mordorbund

My younger brother and I were alone with my father's casket (with the funeral home director), and we "pushed the buttons". Honestly, I am not happy that Dad was cremated, and I am not the only one of my siblings to feel that way. But it's what Mom wanted, and we weren't about to tell her to do it differently. Well, maybe one or two were about to tell her, but I think in the end everyone sucked it up. Because really, at that point what are you going to do? And it's Mom's call, not ours.

My nineteen-year-old daughter's funeral was closed-casket.  (We had no choice due to the damage her beautiful face had received from the car accident).  I had numerous people come to me afterwards who said they had no closure with her death because the funeral was closed-casket.  I guess, to them, being able to see the deceased in the casket brought them closure.  Maybe her death didn't seem real to them because they didn't see her deceased body? My feelings are divided on whether to have a closed-casket or an open-casket. Whatever the family wants, that is okay with me for I believe that funerals are for the living and not for the deceased.
 
There are many views on what is appropriate or not at funerals depending on personalities, culture, and religion.  I'm grateful for my knowledge of the Plan of Salvation, so that no matter what type of funeral I'm attending I have the sure knowledge of "who we are", "why we are here", and "where we are going after death."  The death of someone we know and love has a tendency to make us question our standing with God.  And, I think it's good to have that period of questioning within ourselves.  What do I really believe?  Where do I stand with God?  Often times with a funeral our pride is pushed aside, and raw emotion and humility is the result.  Is there really life after death?  If he/she died, when is it my time?  Am I ready to meet my maker?  What have I done with my life that has made this world a better place?  These are all questions that we should be asking ourselves--and I believe not just because of a funeral.
 
With my daughter's funeral the chapel and adjoining cultural hall were full of her friends, neighbors, family, and ward members.  We even had a closed-casket viewing.  This was more to greet family and friends, and allow them the chance to tell us of their love, and give their heart-felt condolences.  The funeral was sad.  Her two-month old son had not been blessed yet, and the blessing was performed after the funeral services, but prior to leaving for the cemetery.  There wasn't a dry eye in the crowd.  At the cemetery, every person who desired was able to put a rose on her casket. (My dear husband had purchased buckets of roses for this, which I hadn't known about.  And, I'm so grateful he did).  At the dedication of her grave, it was blessed as a hallowed place and anyone who came to meditate would be given solace and peace and would feel her spirit.  What a wonderful blessing.  For those who did not attend the dedication, they missed a wonderful opportunity to feel the Spirit and to be touched by the Spirit.  But, I can understand that it might be too difficult for some people.
 
After the cemetery, it was back to the ward building where the wonderful relief society sisters had prepared a meal for over 200 out-of-town family members and friends.  At the luncheon, there was laughter and some teary eyes.  It was wonderful to visit with family members who had driven or flown hundreds of miles to pay their respects.  To me, this is always the best part of a funeral.  (Though, is there really a best part?)  I love talking to family and letting them know of my love for them.  It's a time to catch up and renew family ties.
 
I cry as I type all this.  The grief a parent has over the loss of a child can be overwhelming.  And, the loss and grief never goes away.  It is always there, hidden away in the recesses of my heart.  I may seem normal and composed on the outside, but on the inside I grieve and mourn over her loss.  It's not because I lack faith.  I have faith and testimony, hope and comfort.  It's simply the loss of a child that I loved more than myself, and missing her.  I often think of King David's grief over the loss of his flawed son Absalom.  2 Samuel 18:33  "Oh my son Absalom!  My son, my son Absalom!  If only I had died instead of you--O Absalom, my son, my son!"  And I say the same in my heart: "Oh, my daughter, Rachelle!  My daughter, my daughter Rachelle!  If only I had died instead of you--Oh Rachelle, my daughter, my daughter!"
 
Back to the OP.  I wouldn't deny my young children the opportunity to feel the Spirit, to grieve, and to see the sorrow that death brings into this world.  They also need to know that death is not the end.  They need to learn that there is life after death.  It is a wonderful time to teach Gospel principles.  But, I would not force my children to do something they are uncomfortable with, i.e. kiss the deceased, touch the deceased, etc.  If they are going to see the deceased in the casket, then perhaps just a quick glimpse.  I think we all know our children and what they can and cannot handle.  Follow your parental instincts, and trust those instincts.  Don't second-guess yourself.

Wait.  I didn't know Catholics believed that Mary was born without original sin.  Is there an explanation for how that bypassed her?

There was simply nowhere for him to get it from. As you mentioned, the "taint" of Original Sin is an inherited one, and Christ did not have a human parent with the original sin who could pass it on to him. In that sense, you could say that the "virginal conception" was a factor, since he didn't have a human dad with original sin and his human mom lacked original sin.
 
Catholic beliefs do not associate sexual relations with a "polluted state." Generally speaking, in Catholicism, sex is a perfectly good thing so long as it is practiced within the confines of Holy Matrimony and no problematic elements are introduced (i.e. contraception, fornication, ect). There are some Church fathers who are more suspect than others of the pleasure derived from sex (Augustine, I'm looking at you), but generally that's accepted as being a caution against excess more than anything else. St. John Paul II's Theology of the Body is actually largely about the goods associated with marriage and sex. 
 
As far as celibacy goes, we do generally consider it as an objectively "higher" calling, but it's also not one that is necessarily better for any given individual. Both marriage and celibacy are considered "good," so the choice of one over the other is still a choice between goods. There are a couple reasons why celibacy tends to get a certain pride of place, but it really boils down to a certain way of interpreting certain scripture passages, particularly Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7. 
 
In Matthew, after Jesus' prohibition against divorce in verses 1-9, the disciples say that "if that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." (These guys really didn't like their wives...) Jesus goes on to say "Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some because they were made so by others; some because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt 19:11-12). We generally take that to mean that not marrying (i.e. celibacy) is a calling that not all people are necessarily equipped to handle, but that it is one that those who are so-equipped should accept.
 
It does bear mentioning that the King James and other non-Catholic translations tend to render "renounce marriage" as "eunuch." The latter would actually probably be the more literal translation, but Catholics have historically interpreted being a "eunuch" in this context as being an individual who lives a life without sex.
 
The Catholic interpretation of Matthew seems to get some support from 1 Corinthians 7:6-7. There, after Paul talks about marriage, he says that "I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that." Here Paul seems to be saying that being as he is (celibate) seems preferable, but again not everybody can handle it. As he goes on to say in verse 9, "but if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." (Glowing reviews  like that are where Augustine tends to get his more suspicious attitude towards sex). 
 
Add to all that the fact that Christ lived a celibate life, and you pretty much have the Catholic rationale for celibacy.

So how did Christ avoid Original Sin? Was it the "virginal conception"?
 
If so, is that the origin of the Catholic idea that sex is somehow associated with a polluted state, and that a celibate life is therefore "higher" or more righteous than a nuptial sexual life?

I don't think what's written in 2 Nephi 31 is necessarily contradictory to the Catholic faith, though I'm not sure that it's a necessary component either.
 
What I mean by that is that, while I don't think there's anything contradictory in Catholic teaching in saying that Christ showed obedience to God by being baptised, I don't think that a person who denied that that was one of the specific purposes of his baptism in particular would be contradicting anything in official Church doctrine either.
 
We can (probably) all agree that Christ's entire mission was in obedience to the Father, and being baptised was definitely a part of that mission. I personally don't think that showing people his obedience was one of the reasons that he was baptised specifically, though again I wouldn't say that it was "wrong" to believe that either.
 
As far as what exactly fulfilling all righteousness means, I'm not sure that the Church has one definitive answer on that. The most common theory that I've heard, and the one that I personally favor, is that righteousness in this context is referring to salvation, meaning that Christ's baptism is ordered towards God's plan of salvation.

Vort, in substance I agree with you.  I'm a libertarian, and if I'm running a hotel or boarding house or apartment complex--my house, my rules.  If I want to tell my tenants that they can't smoke, or cook meth, or run a telemarketing operation, or keep a dog, or sodomize each other, or use contraception, or have sex at all under my roof--by golly, I think I have a natural right to do so; because it's my property.  Irrational discrimination, I believe, is best dealt with by the market; and holding a gun to people's heads and telling them to "play nice" cannot, does not, and will not work in society any more than it works on the playground. 
 
I also acknowledge the immorality of a person's being denied housing or employment just because of the types of sexual intercourse that person find appealing (regardless of whether the person actually engages in said intercourse or not), but let's be blunt--nondiscrimination legislation is, at the end of the day, about legitimatizing and accepting practices, not people.
 
So, yes:  From a political standpoint, I think nondiscrimination legislation is generally wrong.
 
And yet the Church has endorsed it.  Why?  Have the Church leaders gone soft?  Have they decided, after the last twenty years since the Proclamation on the Family issued, that this Law of Chastity thing isn't such a big deal after all?
 
I rather think not.  The apostles that presented today have a combined two-hundred-odd years of life experience, and two of the finest legal minds (Oaks and Christofferson) in the Church today.  The quorum they represent, in conjunction with the First Presidency, has over a thousand years of life experience.  I sustain them all as prophets, seers, and revelators. 
 
Even so:  there have been many, many times in Church history that the Church acted in ways that I may not feel were per se right, but which turned out to be necessary.  For example: 
The Church currently denies baptism and other priesthood ordinances to millions of Hitler's victims, simply because they are Jewish.  I think that's wrong.  But it's also necessary because of external pressures on our family history program. At the height of the Mexican war--which it's hard for me not to think of as a wholly unwarranted land grab--the Church sent five hundred volunteers to fight in that war, for the same government that had just allowed unspeakable horrors to be perpetrated against them.  I think that was wrong.  But it was also necessary, both because the US Army was paying in desperately-needed gold, and because the Church could sense where the political winds were blowing and needed to make sure it wasn't adverse to the guys who were ultimately going to come out on top. Abandoning Jackson County was wrong.  We were supposed to build up that place.  But it was necessary, because of the armed opposition that was insistent on our leaving; and a later revelation approved the action. I happen think the Church's policy on immigration undermines the United States' long-term sovereignty and is wrong.  But I also think it is necessary given the prophecies of what the Lamanites' descendants are going to do to the seed of the Gentiles in the last days with or without the Church's policies--so again, it may be best to adopt a "make ye friends of the mammon of unrighteousness" position. Here, too:  I'm not completely comfortable with the Church's concession re nondiscrimination legislation.  I wasn't in 2009, and I'm not now.  But I have confirmation--just in this past hour--that the Church leadership is acting with divine sanction in order to forestall, or at least blunt the effects of, whatever fresh hell Babylon has in store for us.  If our leaders don't know exactly what they're doing, the Lord does; and so I'm content to let the matter rest there.

As a libertarian and even an American, I may well live to regret what the Church has done today.  As a Latter-day Saint I believe I will not.  My testimony and my hope is that at some point in the eternities, this curious decision will rank with Nephi's seemingly bizarre action of making a second set of gold plates.

Agreed. So, there are those who advocate being able to have sex with animals. They are few, and they are marginalized, but they exist. And frankly, I find their reasoning just as convincing as that of the homosexual lobby.
 
There are also those who insist that adult siblings (or even parent and child!) should be allowed normal marriage and sexual relations. It's no one's business but their own. I agree with them. If homosex is legalized and protected, I cannot see any reason why so-called "incest" should not equally be legal and protected. Or sex with your dog, for that matter.
 
So picky legal arguments aside, what is the fundamental ethical/moral difference between the two? Why should I follow Eowyn's example and whole-heartedly support an amendment protecting homosexual liaisons, even to the point of requiring apartment owners to rent to homosexual couples without discrimination, yet withhold that same human right from "incestuous" adults or those who like sex with their pets? The line seems utterly arbitrary and dishonest.

For clarification and understanding. The fundamental idea of "gay rights" is the legalized protection of sexual perversion. To some extent, most people today would agree with this, at least to the extent that government doesn't become invasive in the bedroom. But most people would also think there are limits to that, as for example in the case of sex with minors.
 
I see little difference between telling an apartment landlord, "You cannot refuse to rent to a woman that uses her apartment to have sex with other women" and telling the landlord, "You cannot refuse to rent to a woman that uses her apartment to have sex with her dog". There may be legalistic shades of distinction, but Eowyn suggested she was all for the proposed amendment because it was A Good Thing® and The Right Thing To Do®. So why is the one such an obviously good and moral thing but the other not?

We should mean it.  Everyone is a child of our Heavenly Father.  They have a right to housing and work.  They have a right to live.   They also have a right to the natural consequences of their actions.  But as a society we don't have the right to say they can't live or work in our community.
 
Vort, I'm curious.  Why do you always go here when discussing these issues?  It doesn't further the conversation.  Shock value?  I'm baffled.

Sorry you took offense. My question was in earnest, and I think it's perfectly reasonable. If we say "It's bad to discriminate based on sexual preference!", do we mean it? Or do we mean only those sexual preferences that are currently being promoted by outside (immoral) interests as acceptable?
 
I also don't think there's an obvious correct answer. If the answer is, "No, I don't support horse lovers or child sex advocates having equal access to societal means", then the whole idea of "nondiscrimination based on sexual preference" is false. Isn't it? Seems obvious to me that it is.

There are a couple of reasons that tend to get cited.
 
First, it functions as an "Epiphany" whereby he is revealed as the messiah (voice from heaven and all that). Further, the opening of the heavens is seen as symbolic of his opening the heavens which Adam's sin had closed
 
Next, by participating in that ritual which is meant to cleanse one of their sins, Christ is seen to have identified himself with the sinners who he came to sin.
 
From a more nuts and bolts standpoint, it is considered a necessary component of his subsequent death and resurrection. Christ in that inaugural baptism took upon himself the sins of the world, the sins which future Christians would bring to the baptismal waters, which he would carry to the cross. Because of this, in our baptism, we become participants in the cross and resurrection. Our sins, and more importantly our sinful nature, die with Christ on the cross. We emerge from the waters as a new creature in Christ.
 
I realize that much of this may seem highly symbolic, but in Catholic sacramentology there's a concept called "ex opere operato," meaning "from the work worked." Basically all our sacraments are visible signs signifying some invisible act of grace which is occurring. The paradoxical thing is that we also believe that the sign causes what is signified. Baptism symbolizes our participating in Christ's death and resurrection, but through the symbol it really causes us to enter into that participation and receive the associated spiritual graces.

A custom trophy was made in case the Patriots win.
 
http://i.imgur.com/XUX0Nx3.jpg
 
Sorry.  You'll have to click on the link to see.  

yjacket - I'm not sure where you're getting him twisting the scriptures. Can you make your point more succinctly? Or point out that Jesus did not, in fact, call us sheep? Or warn us against bad shepherds?
 
It seemed a pretty salient point to me, so I'd love to hear you argue a specific point against it rather than make a vague accusation. If I'm misinterpreting the scriptures, I'd love to learn more.

I don't know how it is for non-member or unendowed funerals, but if you get the chance to dress a dead relative for burial I would encourage it. It is almost sacramental in nature and a way of honoring the body that served your loved one in life.

Mirkwood or not, someone has already emptied the cave. The last time I was in there, the only thing remaining was the sword of Laban, unsheathed. It had written upon it the following:
 

Mordorbund, you might enjoy this if you haven't seen it already.

I don't know how it is for non-member or unendowed funerals, but if you get the chance to dress a dead relative for burial I would encourage it. It is almost sacramental in nature and a way of honoring the body that served your loved one in life.

IMO, nope. not too much. It is good to teach kids about life and death, especially at a young age so they can gain a respect for both life and death.

I did not go in to much detail about the sister recently put into a Nursing Home. Several years ago her husband when he was alive served as my Executive Secretary and later as our Ward Clerk. They were both great people and they were like having another set of Parents around. They were that loving. I knew she wasn't long for living in her home by herself. A few months ago as I drove past her home early one morning I noticed she had fallen in her yard. I turned around and went back and helped her. I picked her up and helped her back into her home. I called her Bishop and let him know what happened. It took her about 20-30 minutes before she remembered who I was.

I always walked to and from school from grade 1 on through highschool. This was done under the supervision of my older brother and sister (2 years and 1 year older respectively) who walked with me until they moved on to junior high and I was walking with my younger sisters or friends and cousins.
 
My mom was pretty paranoid that one of her babies would be snatched and I spent a lot of my childhood being afraid of getting kidnapped. As such, although I was allowed (even encouraged) to walk to and from school at such a young age, I was never to ride my bike farther than my mom could see out the front window unless dad was riding with me/us. I don't think I ever really rode off on my own until around 13-14 years of age. All the while the other parents felt justified to let their children go all over town freely as young as 8-10 years of age. 
 
At the end of the day, I guess what I'm saying is that I think that my parents found a good balance that worked for us, but the other parents also had a balance that worked for them. I don't think it criminal to let your kids out to play any more than I think it criminal to leave them cooped up with access to satellite/cable TV and internet unsupervised. I personally think the balance for me and my kids in the future will be for me and my wife to play with the kids outside. They can invent games and have free play with parents present as long as parents allow it. We don't even have to take part in the games, we can just observe from a safe distance. I think it is good for kids to develop independence, but they can do so while being watched. 
 
I think that parents should be allowed to make parenting decisions themselves. So I don't like where this has gone and could be going. It makes sense to me when intentional harm is being done to a child to intervene, but when we start intervening because we don't agree with someones parenting philosophy I think we get into trouble. To me it is similar to parents getting in trouble because they choose a treatment for a sick child that is not mainstream medicine, I think a parent should have the right to try to heal their child according to their own conscience. Where do we draw the line? Will teaching children religious values become some sort of great wrong in the coming days because they have been painted to cause feelings of guilt and breed hatred?

I had the opportunity to become really good friends with some of the people and family s that I have vt. One of the family s and I became like family. Even though we move away we still keep in touch. I also had the opportunity to become best friends with one of my vt companion we miss each other so much but keep in touch. I now have two powerful sisters that I by their both strong in the church I'd love to get closer to them but there to busy for visits which doesn't make me a happy camper. I could of learned so much from them all I could do is text them. I stopped reporting my vt. I now feel it's better to vt the less active @ least your work ing on trying to bring them back to the fold..

Nah, just giving you a hard time. Although I'm probably not the best person to ask. I make Robin Williams look like a naked mole-rat.

Nah, just giving you a hard time. Although I'm probably not the best person to ask. I make Robin Williams look like a naked mole-rat.

Or Hobbit.