact that I called her a cultural Mormon and nothing I say now or in the future will ever change this perception. I don't know if she came close to admitting as much herself, she seemed to have been a little ticklish about it, but for what reason I don't know.

I did imply she was a "cafateria" Mormon, which I think she would agree with as a matter of general principle, but I didn't call her a "cultural" Mormon, which, for all practical purposes is a full blown apostate from the Gospel, at least at an intellectual level, which she, according to her own self descriptions, is not.

[_Yoda]

Loran, I am curious about your referring to Liz as a "cultural Mormon". What are your thoughts regarding this subject?

I DIDN'T REFER TO HER AS A CULTURAL Mormon. She seems to have taken something I said about cultural Mormons to have been related to her, personally, which it was not. I think she confused the context. But no matter, it will now become a fact that I called her a cultural Mormon and nothing I say now or in the future will ever change this perception. I don't know if she came close to admitting as much herself, she seemed to have been a little ticklish about it, but for what reason I don't know.

I did imply she was a "cafateria" Mormon, which I think she would agree with as a matter of general principle, but I didn't call her a "cultural" Mormon, which, for all practical purposes is a full blown apostate from the Gospel, at least at an intellectual level, which she, according to her own self descriptions, is not.

I appreciate you clarifiying this, Cog, and I accept the fact that I may have taken things personally that you did not imply. Thank you for taking the time to clarify your point.

Yes, I would agree with the "cafeteria" Mormon description. I think I have even referred to myself as such in other posts. However, unlike a "cultural" Mormon, I am not simply going through the motions for family's sake, which is why I took offense to being put in this category. (Now I know that you did not consciously mean to do this, and I appreciate you saying so.)

Maybe I should clarify why I have referred to myself as a "cafeteria" Mormon. Who knows? Maybe I am using the wrong term here?

I read the entire Book of Mormon from cover to cover in the 6th grade for the first time. My immediate family was inactive at the time. My grandparents would take me to Church when I called them. There was no pressure from them to do that. Later, my family became active again, but that's another story.

My point is, I gained my own testimony of the Book of Mormon at that point. I have read the Book of Mormon many times since (not as often as I probably should have)...And I have never lost that testimony of its' truthfulness.

I believe in the principles of the modern Church, and where we are NOW. I do have a problem with past history of the Church...polygamy, in particular. Plural Marriage is a doctrine I have a problem with, but my feelings on this topic really belong in another thread.

So yes, in some instances, I "pick and choose" what I consider to be good about the gospel, and what I consider to be dogma.

If that makes me a hypocrite in your eyes, so be it. Plutarch certainly considers me one.

What I try to be...whether I'm on the Internet, or in real life....is a good person. I try to be charitable toward others; I try to treat people with the respect I would like to be treated with.

I don't always succeed. I get hurt. Sometimes, I lash out, too. I'm not thick-skinned, which I know I probably need to be when posting on a Message Board like this one, but it just doesn't seem to be in my DNA. ;)

So...that's me.

[_Coggins7]

Although "cafateria" Mormons come in different shades and textures, the more moderate ones, such as yourself and Jason, I peceive as people who are in process of wroking through the painful process of shedding the the artifacts and constituents of their culture for Zion culture, but who are just at different phases in that process than I am. "Cultural Mormons", such as Brent Metcalf, Quinn, Anthony Hutchinson et al, are hostile to the church and much of its teaching in a both a deep and broad way, and are not at all the same creature. Many cafateria Mormons, however, like cafeteria Catholics, are picking and choosing less for reasons of principle than for reasons of personal self justification and leeway in personal lifestyle. I've met many of them and they used to be known as "Jack" Mormons.

I have no reason to think that of you, based on anything you've ever said here.

While my testimony of the Gospel precludes (or rather, obviates) me from second guessing the Lord's servants in our day, as you seem wont to do on some matters that are settled in my mind, I know the difference between the opinions of GAs and counsel that is inspired, and if I ever do have a serious problem with something (as I once did with polygamy), I understand the process through which I can resolve it (and I have used that process more than once).