Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 1 hour ago, CA Steve said: I have two kids currently serving in the military who cannot attend. It's a shame their service is seen differently. Agreed.
rpn Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 3 hours ago, CA Steve said: I am undecided about going to the SP. I am not local and do not want to cause conflict between the bishop and my family there. Again thanks for the feedback. That makes you the perfect person to ask and press for it. Make the pitch that it helps military people, that you'd be happy to make the signs warning everyone there will be video. And that in this case it is what Jesus would do.
JAHS Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 4 hours ago, Traela said: The relevant portion of the handbook: Video recordings and computer or other electronic presentations should not be used as part of a funeral service. Nor should the service be broadcast on the Internet or in any other way. However, with approval from his or her mission president, a missionary may view the funeral services of an immediate family member via streaming. At my wife's funeral (2015) in the Chapel we showed a video presentation of photos of her from baby to adult with Simon and Garfunkel music playing in the background (Her favorite - Bridge Over Troubled Water). The Stake president and bishop allowed it and nobody complained about it. 1
mnn727 Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 4 hours ago, Jeanne said: For just those that can be there and familiar with the place, it would be nice to have a small service. For those out of town, why not later meet as a family reunion or in milder weather have a celebration of life I Agree, in times past, when I lived in Minnesota and rural Wisconsin, it was not unusual to have everything held until spring when the ground unfroze (at least for smaller towns/cemeteries) Personally I would have a minimal ceremony now and a celebration of life in the spring. 1
Amulek Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 51 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Really? Even general and Stake Conferences? Yeah. I get that it's sort of a necessary evil, but I don't really care for it - especially in General Conference when you see the little camera guys running around trying to get different shots of the choir. It's not a deal-breaker for me or anything, but yes - I do find it to be a distraction.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 (edited) 18 hours ago, CA Steve said: My mother-in-law recently passed away and funeral arrangements are underway. She lived in a small remote town in the mid west that is one of those places you just can't get to easily and in the middle of winter. Getting there can be difficult if not dangerous, at times, especially for those unaccustomed to traveling in harsh winter conditions on snow or ice covered roads in high mountain passes. The family and friends are scattered all over the country and the world and due to a variety of reasons like distance, military commitments, old age and illnesses, many , if not most family members and close friends are unable to attend the services. We have asked about live broadcasting the services for those who cannot attend and the bishop there has said that no video of chapel services are allowed. Does anyone know if he is correct? Are there any other options (can we hold it in the cultural hall and video it there?) or maybe even reasons for exceptions? Thanks I believe the bishop is correct. I do know, however, that where I live, funeral homes have begun audio recording funeral services and posting them online with the obituaries. The ones I'm acquainted with where this has happened were Latter-day Saint funerals conducted by bishops within the chapels of some of our Church meeting houses Edited January 4, 2020 by Scott Lloyd
Calm Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 5 hours ago, Amulek said: s for why there are such strict rules regarding broadcasting, I think it largely has to do with maintaining the reverence / sacredness of the event. There might also be a privacy issue where some would prefer not to have their feelings recorded for others to watch at a distance. But they might not say no to being recorded because they put others’ desires first. 1
Calm Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 5 hours ago, CA Steve said: They just are not the same thing. Sometimes a memorial service is much better than a funeral imo. It can be a total focus on the person without a discussion about the plan of salvation which can at times be distracting in my experience while other times really added to the funeral. 2
Calm Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 5 hours ago, Amulek said: Everyone is different I suppose, but for me (personally) I have never been to an event which was being recorded or broadcast where I didn't find such activity distracting. Me too. Especially if it is not a setup and let it run, but the photographer is moving around to get different views. 1
Calm Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: Really? Even general and Stake Conferences? My eyes are constantly draw to the movement and I start thinking about the technical stuff and why the photographer is choosing those views, if having to keep aware of what camera is filming is distracting the speaker, etc, etc. I would probably react the same to security or anything that stands out as different than the expected mass behaviours of the audience.
CA Steve Posted January 3, 2020 Author Posted January 3, 2020 5 minutes ago, Calm said: There might also be a privacy issue where some would prefer not to have their feelings recorded for others to watch at a distance. But they might not say no to being recorded because they put others’ desires first. If that were the reasoning behind the prohibition then the decision to broadcast should be left up to those planning the funeral. There are so many other similar venues, like funerals outside a LDS chapel, where it is allowed, that I do not believe this to be much of an issue. Frankly I think reasoning here is that leadership is not comfortable with outside recordings being done in a chapel which they do not control. In my opinion they are worried that what might be said from a pulpit and broadcast online could be seen as an unintended endorsement of what was being said. Notice that the manual allows for "streaming" of the event to missionaries. I would expect that the "streaming" is one that is done through official channels not just from anyone's phone.
Calm Posted January 4, 2020 Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) 40 minutes ago, CA Steve said: If that were the reasoning behind the prohibition then the decision to broadcast should be left up to those planning the funeral. There are so many other similar venues, like funerals outside a LDS chapel, where it is allowed, that I do not believe this to be much of an issue. Frankly I think reasoning here is that leadership is not comfortable with outside recordings being done in a chapel which they do not control. In my opinion they are worried that what might be said from a pulpit and broadcast online could be seen as an unintended endorsement of what was being said. Notice that the manual allows for "streaming" of the event to missionaries. I would expect that the "streaming" is one that is done through official channels not just from anyone's phone. I wouldn’t see that privacy issue as one that tipped the balance, but rather one that might increase a sense of rightness for a policy. I believe the issue you discuss is one of the important considerations as well as a tradition of not filming sacred events,. The ones making the rules are from a generation that grew up before video recorders. Home movies were possible, but Film and developing and prints cost quite a bit money. I think many of us of that age or older see such as more hassle than benefit when speaking of casual filming and that attitude may bleed over into events that are otherwise seen as important to share. I bet in ten to fifteen years policies about recordings will have lightened up a great deal. Look at how we even have a publicly available video about garments now. Video recordings are becoming more and more part of personal expression, part of the conversation or exchange, and less as an observer experience imo. Edited January 4, 2020 by Calm 1
2BizE Posted January 4, 2020 Posted January 4, 2020 Why does the church need to control every aspect of life and death? I thing holding the funeral in a funeral home is the best option. Then you can do what you want. 2
Calm Posted January 4, 2020 Posted January 4, 2020 7 minutes ago, 2BizE said: Why does the church need to control every aspect of life and death? I thing holding the funeral in a funeral home is the best option. Then you can do what you want. If they controlled every aspect of life and death, they would be saying no funeral homes, but only in chapels allowed, what kind of caskets must be used, what specific songs, and having a prerecorded video instead of personal talks and lots of other details It is not “every aspect” by a long shot Also no marriages outside of temple, no baptisms delayed because of choice, etc. etc The Church exerts authority over events that are seen as under its authority. If one doesn’t want the authority used, then don’t request to have that type of event. To want authority without exercise of authority seems contradictory, imo. 2
CA Steve Posted January 4, 2020 Author Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calm said: I wouldn’t see that privacy issue as one that tipped the balance, but rather one that might increase a sense of rightness for a policy. I believe the issue you discuss is one of the important considerations as well as a tradition of not filming sacred events,. The ones making the rules are from a generation that grew up before video recorders. Home movies were possible, but Film and developing and prints cost quite a bit money. I think many of us of that age or older see such as more hassle than benefit when speaking of casual filming and that attitude may bleed over into events that are otherwise seen as important to share. I bet in ten to fifteen years policies about recordings will have lightened up a great deal. Look at how we even have a publicly available video about garments now. Video recordings are becoming more and more part of personal expression, part of the conversation or exchange, and less as an observer experience imo. We mostly agree here and the sad part is that what the church does 10 -15 years from now will not change the fact some of my kids do not get to participate in or even see their grandmother's funeral. Where I strongly disagree with you is the classification of a funeral as a sacred event. It isn't sacred, though certainly it is solemn. Just what am I to say to non members relatives who ask about a video of the funeral? "Oh I am sorry, funerals are too sacred to video"? Sometime I don't think we see how strange a people we really are. It's no wonder millennials are leaving as much as they are. Edited January 4, 2020 by CA Steve
Calm Posted January 4, 2020 Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, CA Steve said: We mostly agree here and the sad part is that what the church does 10 -15 years from now will not change the fact some of my kids do not get to participate in or even see their grandmother's funeral. Where I strongly disagree with you is the classification of a funeral as a sacred event. It isn't sacred, though certainly it is solemn. Just what am I to say to non members relatives who ask about a video of the funeral? "Oh I am sorry, funerals are too sacred to video"? Sometime I don't think we see how strange a people we really are. It's no wonder millennials are leaving as much as they are. I don't particular experience it as a sacred event, but I know some do. If being different and strange is why people are leaving, I find that sad as a world where nothing is strange, where people find each other and their communities predictable because no one wanted to be included in "strange"...how limited that would be. Edited January 4, 2020 by Calm
bsjkki Posted January 4, 2020 Posted January 4, 2020 I've been to some great funerals in chapels and some that really were almost offensive in the focus on the plan of salvation instead of the person and family mourning. It really bothered me. I might have the service at a funeral home just to avoid that talk. It really depends on your local leaders. Do you trust them to follow the desires of the family or will they give a 20 minute gospel talk? Honestly, it is not a missionary moment when it seems so out of place or insensitive. But, having been to some Catholic funerals, they too have this issue but their overly long, non personal service did not make me more interested in Catholicism.
strappinglad Posted January 4, 2020 Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) I am familiar with the human tendency to, when given an inch , take a mile. If not for a hard and mostly fast rule about filming and broadcasting in the chapel, someone someday would want to mount a Q. Tarantino type production. 😎 I recently attended a funeral in which 4 family members wanted to sing a " cowboy " song as part of the program. The bishop said no but compromised by having the song after the closing prayer. Edited January 4, 2020 by strappinglad
Amulek Posted January 4, 2020 Posted January 4, 2020 3 hours ago, CA Steve said: Frankly I think reasoning here is that leadership is not comfortable with outside recordings being done in a chapel which they do not control. In my opinion they are worried that what might be said from a pulpit and broadcast online could be seen as an unintended endorsement of what was being said. That may be a small element of it, but I don't think it's the determining one. The church, over the years, has maintained a strong preference for direct, in-person worship. There may be the occasional exception, but the overwhelming majority of our worship is (whenever possible) either in person or in real time. Even when a devotional or training has to be prerecorded, the prayers offered at the beginning and end of the gathering are still offered by the physical attendees. And, if I'm being completely honest, there is something about that that just feels right to me. When I attend a bible study with my friends and we watch a video of some pastor teaching a lesson and he ends with a prayer, I can't help but think to myself, 'Are we really all praying along with this guy who, for all I know, is actually out golfing right now?' Streaming is a way to maintain at least the present-in-time aspect of things, but I can't help but wonder how far that should stretch. As technology improves, will VR funerals become a commonplace thing? And is that really how we ought to be experiencing death and being with our loved ones? Besides, it isn't like we aren't going to see them again.
Thinking Posted January 4, 2020 Posted January 4, 2020 10 hours ago, smac97 said: By way of example: A few years back our bishop was approached by the family of a recently-deceased older sister. Family members wanted to play "Yellow Rose of Texas" during the funeral services. This seems a lot more like a "preference" than a "need," so the bishop stuck to the policies regarding music used in Church-administered services, but proposed that the family play the song (and any others they liked, within reason) during the luncheon in the Cultural Hall. The family members accepted this compromise, and were appreciative of it. At my Dad's funeral my brothers and I sang the chorus of the fight song of his alma mater. The bishop loved it.
sunstoned Posted January 4, 2020 Posted January 4, 2020 10 hours ago, Duncan said: of the gym perhaps? I attended a wedding years ago held in the gym and all kinds of photos and videos and I thought what a genius idea to do it here🤔 To avoid a bunch rules, and to have much more family say in how the services are planned and conducted, I would suggest the service could be held elsewhere. Most Mortuaries have a chapel. It might be possible to hold the service this type of venue. 1
Garden Girl Posted January 4, 2020 Posted January 4, 2020 7 hours ago, JAHS said: At my wife's funeral (2015) in the Chapel we showed a video presentation of photos of her from baby to adult with Simon and Garfunkel music playing in the background (Her favorite - Bridge Over Troubled Water). The Stake president and bishop allowed it and nobody complained about it. The last funeral I attended in the chapel had a video presentation before the service began, with accompanying contemporary music... it was wonderful to see the pictures of his life... no one complained as it was very well done... the actual service then had a couple of speakers focusing on more traditional LDS topics/views.... GG
The Nehor Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 On 1/3/2020 at 3:40 PM, rpn said: That makes you the perfect person to ask and press for it. Make the pitch that it helps military people, that you'd be happy to make the signs warning everyone there will be video. And that in this case it is what Jesus would do. I would avoid that kind of passive aggressive attempt at a guilt trip. 2
smac97 Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 On 1/3/2020 at 5:21 PM, 2BizE said: Why does the church need to control every aspect of life and death? It doesn't. On 1/3/2020 at 5:21 PM, 2BizE said: I thing holding the funeral in a funeral home is the best option. Then you can do what you want. Perhaps so. Meanwhile, we needn't slander the church for being generous with its facilities. 3
Calm Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I would avoid that kind of passive aggressive attempt at a guilt trip. The "it is what Jesus would do" bothered me as well. It is pretty much an automatic turnoff for me because it comes across as arrogant, as in "I know better than you what Jesus thinks, does, wants" or "I take the time/make the effort to be guided by Jesus while you don't care". Not saying this is how it is meant, but if someone disagrees with you (generically speaking) after saying " this is what Jesus would do", aren't you claiming they are disagreeing with Jesus? The helping the family members in the military is a great selling point to me though. And doing the signs makes sure it doesn't add work to someone already pushed far. Edited January 6, 2020 by Calm 1
Recommended Posts