Are There LDS Cemeteries?
David / Amicus
wondering do the LDS ever have their own just for their own departed?
Does the LDS church have a position on cremation?
Jeff
I know cemeteries with "Catholic-sounding" names, but I think they will
bury even Protestants if they pay for the plot of land. Hindus are
cremated I believe and Muslims would never get buried in a Catholic
cemetary.
You do raise an interesting question since it is unclear if Latter-day
Saints have their own cemeteries (which I have never seen) or whether
they just bury their dead in cemeteries with generic-sounding
(non-religious affiliation) names.
I also wonder if a non-member or an excommunicated member can get
buried in the same cemetery as a member in good standing.
Jeff
John S. Colton
>Some religious groups (like we Catholics) have their own cemeteries. I'm
>wondering do the LDS ever have their own just for their own departed?
I think only historical ones, like from the Pioneers. Not active
ones, AFAIK.
>Does the LDS church have a position on cremation?
The basic position is that cremation is acceptable, but not
encouraged. Therefore if you're in a part of the world where cremation
is required by law, it's just fine. But if you're in someplace like
the US, burial is a better option.
John, trying to work in a joke here but failing miserably
*****
John's newsgroup motto:
"A soft answer turneth away wrath:
but grievous words stir up anger." --Prov. 15:1
*****
John Taber
John S. Colton wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:20:21 -0000, David / Amicus wrote:
>
> >Some religious groups (like we Catholics) have their own cemeteries. I'm
> >wondering do the LDS ever have their own just for their own departed?
>
> I think only historical ones, like from the Pioneers. Not active
> ones, AFAIK.
Brigham Young decided that cemeteries in Utah would be owned and
maintained by the town, as opposed to the ward or stake. To me, that
made more sense, as it made for a more inclusive place.
Peggy Tatyana
> David / Amicus wrote:
> > Some religious groups (like we Catholics) have their own cemeteries.
I'm
> > wondering do the LDS ever have their own just for their own
departed?
No. Unlike Catholics, LDS do not have a concept of "consecrated ground"
in which only faithful members of a church can be buried. Latter-day
Saints do have a tradition of "dedicating" graves (I think that's the
usual term) as resting places for bodies until the resurrection, but
this is done over the grave each a time person is buried, not on the
cemetery as a whole.
> > Does the LDS church have a position on cremation?
As John C. points out, it's fairly neutral. Used to be that atheists and
freethinkers of various sorts made it a point to be cremated, to
demonstrate that they had no expectation of a physical resurrection. I
think this is probably the main reason that there is a prejudice against
cremation among a lot of Christians.
> I know cemeteries with "Catholic-sounding" names, but I think they
will
> bury even Protestants if they pay for the plot of land. Hindus are
> cremated I believe and Muslims would never get buried in a Catholic
> cemetary.
Well, maybe. And some of that might depend on local mores. I do know it
used to be that suicides could not be buried in a consecrated burial
ground. In fact, they were often buried at the crossroads -- the
explanation being that the unquiet ghost of the person would get up out
of his (or her) grave, and not be able to decide which road to take, and
so would be stranded there unless some unfortunate person came along who
the ghost could follow.
> You do raise an interesting question since it is unclear if Latter-day
> Saints have their own cemeteries (which I have never seen) or whether
> they just bury their dead in cemeteries with generic-sounding
> (non-religious affiliation) names.
As John T. points out, LDS are generally buried in community cemeteries,
and don't create religiously dedicated ones.
> I also wonder if a non-member or an excommunicated member can get
> buried in the same cemetery as a member in good standing.
Certainly, for reasons described above.
Peggy
--
Many wise words are spoken in jest; but they don't compare with the
number of stupid words spoken in earnest. --- Sam Levenson
Gene Fuller
"David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:11g3mg5...@news.supernews.com...
> Some religious groups (like we Catholics) have their own cemeteries. I'm
> wondering do the LDS ever have their own just for their own departed?
>
> Does the LDS church have a position on cremation?
Why would LDS have our own cemeteries? I am quite sure that there are
cemeteries, and have been in the past, in which at least the majority of
those interred have been (during life) members of The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints. This is easily to be expected if all those living in
the area at the time were members. I have no reason to assume that the
Church as Church ever owned any cemeteries, since in previous centuries
families often buried their own near their homes.
Absolutely the members of the Church as well as its leadership has a
position on cremation. We hold unanimously that no body should be cremated
unless and until it is dead.
Colleen Kay Porter
colton.idisl...@uwlax.edu wrote on 8/16/05 10:14 AM:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:20:21 -0000, David / Amicus wrote:
>
>> Some religious groups (like we Catholics) have their own cemeteries. I'm
>> wondering do the LDS ever have their own just for their own departed?
>
> I think only historical ones, like from the Pioneers. Not active
> ones, AFAIK.
>
>> Does the LDS church have a position on cremation?
>
> The basic position is that cremation is acceptable, but not
> encouraged. Therefore if you're in a part of the world where cremation
> is required by law, it's just fine. But if you're in someplace like
> the US, burial is a better option.
Better? I can't figure out why.
I am MUCH more comfortable with the idea of being cremated than buried.
Being cremated is clean; being buried is gross. All those worms in and out,
and a skeleton left behind. Yuck.
The church does have guidelines for cremation, and of course we plan to
follow them: My ashes will be buried in the ground in an appropriate
receptacle, and my body will be burned in my burial clothing.
So I don't see the process as that much different from a full-body burial,
except that I am choosing to accelerate the inevitable decomposition
process.
Now, I can see objections to the not uncommon worldly practices of having
one's ashes scattered in the ocean or left on someone's mantelpiece, but
that is not the kind of cremation I am doing.
Colleen Kay Porter
Gene Fuller
"Jeff" <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11g3t5e...@news.supernews.com...
Snip
> I also wonder if a non-member or an excommunicated member can get
> buried in the same cemetery as a member in good standing.
What a strange question! You have said in the part that I snipped, that so
far as you know, Latter-day Saints are buried in cemeteries that are not
identified as LDS cemeteries, and in essence have said that LDS may be
buried (from a Church standpoint) in any available place, right? So not
having control of who can be buried in a cemetery where our members may be
buried, how would we keep a non member (never member or excommunicated) from
being buried there as well? Even more important is why we would even want
to. Are the rotting bodies of non members or excommunicated members likely
to pollute the rotting bodies of dead members in good standing?
I half way understand the question of David/Amicus, given his Roman Catholic
background, but Jeff ---?
Kay Archer
> The basic position is that cremation is acceptable, but not
> encouraged. Therefore if you're in a part of the world where cremation
> is required by law, it's just fine. But if you're in someplace like
> the US, burial is a better option.
>
David Bowie
> John S. Colton:
<snip>
>> The basic position is that cremation is acceptable, but not
>> encouraged. Therefore if you're in a part of the world where
>> cremation is required by law, it's just fine. But if you're in
>> someplace like the US, burial is a better option.
> Better? I can't figure out why.
As i noted in another post, John was talking about the position in the
CHI. My opinion is that that's a cultural holdover, as others have said
in this thread.
<snip>
> Now, I can see objections to the not uncommon worldly practices of
> having one's ashes scattered in the ocean or left on someone's
> mantelpiece, but that is not the kind of cremation I am doing.
I like the idea of using one's ashes to create part of something.
There's a company out there that takes crematorium ashes and uses them
as part of a cement mixture to create artificial reef balls--rather a
cool use of materials that would otherwise be sealed off from nature and
not doing much, whether buried in an urn or a coffin.
David, just throwing out another option
--
David Bowie http://pmpkn.net/lx
Jeanne's Two Laws of Chocolate: If there is no chocolate in the
house, there is too little; some must be purchased. If there is
chocolate in the house, there is too much; it must be consumed.
John S. Colton
Hey, I was just stating church policy, not explaining the whys and
wherefores.
To quote the CHI, "Normally, cremation is not encouraged. However, in
some countries the law requires it. The family of the deceased must
decide whether to cremate the body, taking into account any laws
governing burial or cremation."
The "not encouraged" is why I said that from the church's point of
view, burial is "a better option".
As to why this is the case, I've heard some members talk about
"respect for the body of the deceased", and about "wanting to be
physically close to loved ones on resurrection morning", but I don't
know if the church has explained it officially. I suspect most of it
is simply US culture.
John, not having strong theological opinions on this topic
John S. Colton
[snip]
>Absolutely the members of the Church as well as its leadership has a
>position on cremation. We hold unanimously that no body should be cremated
>unless and until it is dead.
Thanks Gene! Not enough lightness recently.
John, still hoping Dave B puts together another Lightness Challenge
soon
David Bowie
>John Colton wrote:
John was talking about "the basic position". If you read the policy in
the CHI, cremation is permitted but not encouraged, and corporeal burial
is treated as the default (and therefore the encouraged option).
David, who doesn't think we'll be resurrected zombie-looking creatures
Paula
wrote:
>Kay Archer wrote:
> >John Colton wrote:
>
>>>The basic position is that cremation is acceptable, but not
>>>encouraged. Therefore if you're in a part of the world where cremation
>>>is required by law, it's just fine. But if you're in someplace like
>>>the US, burial is a better option.
>
>> Better? Why? Please keep your replys on topic for the group, please.
>
>John was talking about "the basic position". If you read the policy in
>the CHI, cremation is permitted but not encouraged, and corporeal burial
>is treated as the default (and therefore the encouraged option).
I wonder when this was put in the CHI. When my older sister was still
born at term, my mom's bishop advised her to have the body cremated.
I gather this was because of the thinking back then on just putting
bad experiences behind you as it was advised not to have a burial site
either and just to try to get pregnant again as soon as possible. She
followed his counsel and then was really hurt by the things people in
the ward told her, out of concern, about what would happen because she
had cremated the baby's body. Personally, even as a child I could not
understand how a God who could resurrect those who had been burned
accidentally in fires could not resurrect a body that had been
cremated. I also could not understand why God would hold it against
the baby or my parents for following the advice of their bishop, even
if he was wrong, or why ward members would say anything once the deed
was done. I mean, even if they are right, you can't unburn the body
so what point is there in saying anything other than hurting my mom?
FWIW, I am not saying the CHI said at the time to cremate stillborn
babies or not have burial sites. I think that was conventional wisdom
of sorts being passed along by the Bishop as a man. I wonder about
the CHI at various points in time specifically because it interests me
in light of the freedom felt by the Bishop and the ward members to put
their own interpretations into the whole decision with the apparent
feeling that they were speaking in terms of doctrine instead of just
cultural or other preference.
--
Paula
"Anyway, other people are weird, but sometimes they have candy, so it's best to try to get along with them." Joe Bay
Paula
<ckp...@cox.net> wrote:
>Now, I can see objections to the not uncommon worldly practices of having
>one's ashes scattered in the ocean or left on someone's mantelpiece, but
>that is not the kind of cremation I am doing.
Cultural objections, personal objections or theological objections?
I'd like to hear more about this because I can't see any except for
personal, but I may well be missing something.
Paula
<colton.idisl...@uwlax.edu> wrote:
>As to why this is the case, I've heard some members talk about
>"respect for the body of the deceased", and about "wanting to be
>physically close to loved ones on resurrection morning", but I don't
>know if the church has explained it officially. I suspect most of it
>is simply US culture.
>
>John, not having strong theological opinions on this topic
Theological opinions aside, it was interesting to me that when my kids
found out that their father wishes to be cremated when he dies, they
didn't particularly care whether his body rotted or burned, they just
wanted to be sure there was a gravesite where they could visit him.
When I questioned them further about the whys, they do absolutely
believe that the Spirit is not there, but it still was really
important to them to have a place to visit the body. They didn't like
the idea of scattered ashes sites or urns in the house to visit. They
don't have the cultural fear of cemeteries of ages past, either. I
think they are products of their culture just as I think the CHI
policy is.
Peggy Tatyana
> John S. Colton:
> > The basic position is that cremation is acceptable, but not
> > encouraged. Therefore if you're in a part of the world where
cremation
> > is required by law, it's just fine. But if you're in someplace like
> > the US, burial is a better option.
> Better? I can't figure out why.
Better for people involved in the funerary buisness, maybe! Ever read
_The American Way of Death_? It's fascinating, and surprisingly funny.
> I am MUCH more comfortable with the idea of being cremated than
buried.
> Being cremated is clean; being buried is gross. All those worms in
and out,
> and a skeleton left behind. Yuck.
Me, I don't mind the worms. What I hate most is the idea of being sealed
in a metal box and dissolving into slime with no one to benefit but a
bunch of anaerobic bacteria. Yuck! I'd like the elements that
constituted my body to return to circulation. Worms are fine, trees are
fine. Actually my husband wants to be poured into a hole and have a tree
planted on top. I wonder if there are any cemeteries where they'd do
that for you? Seems like doing it in our back yard would be a little
inconsiderate of future owners...
> The church does have guidelines for cremation, and of course we plan
to
> follow them: My ashes will be buried in the ground in an appropriate
> receptacle, and my body will be burned in my burial clothing.
Well, I'm one of those who assumes that the church's guidlines are
mainly the product of cultural norms, rather than prophetic revelation.
But it's nice to have guidelins for people who (unlike Colleen) don't
have these things all thought out ahead of time. I'm a bit envious of
your organizaation, Colleen!
> So I don't see the process as that much different from a full-body
burial,
> except that I am choosing to accelerate the inevitable decomposition
> process.
>
> Now, I can see objections to the not uncommon worldly practices of
having
> one's ashes scattered in the ocean or left on someone's mantelpiece,
but
> that is not the kind of cremation I am doing.
I guess scattering the ashes wouldn't leave people anywhere to be
resurrected _from_, which might be a bit of a doctrinal problem -- but
I'm sure God would manage somehow. After all, their bodily elements
would be no more dispersed than someone who was buried a five hundred
years ago in a simple wooden coffin.
student
"Gene Fuller" <gfuller1...@earthlink.net> wrote in message ?
>
> Why would LDS have our own cemeteries? I am quite sure that there are
> cemeteries, and have been in the past, in which at least the majority of
> those interred have been (during life) members of The Church of Jesus
Christ
> of Latter-day Saints. This is easily to be expected if all those living in
> the area at the time were members.
I quite agree. Also, if the church had their own cemeteries how would it
work out worldwide? I mean, you might start with a cemetery in Utah and then
every LDS member in the world wants to be buried there??? And what if
overseas or out-of-State LDS couldn't be buried there because space wouldn't
allow it, or legalities wouldn't allow it, or family finances wouldn't allow
it?- well then the cemetery becomes a sad example of elitism.
I am reminded of why the church exists- to bring people to Christ. These
temporal things can be a real headache.
David / Amicus
funerals but I have forgotten where the services were held.
Generally where are LDS funerals held - in the mortuary chapel or the
ward / stake building?
You know the sign in book where mourners sign in? I remember there was a
special LDS edition one. There was a Catholic one, general Christian,
LDS and a generic one.
Colleen Kay Porter
colton.idisl...@uwlax.edu wrote on 8/17/05 10:18 AM:
> To quote the CHI, "Normally, cremation is not encouraged. However, in
> some countries the law requires it. The family of the deceased must
> decide whether to cremate the body, taking into account any laws
> governing burial or cremation."
John, if you have a CHI, does it say whether or not an LDS bishop can
preside at a funeral for a cremation in which the ashes are scattered? I
remember some bulletin or such that said something along the lines of, "A
funeral can be held only if the ashes are buried or placed in a mausoleum."
Of course, that policy may have changed, or been local.
> The "not encouraged" is why I said that from the church's point of
> view, burial is "a better option".
I'm not so sure that "not encouraged" is the opposite of "better."
> As to why this is the case, I've heard some members talk about
> "respect for the body of the deceased", and about "wanting to be
> physically close to loved ones on resurrection morning", but I don't
> know if the church has explained it officially. I suspect most of it
> is simply US culture.
I think there are some theological reasons. Some of the eastern religions
that practice cremation do so as a requirement to set the spirit free from
the dead carcass. We LDS, however, believe that the body is part of the
soul.
For the church to "encourage" cremation might be misinterpreted. Much like
the practice of eating meats offered to idols in Acts 15: 22, 29. The early
saints were "not encouraged" to eat such meat not because it was sinful per
se, but to avoid confusion about whether they practiced idolatry.
CKP
Colleen Kay Porter
mmmtob...@earthlink.ent wrote on 8/17/05 1:46 PM:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:03:02 -0000, Colleen Kay Porter
> <ckp...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Now, I can see objections to the not uncommon worldly practices of having
>> one's ashes scattered in the ocean or left on someone's mantelpiece, but
>> that is not the kind of cremation I am doing.
>
> Cultural objections, personal objections or theological objections?
> I'd like to hear more about this because I can't see any except for
> personal, but I may well be missing something.
It is true that, theologically speaking, the Lord is not going to have
problem putting us back together. After all, the CoJCoLDS does not oppose
organ donation (although the first edition of Mormon Doctrine did oppose
organ donation, but oh, well).
It a mostly cultural/personal thing. To lots of people, putting ashes on
the living room mantel would trivialize it, by turning it into an everyday
object rather than a sacred and special thing. Graveyards are, like
temples, places set apart for a special purpose.
Colleen, who was glad to have visited Jim Morrison's gravesite in Paris a
year before they kicked him out.
hlil...@juno.com
Peggy Tatyana wrote:
> Me, I don't mind the worms. What I hate most is the idea of being sealed
> in a metal box and dissolving into slime with no one to benefit but a
> bunch of anaerobic bacteria. Yuck! I'd like the elements that
> constituted my body to return to circulation.
...
IIRC, at a regional meeting a GA mentioned the reason for opposing
cremation was the belief that our of respect for the body, Nature
should be allowed to dispose of the body without human interference.
And since Gene has already introduced macabre humor, I'll tell the
story of how I helped carry two "bodies" up Oregon's Mount Jefferson.
(The squeamish may want to skip this.) This was an official club climb
and it turned out we were given a special assignment. An old-time
climber had requested that after his death he be cremated and his ashes
be scattered from the summit of that mountain. One of his
grandchildren and also passed away so the family decided to send the
child along with Grandpa. We took turns carrying the ashes up (they
didn't weigh much). (Unfortunately conditions were such that we turned
back at what is known as the Red Saddle, 500 feet short of the summit.
I hope the departed wasn't too disappointed.)
Anyway, I have two photographs of the ashes being scattered. The first
shows the climb leader holding the sack up about head level and dumping
them out, about how you would expect him to do it. In the second photo
he is holding the sack down about waist level and turning his head
away. The second photo was taken after he found out what the wind was
doing with the ashes and decided he really didn't want to eat or breath
them.
Gene Fuller
location, burial was better than cremation. I thought he was still talking
about what he thought the position of the Church (leadership) might be. That
is, it was John's assessment that the Church (leaders) might recommend
burial rather than cremation where the custom was for burial.
Now I guess we could ask those leaders if that is true and if true why, but
I would almost be willing to bet all the money I will earn next week (I am
not currently employed for money) that the reply would be, "Well, that is
the way my family and ancestors always followed. "
"Colleen Kay Porter" <ckp...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:11g69rm...@news.supernews.com...
> in article 11g3t6h...@news.supernews.com, John S. Colton at
> colton.idisl...@uwlax.edu wrote on 8/16/05 10:14 AM:
Snip
>> The basic position is that cremation is acceptable, but not
>> encouraged. Therefore if you're in a part of the world where cremation
>> is required by law, it's just fine. But if you're in someplace like
>> the US, burial is a better option.
>
> Better? I can't figure out why.
>
> I am MUCH more comfortable with the idea of being cremated than buried.
> Being cremated is clean; being buried is gross. All those worms in and
> out,
> and a skeleton left behind. Yuck.
Well, I kind of like my skeleton. It has served me faithfully for over 75
1/2 years! Why would I want to burn it up? Besides, it will not burn up
anyway. I have not really ever seen any cremains, but I would imagine unless
they are run through some sort of grinder or sifter or both, there would be
some coarse particles.
As for worms, well they have to live too, you know. I suppose you think that
there are no spirits tht merited getting bodies, but only the bodies of
worms. <G> But I had a husband of a relative who had a lake on his property
of which he was very fond, and he had his cremains scattered on that lake. I
think if I were to be cremated that I would have my cremains scattered on
some land that my great Grandfather bought in 1872. I currently have title
to 36 acres of it, the last bit that is still owned by any descendant of
his. Maybe I would like to do that to establish some sort of permanent
relationship between that land and the family.
Actually, I think I don't care very much what happens to this body once my
spirit has left it. I am sure that anything essential about it can be called
back from wherever it may be or in whatever condition. I would have thought
years ago that I wanted to be buried in the same little cemetery north of
Palestine as contained some of my ancestors, or maybe one of two or three
others that I knew of that contained the remains of other of my ancestors.
But there descendants as well as my own are getting pretty well scattered
all over the country. So I think maybe that I would as soon be buried at
minimal expence in a military cemetery, which privilege I think is mine.
> The church does have guidelines for cremation, and of course we plan to
> follow them: My ashes will be buried in the ground in an appropriate
> receptacle, and my body will be burned in my burial clothing.
I have already indicated that I don't much care where my body is placed, and
that goes even more for my cremains if that is done. As for clothing, if my
body is buried more or less intact, then I suppose custom says it must be
clothed, and since I am an endowed member of the Church, I would prefer to
be buried in my Temple clothing, of course. But that seems to me to be
important only for the viewing/visitation. If I were to be cremated, I see
no reason that a perfectly good set of Temple clothing, or any other kind,
should be burned along with me. Just like it is not necessary to purchase a
beautiful box to be burned in.
> So I don't see the process as that much different from a full-body burial,
> except that I am choosing to accelerate the inevitable decomposition
> process.
Actually, I agree. But I would not choose to be cremated merely to
accelerate aything nor to decelerate anything. I assume you didn't mean to
imply that was your purpose.
> Now, I can see objections to the not uncommon worldly practices of having
> one's ashes scattered in the ocean or left on someone's mantelpiece, but
> that is not the kind of cremation I am doing.
And I don't happen to see any objections to either, although I find being on
a mantelpiece a bit close to ancestor worship or idolatry. But by the same
token, what about the big tombstones we find in some cemeteries? I like
modest markers that identify the person buried there, with name and dates,
but ornate monuments for show are too much. I like the cemeteries that have
all the monuments flush with the ground, too. Very much.
Gene Fuller
"John S. Colton" <colton.idisl...@uwlax.edu> wrote in message
news:11g6hpp...@news.supernews.com...
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:59:45 -0000, Gene Fuller wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>Absolutely the members of the Church as well as its leadership has a
>>position on cremation. We hold unanimously that no body should be cremated
>>unless and until it is dead.
>
> Thanks Gene! Not enough lightness recently.
Lightness? John, I assure you I was dead serious. I meant sincerely every
word that you quoted me as saying!
Gene
Gene Fuller
"Peggy Tatyana" <proger...@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:11g7e1l...@news.supernews.com...
Snip
> Me, I don't mind the worms. What I hate most is the idea of being sealed
> in a metal box and dissolving into slime with no one to benefit but a
> bunch of anaerobic bacteria. Yuck! I'd like the elements that
> constituted my body to return to circulation. Worms are fine, trees are
> fine. Actually my husband wants to be poured into a hole and have a tree
> planted on top. I wonder if there are any cemeteries where they'd do
> that for you? Seems like doing it in our back yard would be a little
> inconsiderate of future owners...
You have put your finger on the reason that when I picked out the casket for
my mother a few weeks ago, I said I did not want any hermetically sealed
container. As to being put into a hole to nourish a tree, that sounds all
right to me. And as far as doing it in your own yard, that sounds all right
as well, provided that you don't somehow put a restrictive covenant into the
deed some way that would prevent them from cutting down the tree if they did
not like it.
Snip
> I guess scattering the ashes wouldn't leave people anywhere to be
> resurrected _from_, which might be a bit of a doctrinal problem -- but
> I'm sure God would manage somehow. After all, their bodily elements
> would be no more dispersed than someone who was buried a five hundred
> years ago in a simple wooden coffin.
Or buried at sea and eaten by sea creatures of all kinds and sized, and
scattered all over the seven seas by now.
Gene Fuller
"student" <home...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11g7imo...@news.supernews.com...
Snip
> I am reminded of why the church exists- to bring people to Christ. These
> temporal things can be a real headache.
It is good to be reminded of this, even on this news group, from time to
time! <G>
Gene Fuller
> Back in the 70s I worked at a mortuary. I know we had a couple of LDS
> funerals but I have forgotten where the services were held.
>
> Generally where are LDS funerals held - in the mortuary chapel or the
> ward / stake building?
Yes. And I really mean, "Yes" as in "All the above". I am not sure how many
may still be held at home or elsewhere than has been named, but I would be
surprised if it does not apply to some.
> You know the sign in book where mourners sign in? I remember there was a
> special LDS edition one. There was a Catholic one, general Christian,
> LDS and a generic one.
Hmmm. I think that has not made it to our part of the mission field yet.
Gene Fuller
"Colleen Kay Porter" <ckp...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:11g7ugp...@news.supernews.com...
> in article 11g6tv5...@news.supernews.com, Paula at
> mmmtob...@earthlink.ent wrote on 8/17/05 1:46 PM:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:03:02 -0000, Colleen Kay Porter
>> <ckp...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Now, I can see objections to the not uncommon worldly practices of
>>> having
>>> one's ashes scattered in the ocean or left on someone's mantelpiece, but
>>> that is not the kind of cremation I am doing.
>>
>> Cultural objections, personal objections or theological objections?
>> I'd like to hear more about this because I can't see any except for
>> personal, but I may well be missing something.
So maybe the objections are personal. They are still objections are they
not? So the paragraph stands as true.
Gene Fuller
<hlil...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:11g7uia...@news.supernews.com...
Snip
> And since Gene has already introduced macabre humor, I'll tell the
> story of how I helped carry two "bodies" up Oregon's Mount Jefferson.
Hal, don't blame me for tempting you. Our Father will not suffer any to be
tempted beyond that which he can bear!<G>
Snip
Gene
Paula
wrote:
>Generally where are LDS funerals held - in the mortuary chapel or the
>ward / stake building?
Most of the LDS services I have been to have been at the ward/stake
building, but I don't think it is a requirement. If I am recalling my
childhood correctly, there was at least one I attended that was at the
mortuary chapel.
Gene Fuller
"Colleen Kay Porter" <ckp...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:11g7ugp...@news.supernews.com...
Snip
> It is true that, theologically speaking, the Lord is not going to have
> problem putting us back together. After all, the CoJCoLDS does not oppose
> organ donation (although the first edition of Mormon Doctrine did oppose
> organ donation, but oh, well).
The first edition of the book "Mormon Doctrine" was not written by the
CoJCoLDS. It was written by an individual who happened to be a member of the
Church, but not by the Church. Unfortunately he forgot to put the words "My
Understanding of " preceding the title. <G>
> It a mostly cultural/personal thing. To lots of people, putting ashes on
> the living room mantel would trivialize it, by turning it into an everyday
> object rather than a sacred and special thing. Graveyards are, like
> temples, places set apart for a special purpose.
Let's see, the pornoun "it" really seems to refer to the noun "mantel" which
is the closest noun preceding "it". So are you saying putting ashes on the
living room mantel would trivialize that mantel?
As someone else has said, we do not ordinarily consecrate or set apart grave
yards, do we? We may do that with graves, and I am not sure why we could not
do that with an urn provided to hold ashes.
Snip
The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson
Peggy Tatyana wrote:
>
> Me, I don't mind the worms. What I hate most is the idea of being sealed
> in a metal box and dissolving into slime with no one to benefit but a
> bunch of anaerobic bacteria.
With you there, completely. Personally, it's the mold that bothers
me. The thought of hanging around covered in fuzzy mold and clinging
mildew just is not all that comfortable. I think the modern American
method of dealing with the dead is just dead wrong. But, then,
nobody asked me.
> Seems like doing it in our back yard would be a little
> inconsiderate of future owners...
In suburbia, I suspect this might be a little rude. From an LdS
perspective, where we consider graves to be dedicated but not
consecrated or hallowed ground, I don't think it's a doctrinal
issue. And, really, unless you died of some horribly communicable
disease, I don't see a decent burial in your backyard as a public
health issue.
<snip>
> I guess scattering the ashes wouldn't leave people anywhere to be
> resurrected _from_, which might be a bit of a doctrinal problem -- but
> I'm sure God would manage somehow.
I actually heard a comment in church a few weeks ago from a member
who felt that cremation was wrong because you would have no stuff to
be resurrected _with_. I thought about explaining that he currently
owed at least 3 atoms of his own personal composition to Julius
Caesar, so if God had to pull back all the original atoms to build
the molecules that were going to be "me", that I would already be
several fries short of a happy meal, but I resisted.
Seriously, if we allow God to have the power to resurrect people who
have died in explosions or plane crashes, then I think we can allow
him the power to resurrect those whose body is not rather messily
preserved in some silly box in a box.
> After all, their bodily elements
> would be no more dispersed than someone who was buried a five hundred
> years ago in a simple wooden coffin.
Wrap me in a sheet, drop me in a hole some distance from the well
and I'll rest in peace. Save the wood for something more useful.
Craig
David Bowie
> "John S. Colton" <colton.idisl...@uwlax.edu> wrote...
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:59:45 -0000, Gene Fuller wrote:
>>> Absolutely the members of the Church as well as its leadership
>>> has a position on cremation. We hold unanimously that no body
>>> should be cremated unless and until it is dead.
>> Thanks Gene! Not enough lightness recently.
> Lightness? John, I assure you I was dead serious. I meant sincerely
> every word that you quoted me as saying!
I suppose that would be the final nail in the coffin that would qualify
it as lightness.
David, giving himself a <rim shot> when nobody else will
David Bowie
> Peggy Tatyana wrote:
>> Me, I don't mind the worms. What I hate most is the idea of being
>> sealed in a metal box and dissolving into slime with no one to
>> benefit but a bunch of anaerobic bacteria. Yuck! I'd like the
>> elements that constituted my body to return to circulation.
> IIRC, at a regional meeting a GA mentioned the reason for opposing
> cremation was the belief that our of respect for the body, Nature
> should be allowed to dispose of the body without human interference.
Which, of course, is why Mormons consider the holiest method of
disposing of mortal remains to pump the corpse full of heavy metals and
other toxins, seal it in a box made primarily of metals and plastics,
and then hermetically seal that box inside another box--it's *much* more
natural than burning it!
Or something like that.
<snip>
David, who knows Florida's (utterly weird) laws on the subject
Gene Fuller
usage. So local that only I do it. It is a private way to spell the word
others spell "pronoun".
So much for spell checkers! But as I have before remarked, every time I jab
at someone for a spelling error or a humorous construction, I make a worse
blunder in the same posting, often in the same sentence. <G>
Gene
"Gene Fuller" <gfuller1...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:11g9i1t...@news.supernews.com...
Snip
> Let's see, the pornoun "it" really seems to refer to the noun "mantel"
> which
> is the closest noun preceding "it". So are you saying putting ashes on
> the
> living room mantel would trivialize that mantel
Remainder snipped.
Paula
I was not questioning the veracity of her statement. I just wanted
some clarification. I have nothing against personal objections, but
if there were theological objections, for example, that she knew of
and I didn't, I would want to know more about that.
hlil...@juno.com
replies topical.]
The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson wrote:
> And, really, unless you died of some horribly communicable
> disease, I don't see a decent burial in your backyard as a public
> health issue.
Actually it is (though this is getting a bit off topic so I'm not sure
the moderators will allow my post).
Most pathogens have prefered hosts and many will continue to feed on
and multiply in that host after death. In fact one garderners' trick
is to kill some of the bugs they don't want, smash them up in water and
let it sit a couple of days, then spray the stuff on the plants. The
microbes that like that particular bug multiply and then infect the
bugs on the plants. Same with human bodies, the nasties that like us
can multiply after burial and if they escape they can present a hazard.
A good burial where the pathogens can't escape will prevent spreading
of infection, but a careless burial will pose a risk. While I am in
sympathy with those who want to feed a tree after death, anyone
contemplating such a burial should at least check with a knowledgeable
person such as a mortician or public health officer to see how to
prevent pathogen escape back to human inhabited environment. (And no,
I am not such an expert.)
Paula
Olson <craig...@olsonhome.com> wrote:
> And, really, unless you died of some horribly communicable
>disease, I don't see a decent burial in your backyard as a public
>health issue.
I think there are some states/municipalities that forbid it and others
that don't. I don't think I would want to be buried in the backyard
because I don't trust the dogs. I wouldn't care, being dead and all,
but it might freak other people out.
Peggy Tatyana
> (David / Amicus)
> wrote:
>
> >Generally where are LDS funerals held - in the mortuary chapel or the
> >ward / stake building?
> Most of the LDS services I have been to have been at the ward/stake
> building, but I don't think it is a requirement. If I am recalling my
> childhood correctly, there was at least one I attended that was at the
> mortuary chapel.
I think it sometimes depends of the size of the service. Large
gatherings are usually held at the meetinghouses, but very small ones
(as for the very old, who don't have many friends left, and few
descendants) might be more likely to be held at a mortuary. I believe
that there can even be simple graveside services, without any funeral at
all. The grave is still dedicated, but there's really no _need_ for an
actual funeral, except for the benefit of the survivors who think there
should be one.
Peggy Tatyana
> [Moderator's Note: This conversation is veering off topic. Please
keep
> replies topical.]
> The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson wrote:
> > And, really, unless you died of some horribly communicable
> > disease, I don't see a decent burial in your backyard as a public
> > health issue.
> Actually it is (though this is getting a bit off topic so I'm not sure
> the moderators will allow my post).
>
> Most pathogens have prefered hosts and many will continue to feed on
> and multiply in that host after death.
Well, when I mentioned pouring the remains into a hole in the backyard
and planting a tree, I was of course refering to ashes, not skin and
bones. There aren't any medical concerns about cremated remains, are
there, Hal? Otherwise people wouldn't be allowed to throw them into the
wind at the tops of mountains. But in case someone would want to visit
the grave, or sit under the tree and meditate, that's the sort of thing
that I would hesitate to impose on people who would own the house
afterward. Of course, after a few years that wouldn't matter much.
Peggy, thinking of trying to drag this back on topic, but deciding it's
not worth the effort.
Gene Fuller
> <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in message
Snip
> Peggy, thinking of trying to drag this back on topic, but deciding it's
> not worth the effort.
A cemetery is really nothing more nor less than a burial ground. I have 36
Acres in Crawford County, Illinois. If I should choose to be buried there,
either before or after having been cremated, then that would be my burial
place. If I were a "Mormon" that would be a Mormon Burying place" or "Mormon
Cemetery". In that sense I know there are Mormon Cemeteries in existence,
whether or not they are in current operation.
Thus we are back on topic.
No One of Consequence
> maintained by the town, as opposed to the ward or stake. To me, that
> made more sense, as it made for a more inclusive place.
>
>
Reference (s) please?
No One of Consequence
direction of the first presidency. After a few years, the church decided it
wasn't their place to be in the cemetery business. The apostle kept the
cemetery in his family for 3 generations.
A. what is the name of the cemetery?
B. who was the apostle?
"David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> I'm
> wondering do the LDS ever have their own just for their own departed?
>
> Does the LDS church have a position on cremation?
>
>
father of peace
>Brigham Young decided that cemeteries in Utah would be owned and
>maintained by the town, as opposed to the ward or stake. To me, that
>made more sense, as it made for a more inclusive place.
At that time the town and the church might as well have been
the same thing.
Love,
Absalom
--
What is your rank in the LDS church?
That you feel compelled to correct me
for what I have written. (Adapted from Curious Nancy)
John S. Colton
>in article 11g6hpa...@news.supernews.com, John S. Colton at
>colton.idisl...@uwlax.edu wrote on 8/17/05 10:18 AM:
>
>> To quote the CHI, "Normally, cremation is not encouraged. However, in
>> some countries the law requires it. The family of the deceased must
>> decide whether to cremate the body, taking into account any laws
>> governing burial or cremation."
>
>John, if you have a CHI, does it say whether or not an LDS bishop can
>preside at a funeral for a cremation in which the ashes are scattered? I
>remember some bulletin or such that said something along the lines of, "A
>funeral can be held only if the ashes are buried or placed in a mausoleum."
>Of course, that policy may have changed, or been local.
[snip]
Sorry, I haven't heard anything about such a policy. I'm pretty sure
the current CHI does not include such a provision, but as I said a few
weeks back in another thread, I haven't consistently seen the CHI
updates.
John
*****
John's newsgroup motto:
"A soft answer turneth away wrath:
but grievous words stir up anger." --Prov. 15:1
*****