DiscussMormonism.com

In my lifetime, I've witnessed a change in LDS funerals in my locale.

It used to be that close friends of the decedent would be the speakers, with the closest family members involved being nieces and nephews. Sure, closer family members would handle the family prayer upon the closing of the casket and then dedicating the grave.

Over the last 40 years it seems to have transitioned into the obituary/life sketch being given by a daughter and sons speaking. As compared to when it was handled by friends or nieces/nephews, by the children of the decedent seems to give it a tinge of boasting about dead mom or dad.

Also, it seems that the LDS crowds seem to giggle or laugh at just about anything. Sometimes surprising the speaker, who did not think what was just said was humorous. This hair trigger to laugh seems most obvious in those LDS in their 40s, 50s or 60s.

Also, if there are apostate or inactive children of the LDS decedent, it seems that participation in the funeral is limited just to those that are active, even if the decedent was less than active. I've sometimes asked the inactive or apostate children following funerals I've attended why they did not want to take part. Usually I am told that they weren't asked, or if they volunteered, the active children planning the funeral would reply with a question, 'you wouldn't feel comfortable giving a talk in church would you?' and no more is said in the planning phase. Rarely am I told that the omitted child did not want to participate and turned down an invitation from the active siblings, but sometimes.

So it seems that funerals are another family divisive issue for LDS that so touts that it is pro-family.

The wife and I recently bought an insurance thing where we picked out the coffins and all that. We have owned a plot of 8 for us and our three married kids if they want them.

My instructions to the mortuary in this package. Viewing, grave side only and don't put me in the baker hat outfit.

I think your experience is anecdotal, sockpuppet. It really depends on the bishop, who has control over the funeral service. I'm currently a bishop for the second time right now, and my experience is that bishops sit down with family and do everything they can to meet the family's wishes (within reason). I've nixed 30 songs/no speakers, but I have let non-member family speak.

Just last week, we had an odd funeral; odd in that the family (active LDS) didn't want to speak at all at the funeral. They wanted it to be all ward members. We did have a grandson do the eulogy/obituary, but that was it as far as family involvement. I've never experienced that before.

I think that most bishops would be fine with inactive/non-member/apostate children speaking at funerals if they were confident that there wouldn't be any attempts to detract from an "LDS funeral."

RockSlider wrote:The wife and I recently bought an insurance thing where we picked out the coffins and all that. We have owned a plot of 8 for us and our three married kids if they want them.

My instructions to the mortuary in this package. Viewing, grave side only and don't put me in the baker hat outfit.

I have donated my body to a medial school. They will cremate anything that they don't use. I really don't want to be pumped full of 20 pounds of formaldehyde and have cotton balls stuffed up my ass and then buried in a box in a toxic waste dump called a cemetery with a piece of stone placed on top. Likewise I don't want to be put in an urn and have everyone worry about "what do I do with hubby, or dad, or grandpa". I would rather it was flushed down a sewer than have all that happen.

moinmoin wrote:I think your experience is anecdotal, sockpuppet. It really depends on the bishop, who has control over the funeral service. I'm currently a bishop for the second time right now, and my experience is that bishops sit down with family and do everything they can to meet the family's wishes (within reason). I've nixed 30 songs/no speakers, but I have let non-member family speak.

Just last week, we had an odd funeral; odd in that the family (active LDS) didn't want to speak at all at the funeral. They wanted it to be all ward members. We did have a grandson do the eulogy/obituary, but that was it as far as family involvement. I've never experienced that before.

I think that most bishops would be fine with inactive/non-member/apostate children speaking at funerals if they were confident that there wouldn't be any attempts to detract from an "LDS funeral."

In the situations that I've asked, it hasn't been the bishop, but the active siblings that block (subtly) the inactive/apostate siblings from participating.

By the way, what songs have you nixed?

Well, I haven't had any issues with family ostracism in my direct experience.

It wasn't a matter of which songs, but how many. In this case, they wanted nothing but music, with no speakers. As nice as music is, there has to be some balance. I think, at minimum, there should be some eulogizing/sharing of stories about the deceased. From the active LDS standpoint, there should be some testimony/teaching about doctrines like the resurrection, hereafter, etc. I think a funeral of only music would also be odd to outsiders/non-members (as well as members).

moinmoin wrote:I think your experience is anecdotal, sockpuppet. It really depends on the bishop, who has control over the funeral service. I'm currently a bishop for the second time right now, and my experience is that bishops sit down with family and do everything they can to meet the family's wishes (within reason). I've nixed 30 songs/no speakers, but I have let non-member family speak.

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.

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

No baker's hat for me either. I want to be buried in my Army service uniform. It means far more to me than Joseph's silly Masonic costume cum uniform of the priesthood.

Funerals are often seen as a missionary opportunity. At my dad's funeral, the bishop did the ole 'testimony glove' thing. He did his best to try to educate those in attendance to be interested in the Mormon belief of the afterlife - meanwhile my dad hadn't been to church in decades.

Dan

Sethbag wrote:

moinmoin wrote:I think your experience is anecdotal, sockpuppet. It really depends on the bishop, who has control over the funeral service. I'm currently a bishop for the second time right now, and my experience is that bishops sit down with family and do everything they can to meet the family's wishes (within reason). I've nixed 30 songs/no speakers, but I have let non-member family speak.

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.

Subtly disturbing, Sethbag? VERY DISTURBING in my opinion.

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.

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.

Sethbag wrote: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.