How LDS funerals have morphed

[_Chap]

People who elect for an LDS funeral understand and are completely okay with this.

Yeah, of course. That's why we never hear any complaints from people on the internet about how the LDS funerals of their loved ones were conducted by those in charge.

If they weren't, they would go somewhere else for the funeral (funeral home, other church, etc.). Some would rather have a funeral other than an LDS one, and this happens sometimes.

Obviously you are right. I mean, no-one could ever have a problem about abandoning the church building where they or their dead loved one worshiped all their life to go elsewhere. And obviously once they had made the decision that this was their religious base and they they could not face the idea of a funeral anywhere else, let alone the pressure from family and neighbors, of course that would mean they'd be completely fine with whatever the bishop chose to do, especially if he didn't consult them about what they wanted, and they found the idea of approaching him to express their wishes just a little bit intimidating. Which no LDS bishop ever could be, of course.

So it's all fine. Any discontent is pure anti-mormon propaganda.

[_canpakes]

From the active LDS standpoint, there should be some testimony/teaching about doctrines like the resurrection, hereafter, etc.

I understand that this is 'a thing', but is it really necessary at that point? I can see that some folks might find it comforting to hear once again doctrines that they have already been exposed to and taught countless times before, but it otherwise feels like a somewhat tasteless or generic 'missionary opportunity' ill-placed on the heels of an individual's death. I accept that my opinion of this is colored by my not being TBM and that other folks may welcome this sort of thing.

I recently attended a service for a TBM who was a wonderful person. Many family members spoke and shared anecdotes from her life. It was pleasant, and humorous, and touching. Not once did anyone think to speak about doctrine that everyone was already thoroughly familiar with; the time was spent on memories far more personal and unique to the deceased and her family.

[_sock puppet]

I find it kind of subtly disturbing that you feel it is you who should be in charge here. You "have let" non-member family speak - how generous of you, the unrelated guy, to "let" non-Mormon family members speak at their own kinsman's funeral.

People who elect for an LDS funeral understand and are completely okay with this. If they weren't, they would go somewhere else for the funeral (funeral home, other church, etc.). Some would rather have a funeral other than an LDS one, and this happens sometimes.

Mormonism is a voluntary organization, whose leaders have zero power or authority over anybody save whatever the members voluntarily cede to them.

Exactly. And people choosing to cede this authority to a Mormon bishop will choose to have a Mormon funeral.

So I guess what disturbs me the most is that member families voluntarily give up control of their own family member's funeral to someone else. I guess they aren't kidding when they vow, in the temple, to give up themselves, their time, and talents to the church. They even give up their own funerals.

This bothers you because of where you are at. It doesn't bother those who have no problem with it.

Blixa:

Some bishops are decent human beings who understand what it means to mourn with those that mourn and some are arrogant jerks who think they "have control" over something that they should only function in an advisory capacity with.

Not to belabor the obvious, but those who choose to have a Mormon funeral give "control" to bishops, and thereby dictate that they have more than "an advisory capacity."

Thank God no one I care about will every have to listen to some suit on an ego trip try to dictate the terms of our mourning.

It sounds like you have nothing to worry about, and you won't have to have a Mormon funeral.

Does a bishop make sure that each member of the family wants a "Mormon funeral" before interjecting himself in this way?

[Guest]

Yeah, of course. That's why we never hear any complaints from people on the internet about how the LDS funerals of their loved ones were conducted by those in charge.

Oh, well. If there are complaints on the internet . . .

Obviously you are right. I mean, no-one could ever have a problem about abandoning the church building where they or their dead loved one worshiped all their life to go elsewhere.

Naturally, many Mormons would like to have a funeral at their church (or their loved one's church). Those who have a real problem with the bishop presiding over that funeral (with everything that the word "preside" entails) have to determine what is most important to them. Not allowing the bishop power/control/authority, or allowing it. For most people in most cases, how the bishop conducts the funeral is fine.

And obviously once they had made the decision that this was their religious base and they they could not face the idea of a funeral anywhere else, let alone the pressure from family and neighbors, of course that would mean they'd be completely fine with whatever the bishop chose to do, especially if he didn't consult them about what they wanted, and they found the idea of approaching him to express their wishes just a little bit intimidating. Which no LDS bishop ever could be, of course.

Could there possibly be unbelieving/critical/apostate extended family who would rather the bishop have nothing to do with the funeral? Of course. Almost always, the closest family working with the bishop on the program and the details (spouse/parent/child) is fully active and fully accepting of "how it works." Almost never does the *closest* kin feel this way, or they wouldn't elect for an LDS funeral service.

[_moinmoin]

I understand that this is 'a thing', but is it really necessary at that point? I can see that some folks might find it comforting to hear once again doctrines that they have already been exposed to and taught countless times before, but it otherwise feels like a somewhat tasteless or generic 'missionary opportunity' ill-placed on the heels of an individual's death. I accept that my opinion of this is colored by my not being TBM and that other folks may welcome this sort of thing.

I recently attended a service for a TBM who was a wonderful person. Many family members spoke and shared anecdotes from her life. It was pleasant, and humorous, and touching. Not once did anyone think to speak about doctrine that everyone was already thoroughly familiar with; the time was spent on memories far more personal and unique to the deceased and her family.

The vast majority of LDS funeral services are nice and well-received, even by non-members. I, too, have been to funerals I didn't like or would have done differently. One had a Book of Mormon given to each non-member and a talk by the missionaries. I agree that this is off-putting, and normal LDS would feel the same about this. I think some here are focusing on the worst-case outliers as if they represent the norm. They don't.

Bishops are fathers/grandfathers and members of extended family --- almost without exception involving some non-members, inactives, or apostates. They seek to have it be the best experience for especially those for whom the service and Mormonism in general might seem foreign. Most do a good job of having a good service that commemorates the deceased, helps people grieve and pay respects in a good way, and also testify of the unique LDS doctrines that are especially comforting.

[_Blixa]

Not to belabor the obvious, but those who choose to have a Mormon funeral give "control" to bishops, and thereby dictate that they have more than "an advisory capacity."

It did not used to be this way.

[_moinmoin]

Does a bishop make sure that each member of the family wants a "Mormon funeral" before interjecting himself in this way?

Of course not. The funeral is arranged with the next of kin. For example, my funeral last week involved an octogenerian high priesth. His widow and their children (three kids) all had direct input (they were the ones who didn't want to speak, and wanted ward members to do all the prayers, talks, and music), but we didn't ask if there were perhaps siblings or grandchildren who would object to the service, and whose blessing we needed to seek.

Are you suggesting that no funeral should be arranged unless all extended family have an opportunity to veto it?

[_I have a question]

I understand that this is 'a thing', but is it really necessary at that point? I can see that some folks might find it comforting to hear once again doctrines that they have already been exposed to and taught countless times before, but it otherwise feels like a somewhat tasteless or generic 'missionary opportunity' ill-placed on the heels of an individual's death. I accept that my opinion of this is colored by my not being TBM and that other folks may welcome this sort of thing.

I recently attended a service for a TBM who was a wonderful person. Many family members spoke and shared anecdotes from her life. It was pleasant, and humorous, and touching. Not once did anyone think to speak about doctrine that everyone was already thoroughly familiar with; the time was spent on memories far more personal and unique to the deceased and her family.

The vast majority of LDS funeral services are nice and well-received, even by non-members. I, too, have been to funerals I didn't like or would have done differently. One had a Book of Mormon given to each non-member and a talk by the missionaries. I agree that this is off-putting, and normal LDS would feel the same about this. I think some here are focusing on the worst-case outliers as if they represent the norm. They don't.

Bishops are fathers/grandfathers and members of extended family --- almost without exception involving some non-members, inactives, or apostates. They seek to have it be the best experience for especially those for whom the service and Mormonism in general might seem foreign. Most do a good job of having a good service that commemorates the deceased, helps people grieve and pay respects in a good way, and also testify of the unique LDS doctrines that are especially comforting.

I agree, mostly. Mormon funerals tend to be conducted and participated in by people who really knew the deceased, rather than a remote Priest or Pastor. But I do find the proselytizing a little out of place if it is too blatantly done.

[_moinmoin]

]

It did not used to be this way.

That's very possible, but it has been since I can remember (I'm 40).

I'm not sure that the LDS funerals were all that much different in the hypothetical pre-bishop control days.

[_moinmoin]

I agree, mostly. Mormon funerals tend to be conducted and participated in by people who really knew the deceased, rather than a remote Priest or Pastor. But I do find the proselytizing a little out of place if it is too blatantly done.

I do, too. Cf. my anecdote about the Book of Mormons with the missionaries above. That was awful.