CH1 Now online for all membership

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What is spiritually significant about their recommendations concerning cremation? 

I've already offered my theory.

 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've already offered my theory.

 

On cremation?  I must have missed it.  Could you explain it again?

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If that's true, then they don't need to give recommendations on it, do they?  

I don't believe that follows. There are many things, I dare say, on which the Church leaders have given wise counsel and direction that might not have occurred to the rank-and-file otherwise or that they might not have given serious consideration to had the Brethren not brought it up.

It goes back to the watchman-on-the-tower imagery. By virtue of their calling they are privy to inspiration and guidance from a divine source that others, for whatever reason, might not be apt to receive.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

On cremation?  I must have missed it.  Could you explain it again?

It was in the post where I agreed with the suggestion that smac97 offered, where he put the matter in the context of the body literally rising from the grave in the resurrection. Basically, I suggested that one ought to behave and make choices in a manner consistent with one's doctrinal beliefs.

And I find it incredible that you missed that post. It was the lengthy one where I gave the lyrics to "Dem Bones." Did you really not see that?

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  And yet there are members of the Church who still want some guidance from the Church.  So the Church provides it, and does so with appropriate gradations (i.e., the Church has no position, the Church "encourages" or "discourages" something, etc.).

Exactly.  The church sometimes tells members, "we know you want guidance but we aren't going to give any. Pray about it", and other times it says "you might not even be wondering about this, but this is what we recommend (for reasons we aren't necessarily going to explain) just in case you do."  

Like I said, it's a bit disjointed.

Quote

I'm not sure that's a problem.  "For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things..." (D&C 58:26).  “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves” (Joseph Smith, quoted by John Taylor, Millennial Star, 15 Nov. 1851, p. 339)

The Church provides guidance where needed, with the appropriate level of emphasis.  Otherwise, the Church seems to want to refrain from micromanaging our lives.

I think the problem is that the church doesn't always give guidance where needed, and sometimes gives guidance where it's not needed (such as it's recommendations concerning cremation).

Quote

Hmm.  That has not been my experience.  Can you give some examples of each?

Cremation is a good example of giving recommendations where it's not needed, and things such as issues with women and the temple endowment is an example of a place where giving some guidance could help with a lot of pain and confusion.

Quote

How do you know that?  What about members who want some guidance from the Church on this subject?

According to that scripture in the D&C and the quote from JS, whether or not members want guidance doesn't matter, right?  

Quote

If the Church did not provide guidance, the complaint would be only slightly different ("The Church is indifferent to the needs of the members.  It does not provide guidance on topics important to members, leaving them to fend for themselves, which may make them worry, feel guilty, or second guess themselves for no legitimate reason."

As I've said before, the problem is not that the church provides guidance, it's that the way it provides it is sometimes less effective and disjointed.  

Quote

But what about people who do want recommendations/counsel from General Authorities?  Who are we to assert that they have "no legitimate reason" to ask for such guidance?

We've already covered why simply wanting counsel is not really relevant.  The Lord has already said that we shouldn't expect Him to tells us what to do just because we want Him too.  

Besides that, I didn't say that members have no legitimate reasons for asking for counsel.  I said that sometimes the church gives council for no legitimate reason (as in, regardless of what the member chooses, it's fine either way.  Cremate or not, it does not matter theologically or spiritually, for example.  The choice makes no difference, and members are supposed to govern themselves anyway, so there isn't any reason to give a recommendation about it).

And as i also already said, sometimes the 'guidance' isn't guidance at all.  It's an unsupported opinion.  Unsupported opinions don't really help people make spiritually mature decisions.  Some people will not do it only because the church doesn't recommend it and for no other reasons.  That level of spiritual decision making doesn't help members grow.

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't believe that follows. There are many things, I dare say, on which the Church leaders have given wise counsel and direction that might not have occurred to the rank-and-file otherwise or that they might not have given serious consideration to had the Brethren not brought it up.

It goes back to the watchman-on-the-tower imagery. By virtue of their calling they are privy to inspiration and guidance from a divine source that others, for whatever reason, might not be apt to receive.

If that's true, then the church needs to give real guidance on all topics, and not just unsupported recommendations.

I feel like some people want it both ways though.  They want to argue that the church doesn't need to provide reasons why they give the recommendations they do because members should be able to know them intuitively, and then they also want to argue that the church needs to give recommendations because members can not be expected to know everything they need to know without being told.

Which is it?  

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It was in the post where I agreed with the suggestion that smac97 offered, where he put the matter in the context of the body literally rising from the grave in the resurrection. Basically, I suggested that one ought to behave and make choices in a manner consistent with one's doctrinal beliefs.

And I find it incredible that you missed that post. It was the lengthy one where I gave the lyrics to "Dem Bones." Did you really not see that?

 

It's LDS doctrine that the physical state of the dead body does not matter in any way in regards to the resurrection, right?  So, cremation is consistent with our doctrinal beliefs.

No, I didn't read that post because it was a reply to Smac and I've just been reading the replies to me.

Edited November 17, 2017 by bluebell

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's LDS doctrine that the physical state of the dead body does not matter in any way in regards to the resurrection, right? 

 

Yes. Which was the point of my citing the song "Dem Bones."

Quote

So, cremation is consistent with our doctrinal beliefs.

Some things are a matter of symbolism and reverence. For example, we use consecrated oil in administering priesthood blessings, even though we know it is not the oil, but rather, priesthood power, that does the healing.

We respect the human body after death (embalm it, place it in a casket, etc.), even though we believe, as you say. that its physical state will not matter when it comes time for the resurrection.

 

Quote

No, I didn't read that post because it was a reply to Smac and I've just been reading the replies to me.

It was a reply to smac but it was addressed generally. Many if not most of my posts are like that.

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Exactly.  The church sometimes tells members, "we know you want guidance but we aren't going to give any. Pray about it", and other times it says "you might not even be wondering about this, but this is what we recommend (for reasons we aren't necessarily going to explain) just in case you do."  

Like I said, it's a bit disjointed.

It's all in the eye of the beholder, I guess.  I don't see it that way.

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think the problem is that the church doesn't always give guidance where needed, and sometimes gives guidance where it's not needed (such as it's recommendations concerning cremation).

Where has the Church failed to give guidance where it is needed?

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Cremation is a good example of giving recommendations where it's not needed,

But what if members have repeatedly requested such guidance?

What if the Brethren have prayerfully determined that such guidance is appropriate?

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

and things such as issues with women and the temple endowment is an example of a place where giving some guidance could help with a lot of pain and confusion.

I don't know what these "issues" are.  But temple-related matters are generally treated with a lot of discretion.

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

According to that scripture in the D&C and the quote from JS, whether or not members want guidance doesn't matter, right?  

Well, there is obviously a balance to be struck.  The Brethren seem to be trying to provide guidance on "correct principles."  So yes, some guidance matters.

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As I've said before, the problem is not that the church provides guidance, it's that the way it provides it is sometimes less effective and disjointed.  

Okay.  I think the Church's guidance is pretty even-keeled.   And it's readily available.

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Besides that, I didn't say that members have no legitimate reasons for asking for counsel.  I said that sometimes the church gives council for no legitimate reason (as in, regardless of what the member chooses, it's fine either way.  Cremate or not, it does not matter theologically or spiritually, for example.  The choice makes no difference, and members are supposed to govern themselves anyway, so there isn't any reason to give a recommendation about it).

Okay.  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I am not persuaded that the Brethren sit around Salt Lake, twiddling their thumbs and providing counsel to the members of the Church "for not legitimate reason."

We don't really know the origins of the counsel.  I wouldn't feel comfortable in declaring that the Brethren have "no legitimate reason" for it.

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And as i also already said, sometimes the 'guidance' isn't guidance at all.  It's an unsupported opinion.  

No, it's guidance.  In the Church's administrative manual.  From General Authorities.  Acting within the scope of their authority.

And the guidance is tailored to individual issues, and is designed to maximize discretion to the individual members of the Church.

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Unsupported opinions don't really help people make spiritually mature decisions.  

But guidance from General Authorities, tailored to specific issues and clarified as to the Church's degree of emphasis on its position, can be very helpful.

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Some people will not do it only because the church doesn't recommend it and for no other reasons.  

All other things being equal, I'm not sure that's a problem.

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That level of spiritual decision making doesn't help members grow.

I'll leave such matters to the Brethren, and not publicly second-guess or criticize them for their reasonable exercise of discretion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

 

 

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Like smac97, I can only guess at the reason, but what he offers here makes sense to me. If we believe in a certain doctrine, our choices and behavior ought to reflect that belief. Ergo, if we believe that the physical body one day is to literally rise from the grave, why be inclined to anything that might be seen as impeding that process? Even if we believe that, as in Ezekiel's vision of the valley of dry bones, the bones will come together and the flesh will attach itself to the bones, etc.

 

It seems that embalming could impede that process as well. Why no counsel about it?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If we believe in a certain doctrine, our choices and behavior ought to reflect that belief. Ergo, if we believe that the physical body one day is to literally rise from the grave, why be inclined to anything that might be seen as impeding that process?

What if said theory is not literal or doctrinal?  In 7-10 years, you will have a whole new body, so which material will be resurrected?  Who's body does your flesh belong to in the resurrection anyway?   Does it belong to you, or the plants and animals that you are made from?  They to will take part in the resurrection after all.  This discussion is happening in the resurrection thread if you want to take part. 

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We respect the human body after death (embalm it, place it in a casket, etc.), even though we believe, as you say. that its physical state will not matter when it comes time for the resurrection.

Is there a reason, besides cultural, that we should view embalming and burial as being more respectful of the body than cremation?  

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is there a reason, besides cultural, that we should view embalming and burial as being more respectful of the body than cremation?  

Possibly.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It's all in the eye of the beholder, I guess.  I don't see it that way.

Where has the Church failed to give guidance where it is needed?

But what if members have repeatedly requested such guidance?

What if the Brethren have prayerfully determined that such guidance is appropriate?

I don't know what these "issues" are.  But temple-related matters are generally treated with a lot of discretion.

Well, there is obviously a balance to be struck.  The Brethren seem to be trying to provide guidance on "correct principles."  So yes, some guidance matters.

Okay.  I think the Church's guidance is pretty even-keeled.   And it's readily available.

Okay.  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I am not persuaded that the Brethren sit around Salt Lake, twiddling their thumbs and providing counsel to the members of the Church "for not legitimate reason."

We don't really know the origins of the counsel.  I wouldn't feel comfortable in declaring that the Brethren have "no legitimate reason" for it.

No, it's guidance.  In the Church's administrative manual.  From General Authorities.  Acting within the scope of their authority.

And the guidance is tailored to individual issues, and is designed to maximize discretion to the individual members of the Church.

But guidance from General Authorities, tailored to specific issues and clarified as to the Church's degree of emphasis on its position, can be very helpful.

All other things being equal, I'm not sure that's a problem.

I'll leave such matters to the Brethren, and not publicly second-guess or criticize them for their reasonable exercise of discretion.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'll continue to publicly second-guess and criticize them (or, in non-Smac97 language, I'll continue to sometimes respectfully disagree and/or question some of the policies our leaders create, knowing that fallible people are going to make mistakes and that's o.k.  Hopefully I'll still get to go to heaven.    )

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Possibly.

What is the possible reason?

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'll continue to publicly second-guess and criticize them (or, in non-Smac97 language, I'll continue to sometimes respectfully disagree and/or question some of the policies our leaders create, knowing that fallible people are going to make mistakes and that's o.k.  Hopefully I'll still get to go to heaven.    )

Amen.

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'll continue to publicly second-guess and criticize them (or, in non-Smac97 language, I'll continue to sometimes respectfully disagree and/or question some of the policies our leaders create, knowing that fallible people are going to make mistakes and that's o.k.  Hopefully I'll still get to go to heaven.    )

I've said nothing about you not getting to heaven.

As for publicly second-guessing and criticizing the Brethren, I'll refer to Elder Oaks' 1987 address, "Criticism" (emphases added):

Quote

The counsel against speaking evil of Church leaders is not so much for the benefit of the leaders as it is for the spiritual well-being of members who are prone to murmur and find fault. The Church leaders I know are durable people. They made their way successfully in a world of unrestrained criticism before they received their current callings. They have no personal need for protection; they seek no personal immunities from criticism—constructive or destructive. They only seek to declare what they understand to be the word of the Lord to his people.

President David O. McKay said this about what he called “murmurers” and “faultfinders”:

“‘Speak not against the authorities.’ What does it mean? Be not a murmurer; that is what it means. It is one of the most poisonous things that can be introduced into the home of a Latter-day Saint—this murmuring against presidents of stakes, high councilors, Sunday School superintendents, etc. …

“Better stop murmuring and build. Remember that one of the worst means of tearing down an individual is slander. It is one of the most poisonous weapons that the evil one uses. Backbiting and evil speaking throw us into the class of malefactors rather than the class of benefactors.” (Gospel Ideals, Salt Lake City: Improvement Era, 1953, pp. 142–43.)

President McKay’s teaching against speaking evil of others is a principle of Christian behavior that applies to all people. But his companion counsel against “murmuring” is a teaching that applies uniquely to Church members and Church leaders.

...

So what do we do when we feel that our Relief Society president or our bishop or another authority is transgressing or pursuing a policy of which we disapprove? Is there no remedy? Are our critics correct when they charge that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are “sheep” without remedy against the whims of a heedless or even an evil shepherd?

There are remedies, but they are not the same remedies or procedures that are used with leaders in other organizations.

...

The first principle in the gospel procedure for managing differences is to keep our personal differences private. In this we have worthy examples to follow. Every student of Church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among Church leaders since the Church was organized. Each of us has experienced such differences in our work in auxiliaries, quorums, wards, stakes, and missions of the Church. We know that such differences are discussed, but not in public. Counselors acquiesce in the decisions of their president. Teachers follow the direction of their presidency. Members are loyal to the counsel of their bishop. All of this is done quietly and loyally—even by members who would have done differently if they had been in the position of authority.

Why aren’t these differences discussed in public? Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately. There is nothing inappropriate about private communications concerning such differences, provided they are carried on in a spirit of love.

There are at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female...

I've lost count of the number of times I have quoted from this article.

Surely it must mean something to those who sustain Elder Oaks as, among others, a prophet, seer and revelator.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've lost count of the number of times I have quoted from this article.

I've lost count also.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Surely it must mean something to those who sustain Elder Oaks as, among others, a prophet, seer and revelator.

It does, for me, but probably not what it means to you.

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What is the possible reason?

I don't know.  The Brethren don't confide in me. 

The Handbook is not some slapdash, thrown-together how-to guide.  It reflects the substantial cumulative of experience, wisdom, and good faith efforts by the Brethren to lead this Church.  I generally sustain them (while also recognizing that they don't get things right every time), so publicly criticizing them is not appropriate.  I also believe that they are doing what they think is right, and that they do not act for stupid or illegitimate or nonexistent reasons.

So again, I will not publicly criticize or second-guess them.  They are working hard and deserve the benefit of the doubt.  And Elder Oaks' clear and reasoned counsel about publicly criticizing or speaking against the Brethren remains sound, together with his recommendations for addressing differences of opinion in the Church (which recommendations specifically preclude publicly criticizing or speaking against the Brethren).

Thanks,

-Smac 

Edited November 17, 2017 by smac97

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've said nothing about you not getting to heaven.

As for publicly second-guessing and criticizing the Brethren, I'll refer to Elder Oaks' 1987 address, "Criticism" (emphases added):

I've lost count of the number of times I have quoted from this article.

Surely it must mean something to those who sustain Elder Oaks as, among others, a prophet, seer and revelator.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, I'm aware that this is your go-to response when someone has a different opinion than you do about something our leaders have done or said.

I agree with Elder Oaks' talk.  I don't think that he thinks disagreeing with the church on how they handle the topic of cremation is the same as not sustaining them so, while the talk is awesome, it doesn't apply every time you think it does.   

Edit-I know you didn't imply that i might not get into heaven. I was just poking fun at your fondness for implying that other people are sinning while pointing out that you are not.  

Edited November 17, 2017 by bluebell

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know.  The Brethren don't confide in me. 

Then why not just say you don't know of any reasons.  That would have been simple and concise and we would not have needed three extra posts between us to arrive at the exact same place we could have arrived at with one.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, rongo said:

As you shared, the only time people become aware of the policy that I am aware of is after the fact, and like you, they are bothered that they didn't know. Not bothered by the policy, but bothered that they didn't know to consult with the bishop (which they gladly would have, had they known). I disagree with smac that these people should have known about it, because . . . internet. They don't even know enough to have questions about it, or to know that they should know about it . . .  

In our case, I knew about it because I had read the handbook. I didn't want to get it done. We were done having children, but still, it's so final. My wife physically could not have any surgery (including tubal ligation), due to her blood disorder and blood thinners, so it was all on me. She also can't have hormonal contraceptives because of the blood disorder (they may have caused it in the first place). After two "scares" where she was late (the last time quite late), I had to do it. In fact, this was the first time in my life that I seriously pondered whether abortion could possibly be a justified choice for observant, faithful LDS, in accordance with the handbook policy on abortion (my wife was adamant that if she were pregnant, we would trust in God and the priesthood. Me, I wasn't as adamant with the risk of losing her . . .).

But, other members who discussed thinking about surgical sterilization were surprised when I gently told them about the policy, and they were to a man (and woman) surprised --- they had no idea. 

Again, if the Brethren want people to counsel with bishops about this, it really needs to be directly communicated rather than simply put in the policies section and assuming that everyone seeks it out before it becomes an issue. Plus, as you indicated, the policy actually frowns on doing it for birth control reasons, which is 99% of the time that people are thinking and praying about it (as opposed to medically essential situations, like Rain or my wife). I think there needs to be an adult conversation about this in the Church, and that means directly addressing it, rather than assuming/hoping people read it before they do it . . . and then feel bad that they at least didn't know to consult.  

I knew beforehand.

And anyone suggesting people should know because of the Internet is ignoring the fact there were sterilizations going on decades before the handbook got put online and even way before the Internet.

The medically essential situations are still birth control.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Calm

[rongo]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

If that's true, then the church needs to give real guidance on all topics, and not just unsupported recommendations.

I feel like some people want it both ways though.  They want to argue that the church doesn't need to provide reasons why they give the recommendations they do because members should be able to know them intuitively, and then they also want to argue that the church needs to give recommendations because members can not be expected to know everything they need to know without being told.

Which is it?  

I think we all know who we are here on this board, and where we're each coming from (for the most part).

I believe that the Brethren hold all priesthood keys, and are authorized by God to administer the work in the latter-days. 

One thing I am disappointed in is the apparent hyper-risk-adverseness the Brethren have been for quite some time, in terms of making statements that could be problematic in this era of hyper-criticism and viral online blow-ups. They are super-cautious and governed by a slavish adherence to PR, such that where in the past they would have given explanations, clarifications, pronouncements, etc., they don't do that today. Important exception: Proclamation on the Family issues, and that they are clear and bold on this should tell us something.

But for things where prophetic and apostolic guidance are really important, they are silent. Issues such as the ones in the Gospel Topics essays. Of these, I am reminded of B.H. Roberts's plea in his letter to the FP and Q12 in 1921:

These questions are put by me  . . . not for self-embarrassment, surely, nor for the embarrassment of others, but to bring to the consciousness of myself and my brethren that we face grave difficulties in all these matters, and that if there is any way by which we may ‘find wisdom, and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures’—-for I am sure that neither an appeal to the books written by men, nor even to the books of scripture now in our possession, will solve our present difficulties—then a most earnest appeal should be made to that source of wisdom and knowledge, and with a faith and persistence that will admit of no denial

We haven't had prophets, seers, and revelators discuss what *they* think and what *their* collective experience and knowledge brings to bear on things like the priesthood ban, polygamy, etc. for a long time. Instead, we get outsourced, anonymous essays written and approved from academics. It is clear that they don't want to be on record discussing them, but they are offered as "something" so there's something there. I don't know why we've had this state of things for quite some time, but I suspect that it has to do with being burned by withering criticism in the past on these topics and wanting to avoid that. I believe they hold the keys and are authorized, but I yearn for prophets, seers, and revelators revealing and seeing things instead of reacting and doing PR flanking maneuvers. And I would be perfectly fine with a frank answer of "We don't know. God hasn't revealed this," but that answer is avoided like the plague, too. It wouldn't look good, and might cause some people to doubt. Like Elder Roberts above, though, this function is one thing I think that we actually have prophets, seers, and revelators for ---- but we have stayed away from this function (explaining and clarifying) for some time. I think they want to avoid something like the 1949 FP letter on the priesthood ban, which is now repudiated (again, I would like to hear from them as individuals on how they explain or come to terms with the essay's disavowal of statements, but not disavowing the ban itself, how the disavowal works with scriptures about the pre-existence affecting earth life in other ways that we all readily accept, etc. Just to give one example. But, we're not going to hear *anything* on that, because it's too hard for the PR machine to package and process and remain tefloned against). 

Like bluebell, I think the collective choice of when and on what hills are chosen to die on (and which ones are left alone) is sometimes disjointed.

I'm thinking about doing a combined adult 5th Sunday discussion on the larger picture of things that people might be unaware of in the handbook --- like cremation or surgical sterilization. Not that those alone are necessarily important, but in order to discuss them and see what our collective wisdom can come up with as far as reasons. I would definitely share anecdotes of people being dismayed after the fact because they didn't know --- or people being dismayed or feeling guilty, such as with cremation, when they shouldn't be. I don't know that there is a planned "outcome" for the discussion, but I think deeper, adult discussions are what the Brethren want us to be having as adults now.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Is there a reason, besides cultural, that we should view embalming and burial as being more respectful of the body than cremation?  

I personally find embalming very disrespectful to both the body and God, I believe it is a tradition based on fear of death demonstrating a lack of faith in the hope of God (not that those who do it now  always feel that way).  We have been commanded to keep our bodies as pure as possible and avoid empty vanities.  What is more empty than having the perfect forever face that no one will ever see again?  And if by chance we are resurrected with the same body, all you guys with massive amounts of makeup...boy, bet that is going to be the hit of the resurrection preparty party.  

Why at death do we allow for our supposedly treasured and protected bodies to be filled with poison and stuff the face and body in order to create a more 'natural' unnatural appearance? Why do we try to stop the Godgiven processes of renewal and restoring that which we were given by the world back to the world? We then create endless landfills of nondecomposing bodies, force families to spend large amounts of money in a time they probably need it to pay medical, moving, cleaning, etc. bills.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/80944/17-behind-scenes-secrets-funeral-directors

"Funeral directors say that the most important part of preparing a body for a viewing is the “setting of the features”—creating a peaceful facial expression with a pleasant smile. But while it might look nice at the end, the work creating that appearance can be grisly. Morticians stuff the throat and nose with cotton and then suture the mouth shut, either using a curved needle and thread to stitch between the jawbone and nasal cavity or using a needle injector machine to accomplish a similar job more quickly. Small spiked cups are also inserted under the eyelids to keep the lids closed and the eyes from caving in.

Of course, some bodies take more restoration than others. One mortician says that to prepare a decapitated corpse for an open-casket viewing, he uses a wooden dowel to rejoin the head and body, then sutures the neck back together....

Some caskets that have vacuum-seal rubber gaskets are marketed as “protective” or resistant to the “entry of outside elements.” As Harris details in Grave Matters, this creates conditions that encourage the growth of anaerobic bacteria, which break the body down by putrefying it, “turning soft body parts to mush and bloating the corpse with foul-smelling gas … Inside the sealed casket, the result is a funereal version of the decay that’s found in swamp bottoms and the bowels of unturned compost piles.”...

While the formaldehyde embalmers use does contain a rosy dye to restore color to graying, lifeless flesh, it’s not always sufficient. According to Cunningham, “mortuary schools teach color theory and stage lighting—how to use colored gels over the ceiling lights.” Doughty also mentions that bodies are often set out for visitation displayed under rose-colored light bulbs.

10. IT ALL GOES RIGHT DOWN THE DRAIN.

You’d think all the chemicals and body fluids involved in embalming would be disposed of like biohazard, but it’s industry practice to just wash it all off the table, right into the drain. Harris points out that just one embalming can generate 120 gallons of “funeral waste”—blood, fecal matter, and the former contents of internal organs, in addition to any chemicals in the preservation fluid itself—and it all ends up in the public sewer system, to be eventually released into waterways. Although, as Wilde points out, “Blood isn’t any worse than the other things that go down the loo.”"

[rongo]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

The medically essential situations are still birth control.

I know they are. They aren't elective, though.

You know, the advice given to us when we were married was to wait a couple of years to start having children. If we had it to do over again, we would start right away. We were told that we would have been poor students (which we were, anyway), we needed time to bond as a couple before kids come along, it will be too many stresses while in school, etc. But after 20 years of marriage and 4 kids, we see that we would have been just fine. 

Interestingly, we had planned on 5-6 kids, but after the 4th, for the first time we could visualize ourselves stopping at 4. It was then that my wife was hospitalized and had a colectomy and an ileectomy, and we were told not to have any more. Also interesting: we were told that they were stunned that we had any kids at all. Most of the women who have this are unable to and spontaneously abort. So, we feel very, very blessed and fortunate. 

We are very leery about contraceptives. As I said, we believe that they caused my wife's clotting disorder (doctors have told us that we are probably right, but that it would be impossible to prove that it was *the* cause, and not genetics or a combination of both). 

So, while I know the Church's position on birth control and have no problem with it, I'm not a fan, personally. I'm scared to have my daughter on it when she's married.