- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Okay, that title was tongue-in-cheek. 
Hat hit to Sam Brunson at BCC for highlighting the following reference from Joseph Fielding Smith in the lesson for tomorrow in PH and RS regarding the resurrection. I enjoyed a chuckle, but I also liked his references to what might have caused Pres. Smith to choose sharks as one of his examples. I just like to understand the backgrounds of stories and quotes as well as possible.
Quote:Every fundamental part of every body will be restored to its proper place again in the resurrection, no matter what may become of the body in death. If it be burned by fire,
eaten by sharks, no matter what. Every fundamental part of it will be restored to its own proper place. I will add, however, that this is why I am puzzled by the inclusion of counsel in the CHI not to use cremation upon death if not mandated by law. I absolutely see that as a cultural bias that has absolutely no relevance to our doctrine or the Gospel.
Better hope you’re not a transplant recipient if the donor is resurrected before you die. 😆 😆 😆 😆 Priceless! That might be one of the funniest comments in the history of this site.
:thumbup: The wording in the Administering of the Church is “The Church does not normally encourage cremation. The family of the deceased must decide whether the body should be cremated, taking into account any laws governing burial or cremation. In some countries, the law requires cremation.” It seems less stringent than what I first believed the church’s policy was. I’m glad it is a family decision.
Thoreau, what about all those bits falling off us all the time? Do our skin flakes, loose hairs and nail clippings come back? What about our gut fauna and flora? Or the blood, mucus and saliva that’s leaked out of our body from time to time? I think this is the problem if we’re too literal. I have no problem with the bodily resurrection, but I see it as our idealized body… however when it says “every hair shall be restored”, I think it means one will have a full head of hair, not a monstrous impossible Afro.
ps Great title, Curtis.
Harmony wrote:The wording in the
Administering of the Church is “The Church does not normally encourage
cremation. The family of the deceased must decide whether the body
should be cremated, taking into account any laws governing burial or
cremation. In some countries, the law requires cremation.”
It seems less stringent than what I first believed the church’s policy
was. I’m glad it is a family decision.
Best reason not to be cremated – it’s not very green at all. Creates a lot of fumes and needs a lot of energy.
However there must be circumstances where cremation is compulsory eg an extreme plague situation.
I always assumed that the suggestion not to cremate unless it was a “last resort” existed because it is harder for god to resurrect someone if they had been cremated. :lolno: Harmony wrote:The wording in the Administering of the Church is “The Church does not normally encourage cremation. The family of the deceased must decide whether the body should be cremated, taking into account any laws governing burial or cremation. In some countries, the law requires cremation.”
It seems less stringent than what I first believed the church’s policy was. I’m glad it is a family decision.
I guess I find it odd that the church feels like they get a say in the matter at all, but that’s me. Seriously, why would they need to be encouraging people toward any decision regarding burial?
SamBee wrote:
Best reason not to be cremated – it’s not very green at all. Creates a lot of fumes and needs a lot of energy.However there must be circumstances where cremation is compulsory eg an extreme plague situation.
Another good reason: It’s just a nasty process.
My dad’s a mortician and the details he’s provided (sights, smells) are enough to make you hurl. He hates having to cremate a body. The family makes the decision then walks away. Guys like my dad are left behind to actually “make it so”.
Makes it impossible to do an autopsy if needed later too. I gather crematoria use scents to hide the revolting smell from the chimneys.
The problem here is that plots are so expensive and a lot of gravestones are knocked over by local government.
nibbler wrote:Harmony wrote:The wording in the Administering of the Church is “The Church does not normally encourage cremation. The family of the deceased must decide whether the body should be cremated, taking into account any laws governing burial or cremation. In some countries, the law requires cremation.”
It seems less stringent than what I first believed the church’s policy was. I’m glad it is a family decision.
I guess I find it odd that the church feels like they get a say in the matter at all, but that’s me. Seriously, why would they need to be encouraging people toward any decision regarding burial?
nibbler, I read the quote in the exact opposite way as you. I believe the statement quoted by Harmony says that it is the family’s choice. It says nothing about encouraging anything. It only says that the “Church does not normally encourage cremation”, which I take to be an extremely passive baseline in case a family comes to the Bishop asking advice.To me, the statement says not to get involved in the decision, except to make sure that the family takes into account local laws. I can’t imagine a Bishop who is aware of the above statement making an unsolicited call to the grieving family to let them know his opinion on the matter.
You said it seems odd that the Church would have any say. I don’t think the Church is trying to have a say, but simply putting it there for the inevitable question that will arise. You and I both know that in religious families it is likely that they will seek out advice from a Bishop, Priest, Pastor, Imam, Rabbi, Shaman, about procedures for the funeral. Honestly, I look at that statement and nod my head acknowledging that the Church is trying not to be the final say in every detail of life, for which I’m grateful.
Thanks for the quote. It’s a good example of how we (I, in this case) can remember something differently than it actually is. It’s ironic that I am the one in this case who made more of something than it actually was, since I’m constantly preaching the need to avoid doing that. There’s a good lesson in there for me.
There’s another reason: many ancient peoples of the Middle East practised cremation and the Hebrews wished to distinguish themselves from that along with child sacrifice and temple prostitutes. Myself I want a tower of silence or sky burial.
I see your point OON, I just tend to disagree. The chapter heading “21.3.2 Cremation” is immediatelyfollowed by “the church does not normally encourage [it].” I’m thinking about cremation, I’ll look it up. Oh, it’s not encouraged. Yes, it does explicit say it is the choice of the family but only after the suggestion that the church doesn’t encourage it. I don’t encourage you walk down that street at night… but hey, it’s your choice. I realize language is a subjective art, people are going to read their bias into things. That’s the bias I read into it. I guess it’s for the insane people like me that the church has an army of lawyers combing over everything for a decade before it can be released in the wild.
To me there’s a big difference between these two statements:
Quote:The Church does not normally encourage cremation. The family of the deceased must decide whether the body should be cremated, taking into account any laws governing burial or cremation. In some countries, the law requires cremation.
Quote:The family of the deceased must decide whether the body should be cremated, taking into account any laws governing burial or cremation. In some countries, the law requires cremation.
http://www.lds.org/ensign/1991/08/i-have-a-question?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.lds.org/ensign/1991/08/i-have-a-question?lang=eng Quote:Church leaders have counseled that only in unusual circumstances or where required by law should cremation take place. – General Handbook of Instructions, March 1989, 1–5.
An ancient handbook, one from the time that the article was written, but it’s interesting to see how it’s been reworded over time. I’m sure flavors of that are still alive in the collective conscious of older leaders.
The link also has interesting reasons for why there was counsel to not cremate the deceased, so it’s worth checking out if just for that.
Switching gears. I almost created a tread on this but decided it wasn’t worth it. This thread seems appropriate to piggy back on. For the endowed members here… would you want to be buried in you temple clothing?
It’s not like decay is lovely either. I think being embalmed is what we should be against. When we are dead it’s time to let it go. We want to look alive but we are dead.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.