Last_Daze

So, I googled the above phrase (as well as "Mormon funerals") and all I could find were a bunch of anti-sites with stories about how ex-mormon children were 'excluded' from their parents' funerals (just another sign of how cultish them Mormons are, obviously). I couldn't find any description, though, of what is actually involved in a funeral conducted under the auspices of the LDS church. Is it significantly different than a standard Protestant-style funeral? What is involved, and who conducts it? Finally, in what way are non-LDS folk not permitted to participate?

Maybe it is just me, but I've never felt any particular desire to publicly discuss what I believe and why. Put another way, the people with whom I will discuss what I believe are very few and very far between. There are a couple of reasons for this. One is that I am fully willing to admit that I would have difficulty explaining it in ways that would make sense to anyone who does not share my beliefs or has experienced the same things I have (cf. Dravin's comment above). Let's face it: most religious beliefs and practices can look pretty strange to people outside the group, even though they have deep ontological and personal meaning to the people in the group. Another is that I see something deep and beautiful in what I believe, and I simply would not want others to judge my church or other members of it based on me, and my quirks or foibles or what have you. As a result, I just generally do not discuss such things with people who I do not know somewhat intimately, or who really and honestly want to hear it. Golly, I'd make a terrible missionary.

Respectfully, Volgadon, I agree with pretty much everything you have said, and I would also suggest that BenSalem is at very least walking the thin line of anti-semitism. That said, while I do understand the modern political state of Israel to be a 'Jewish state', is it your position that we are to consider the modern political entity that is Israel to be the same, and coextensive with, the gathering of Israel mentioned in Judeo-Christian eschatology? I ask this in part because, as I am sure you know, there is serious disagreement even among modern Jews as to whether this is the case. Conservative and modern-Orthodox Jews generally see the modern political entity of Israel as having religious-escatological significance, while the Hasidim and Haredim generally want nothing at all to do with it precisely because it has no religious-eschatological significance. Just wondering what your position is on that.

At the risk of promoting negativity in what should be a joyous topic, one thing I can't stand is the xmas card that is actually a long letter relaying in intimate detail the goings-on of everyone in the family (including the dog). My father used to call them the 'My Family is better than your Family' Christmas letters. I also don't like the singing cards; the sound quality is so invariably poor that the family spends five minutes with the card jammed up to our faces trying to figure out exactly what song is being played. Being as I am of the younger, tech-savvy generation, I generally send tasteful e-cards of some sort to people I know. That seems to work out just fine.

ANATESS: :) I'm glad to hear it; I have generally warm feelings toward the churches I have left as well. To me, discovery of the 'fulness of the gospel' in another place is a perfectly good reason (not that I'm in much of a position to judge) to leave one church for another. But I think the scenario I described does play out pretty frequently; I've seen it happen more times than I'd like to remember. Actually, what it really comes down to in a lot of ways is the age-old trope that "Well, Christians kind of act like d**ks to people, so there is no way their religion is true." Now, I would never say that Christians should not be nice people, but my niceness or lack thereof does not reflect on the ontological truth or falsity of the church I attend. It may say something about the quality of my personal faith, but that is another matter altogether...

HORDAK: I think you make really good points. The only caveat I would add to that is to ask what exactly precipitates the loss of belief? It certainly is true that some people just cease to believe, and many do so for perfectly legitimate reasons. But oftentimes (and this is true for any church that makes any kind of tangible truth claims), the person in question suffers some kind of wrong at the hands of someone in the church. Sometimes it is a trivial slight, sometimes not, but to them it seems big, and the thought process is that no church where something like **** happens could possibly be true, so that is their reason for ceasing to believe. Leaving to the side how illogical that is (and who ever said humans were logical?), I think it really happens to a lot of people, and the interesting thing is that it really has nothing at all to do with the tangible truth claims of the church.

StayLDS is just barely pro-LDS. [x-ed with Pam

Isn't the issue, when we talk about forgiving people who become inactive and then want to return, that it is not held against them in any way? It is true that they haven't injured someone else in any way, but there are people who feel, rightly or wrongly, that they will be guilted or shamed if they come back to the church after a period of inactivity. I think the talk of 'forgiveness' is a somewhat-clumsy way just of saying that it won't be held against the person or the family. On another note that was addressed earlier, I wonder what would be the way to deal with the alleged lack of intellectual rigor in sacrament meeting talks. As people have been quick to point out to me, those giving these talks are not professional theologians, philosophers, historians or speakers; they're just normal folk, not necessarily more intelligent or educated or anything than anyone else. This always seems to me to be a point of pride for many people, which is fine, but I feel it is unfair to expect too much given that this is the case. I wonder how we reconcile this? As a final note, I do think it is important that people have the option to say 'no'. It seems to be that people should want to serve callings, but not every calling is equal or requires an equal amount of time and work; some people just cannot do it. On the other hand, this is also a strength of the LDS church, whereas in other churches I've been involved in, it really can be difficult to get involved in things and help out at the church. No such danger in with the LDS!

When I asked about "what is supposed to happen when someone bears a real testimony", I was pointed to this talk by Russell M. Ballard. He says, in part: "We often hear some members, and especially children, bear their testimonies, listing things for which they are thankful: their love of family, the Church, their teachers, their friends. For them, the gospel is something that they are grateful for because it makes them feel happy and secure. This is a good beginning, but testimonies need to be much more. "Our testimony meetings need to be more centered on the Savior, the doctrines of the gospel, the blessings of the Restoration, and the teachings of the scriptures. We need to replace stories, travelogues, and lectures with pure testimonies. Those who are entrusted to speak and teach in our meetings need to do so with doctrinal power that will be both heard and felt, lifting the spirits and edifying our people. "Again, please keep in mind that we are talking about sharing real testimony, not just speaking generally about the things we are thankful for. While it is always good to express love and gratitude, such expressions do not constitute the kind of testimony that will ignite a fire of belief in the lives of others. To bear testimony is “to bear witness by the power of the Holy Ghost; to make a solemn declaration of truth based on personal knowledge or belief” (Guide to the Scriptures, “Testify,” 241). [...] Although we can have testimonies of many things as members of the Church, there are basic truths we need to constantly teach one another and share with those not of our faith. Testify God is our Father and Jesus is the Christ. The plan of salvation is centered on the Savior’s Atonement. Joseph Smith restored the fulness of the everlasting gospel of Jesus Christ, and the Book of Mormon is evidence that our testimony is true." I hope this helps; it really helped me understand what a testimony is, and why what I've witnessed at my first couple Fast Sunday meetings have been, frankly, pretty underwhelming.

Which one is the French judge?

TL10, I know you are in Canada, but here in the US, the First Amendment to the Constitution would protect every situation you outlined. There is a very famous case that is a carbon copy of the first scenario (cf. National Socialist Part of America v. Village of Skokie, Illinois); the second two would likely be protected under the same principle. I know that Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not co-extensive with the First Amendment to the US Constitution, but I have a really hard time figuring that any of the three situations would come out differently under Canadian law. As others have said, freedom of speech laws exist specifically to protect speech that is unpopular or expressive of minority opinions. Laws that only protect speech that everyone feels good about provide little protection that matters.

I've got a hard time seeing what is so darn offensive about it; it is no different than the guy at the university distributing his poorly-xeroxed anti-Christian newsletter on the campus mall. And frankly, there aren't a lot of people out there who are going to be swayed one way or the other. If you are already convinced of the existence of a deity, then you are probably an adherent of some religion and you worship him/her in some way. If you are unsure of the existence of a deity, you are probably not an adherent of a religion, and you probably don't care all that much. And if you are convinced of the nonexistence of a deity, then you are probably just like the folk who put the ad together in the first place. And, since we've just gotten through the election season, let us reflect on this: how often does an ad really get someone to change their opinion about something like that?

I certainly agree with Wingnut, in that I admire good and selfless people regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof. But I also feel that a person who no longer agrees with the most basic tenets and purposes of an organization should probably not be in that organization anymore. It is not a matter of them being kicked out, but rather of having the personal and intellectual integrity to leave of their own accord when they realize that they can no longer buy what the organization is selling. The church (any church) is about belief in G-d and living the Gospel through Jesus Christ; it is hard to believe that someone who doesn't believe in that stuff should want to be in the church. Of course, it is wonderful if a person wants to be of service to people, and to give of him or herself in that way. So go join the Rotary Club, or the IOOF, or the Fraternal Order of Moose, or another one of the myriad fraternal service organizations out there. They won't ask you whether you believe in a deity or not, and you won't have to pretend that you do.

Happily, I don't see my inquiry into the teachings of the church precluding me from doing so. Thanks for your concern.

Seriously though, my dad was one of those who never read a manual. When I was young, he would try to program the VCR (which we all know is impossible if you don't have a degree in computer science) without reading how to do so in the manual. This, of course, explains the large number of smashed and broken VCRs in our household. Y'all shoulda seen him try to build IKEA furniture.

I think there is an app for that now.

Thanks for the response so far. If the matter is as simple as that we are bound by covenant to obey the prophet-leaders of the church, then why the constant push-and-pull over what the church teaches and what members should and should not believe? Why tolerate all these 'extra-canonical teachings' which clearly confuse people inside the church and cause scandal outside the church? What are we to make of a person whose 'personal revelation' leads him to conclude that something taught by a current prophetic authority is false, and to be disregarded? Surely one or the other is wrong; a thing cannot be both correct and false, and the Spirit is not supposed to speak falsehoods or half-truths. I freely admit that I do not understand the nature of 'personal revelation', and struggle with the concept. Rameumptom: the sources you mention were helpful. What, though, constitutes an "official church declaration [or] proclamation"? General conference stuff? The Ensign, and other magazines published by the church? What about all those books in the LDS.org bookstore? Anything with the church logo or letterhead? How is one to know? On a semi-related note, I do think I understand now the problems with McConkie's Mormon Doctrine; it seems he couldn't have chosen a worse name for the work, and if it were something different, he probably wouldn't be taking nearly as much posthumous flak as he seems to from modern LDS. Just want to apologize again if I come off as a jerk; a lot of this is just very confusing to me.

What is this 'manual' you speak of? We don't need no stinkin' manuals. Or maps either.

Yeah, I created a nonmember account and I've been using the scripture tools; I really like those.

I just want to preface this by saying that I am not trying to be argumentative, but that I really need help with this because I am having honest difficulty understanding this. I feel that, whenever there is a question about a teaching of the church, there is always the answer from someone that "this is not doctrine", with the implication being that it one needn't believe it or consider it authoritative in any way. I guess that is okay, but I see that claim made even with regard to teachings promulgated by the prophets. The only pattern that I can say that I see is that the things that the teachings promulgated by the prophets are authoritative until we (royal we) no longer want them to be. When is the church able to teach authoritatively on a subject (whether theological, practical, ecclesiastical, etc.)? I know some who take the position that a teaching of the church only authoritative when it is found in the standard works; if this is the case, has the church made any authoritative teaching since 1978, when the latest section was added to the D&C? To take such a position would seem to me to almost entirely devalue the place of church leaders who are supposed to have prophetic authority. Is there a way to know when something that a prophetic authority in the church says is authoritative? Or is it simply a matter of picking and choosing which statements we wish to believe and follow? And if it is a matter of choosing, does the church have any authority to teach at all? I hope my questions don't come off as argumentative or belligerent; I am really trying to be sincere. I hope someone may be able to shed some light on the matter.

I really like it. I actually remember thinking in the past that the old site was not very "churchlike"; not up to the level of a worldwide church with several million members that takes a certain pride in its public image. The new one is at least more aesthetically pleasing. What say ye?

A positive affirmation if I ever heard one.

What are these unnecessary things that the church is getting rid of? How have they obstructed individuals' relationships with G-d? Why were they part of the gospel in the past, but are not now part of the gospel as taught by the church?

Agreed, Gwen. But I have met with a certain frustration so far in my study of the church and what it actually teaches. I mean no disrespect when I say this, but the LDS church seems to dislike any kind of clarity in laying out the teachings as they are. Statements made by leaders on isolated occasions are not official teaching, but current Church publications may or may not be. Many of those publications however do cherry-pick isolated comments made by Church leaders on isolated occassions. Interestingly enough, Mormon Doctrine is a commonly referenced source for many of those publications as well, though apparently that is beginning to change. It feels to me that I am constantly hearing about what is "not doctrine" but rarely is someone able to tell me about what "is doctrine."* I guess my frustration derives in part from the fact that a major part of Mormonism is that God speaks to the prophets and guides the church, providing clarity and certainty in matters of faith. Yet there seem to be many faithful LDS who deny that the church has any particular teaching authority at all; quite apart from any kind of certainty, what I read touted as something people love about Mormonism is a doctrinal ambiguity that allows them be LDS without having to ascribe to those teachings they find unpalatable. Frankly, this kind of cafeteria mentality was one reason I decided I was done with mainstream Protestantism; I'd hate to find it to be prevalent in the LDS church as well. I don't think that I am suggesting that the church hierarchy force belief on anyone, or that we start a Mormon inquisition. But I think the church should strive for a clear, comprehensive and consistent exposition of its teachings and doctrine. *And no, I am not worried about things so pedantic as cola beverages and R-rated movies.

Respectfully, what is all this talk about coercion? I have never once felt coerced when speaking with a missionary, regardless of how far into 'the process' I am. If I no longer wish to continue, I tell them. If I don't want to have the conversation, I wish them well and walk away. Like Dravin, I don't doubt that there are some ways that the process can be abused. But I really don't think that there is any coercion involved; I just don't see it.